The Royal Family

[Follyfoot]

4 minutes ago, theboyangel said:

 

That has completely passed me by and never knew that! 

So something she did in the last 3 months of her life has defined her in the eyes of the mawkish masses?!? 

As I said earlier, utterly baffling 

 

I think the defining factor is because it was part of the Jubilee celebrations and it was probably the last thing that young people and their parents would probably remember about her
 

would never of happened in Phillips day, Having one of those fuzzy wussies from deepest, darkest Peru in the Palace, oh no

[tomav84]

13 minutes ago, Follyfoot said:

I’m not implying anything I’m quoting figures from a regulated company which is ISO accredited on the value to the economy of the royal family not the residences on their own.

but the point i'm making is that the the admissions and visitors to the residences would continue if the royal family was abolished so the 'brand' would continue to be profitable for the country

[markavfc40]

 

[Follyfoot]

2 minutes ago, tomav84 said:

but the point i'm making is that the the admissions and visitors to the residences would continue if the royal family was abolished so the 'brand' would continue to be profitable for the country

Impossible to quantify, maybe maybe not but do you want to roll the dice on something that costs £500 million a year and makes 2.5 billion on what you think rather than facts potentially reducing large amounts of money from the economy whilst in an extremely fragile state?

[Only2McInallys]

The Tate is free by the way.Like many art galeries and museum’s especially in London.

[tomav84]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

Impossible to quantify, maybe maybe not but do you want to roll the dice on something that costs £500 million a year and makes 2.5 billion on what you think rather than facts potentially reducing large amounts of money from the economy whilst in an extremely fragile state?

as i already said, i'm not saying the royal family should be abolished. far from it, in fact were there to be a referendum i'd probably vote to keep it. i feel it gives the country an identity and frankly i'd rather see a monarch on a fiver than the various pricks that have run the country over the years

i just feel that the financial reasons are a deeply flawed argument...you keep throwing out this 500m to make 2.5bn (which by the way is not purely from tourism, but the various assets etc that the brand holds) but these are estimates, not facts, because as you say, it's impossible to quantify

[Enda]

30 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Man going to visit the Tate moans that standing looking at something is boring amused me more than it should

out of interest  when you got back from London did you open your wallet and say “ result I’ve got £30 here that I didn’t spend in London “ … or did you spend it somewhere else in London ?

Mostly brought it back to Dublin. We didn’t buy stuff with physical notes but instead used the card. So we could have spent more and not really noticed, and in that sense London did not maximise its revenue from us. But in accounts it would like the Monarchy has some sort of net contributor.

[foreveryoung]

2 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

Of course they are, Regulated and ISO accredited firms are well known for producing fictional information 

Gotta stick with the narrative chap. 

[tonyh29]

37 minutes ago, Enda said:

Mostly brought it back to Dublin. We didn’t buy stuff with physical notes but instead used the card. So we could have spent more and not really noticed, and in that sense London did not maximise its revenue from us. But in accounts it would like the Monarchy has some sort of net contributor.

Bizarrely when my wife’s side of the family come over from Hungary their first 2 choices are Sherlock Holmes house in Baker Street and Big Ben … Buckingham palace is third choice … I don’t know if that’s a big enough sample size though to say that Mr Holmes brings in more net revenue than the royal family

 

i think the royal family/ its assets  contributes as a tourist attraction , but I think to argue that we should keep them as they are good for tourism is a flawed argument ..not least because  as others have rightly pointed out , people would still visit Buckingham palace if we were a republic .

 

[Mark Albrighton]

“the most important event the world will ever see”

Ok, it’s live telly so he may have misspoke and to be fair it’s not like speaking is something he has to be good at for his job. 

[foreveryoung]

2 hours ago, Enda said:

Myself and herself visited London earlier this year. Did the open top bus tour, London Eye, etc. Wife wanted to see the Palace instead of the Tate. We’d have visited London anyway, but instead of paying into the Tate we stood at some gates and looked at a man in a stupid hat. Economic loss for London, and was bloody boring.

Not sure why this has likes. Your trying so hard to stick to the minority narrative with bullshit. So London missed out, cause you didn't pay to go in the Tate, it's free entrance anyway? So I guess the open top bus was free, the food you ate was free, the hotel you may have stayed in was free. You actually didn't spend into London's economy while you was there at all???

Edited September 18, 2022 by foreveryoung

[Rolta]

6 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Not sure hwy this has likes. Your trying so hard to stick to the minority narrative with bullshit. So London missed out, cause you didn't pay to go in the Tate? So I guess the open top bus was free, the food you ate was free, the hotel you may have stayed in was free. You actually didn't spend into London's economy while you was there at all???

He's not saying that. He's saying in that instance of specific 'seeing something royal tourism' London missed out on money that would have otherwise been spent. There's a subtext here where people will visit London if there are royals or not.

