The Royal Family

[maqroll]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

Er, OK. 

Don Cherry's granddaughter. 

[mjmooney]

5 minutes ago, maqroll said:

Don Cherry's granddaughter. 

Now you're talking. 

[It's Your Round]

I had a heated debate with my mum yesterday about the monarchy. She tried to say that the Queen doesn’t cost the country anything as she brings so much tourism in. She then downplayed the £85m + sovereign grant payments, chunking it down to less than a pound per person and “hardly worth getting annoyed about”. I mean yeah, it’s less than a quid each. Imagine how great it would be if you could convince 67 million