[Davkaus]

Just to be clear we're debating the economic benefits of preserving the status of a family hoarding their stolen wealth and giving themselves exemptions to paying tax on it, while convincing us they live a life of service. Cool. 

Edited September 18, 2022 by Davkaus

[Follyfoot]

8 minutes ago, Rolta said:

He's not saying that. He's saying in that instance of specific 'seeing something royal tourism' London missed out on money that would have otherwise been spent. There's a subtext here where people will visit London if there are royals or not.

When we used to go down that London we used to meet up at the flying Scotsman in King’s Cross.

[markavfc40]

25 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

“the most important event the world will ever see”

Ok, it’s live telly so he may have misspoke and to be fair it’s not like speaking is something he has to be good at for his job. 

What a stupid, ignorant thing to say. It won't even be the most important event tomorrow. We have a war taking place in Europe ffs. 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Bizarrely when my wife’s side of the family come over from Hungary their first 2 choices are Sherlock Holmes house in Baker Street and Big Ben … Buckingham palace is third choice … I don’t know if that’s a big enough sample size though to say that Mr Holmes brings in more net revenue than the royal family

 

i think the royal family/ its assets  contributes as a tourist attraction , but I think to argue that we should keep them as they are good for tourism is a flawed argument ..not least because  as others have rightly pointed out , people would still visit Buckingham palace if we were a republic .

 

VisitEngland's website offers three top reasons why people choose to come to England on Holiday. They are… William Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes and Pride & Prejudice. A quick scan of that page didn't mention Royals or Royal heritage once

Highest ranked Royal Tourist Attraction in London from attendance figures is the Tower of London. It’s 8th in the list, the only other place with a potential Royal connection, is Kew Gardens in 10th. People go to the Tower because of its history, they'd go to the Tower for its history regardless of whether we still had a Monarchy or not

(Not arguing with you Tony, just thought it was interesting you mentioned Sherlock Holmes and so did they)

I imagine that there are more dumb lunatics with no taste in the world that come to the UK to see Beatles related shite than come specifically because we have a currently active monarchy

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

Just to be clear we're debating the economic benefits of preserving the status of a family hoarding their stolen wealth and giving themselves exemptions to paying tax on it, while convincing us they live a life of service. Cool. 

To be fair, the Monarch does perform a role in our society. It's largely, if not entirely ceremonial, and some of it is completely unnecessary or could be got rid of with no harm or damage to society or the Nation(s).

I don't have a problem with a ceremonial figure, or really with the person(s) fulfilling that role being a family that got the role because their forbears had that role.

Where I have an issue is that this family are put on an enormous pedestal, have the rules and laws of the land not apply to them (in some instances), have humungous personal wealth, but still be paid a ton of money from our taxes and the general, illogical reverence towards them. It's utterly bonkers.

The whole "operation" could be scaled back enormously, with benefits for everyone, including the Windsor family themselves. As an absolute minimum the whole thing needs some serious reconfiguring.

All that said, Queenie did her part very well indeed.

[Morley_crosses_to_Withe]

4 hours ago, Enda said:

Myself and herself visited London earlier this year. Did the open top bus tour, London Eye, etc. Wife wanted to see the Palace instead of the Tate. We’d have visited London anyway, but instead of paying into the Tate we stood at some gates and looked at a man in a stupid hat. Economic loss for London, and was bloody boring.

So you paid for an open top bus tour that takes people around numerous tourist attractions including various royal buildings and usually Buckingham Palace. On a clear day, you can also see Buckingham Palace from the London Eye. And you went back to stand outside. You must really love Buckingham Palace mate!

[mjmooney]

33 minutes ago, blandy said:

To be fair, the Monarch does perform a role in our society. It's largely, if not entirely ceremonial, and some of it is completely unnecessary or could be got rid of with no harm or damage to society or the Nation(s).

I don't have a problem with a ceremonial figure, or really with the person(s) fulfilling that role being a family that got the role because their forbears had that role.

Where I have an issue is that this family are put on an enormous pedestal, have the rules and laws of the land not apply to them (in some instances), have humungous personal wealth, but still be paid a ton of money from our taxes and the general, illogical reverence towards them. It's utterly bonkers.

The whole "operation" could be scaled back enormously, with benefits for everyone, including the Windsor family themselves. As an absolute minimum the whole thing needs some serious reconfiguring.

All that said, Queenie did her part very well indeed.

My thoughts exactly. 

[Enda]

1 hour ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said:

So you paid for an open top bus tour that takes people around numerous tourist attractions including various royal buildings and usually Buckingham Palace. On a clear day, you can also see Buckingham Palace from the London Eye. And you went back to stand outside. You must really love Buckingham Palace mate!

I really love my wife more like. She’s far less republican, and less suave and cool and arty, than my good self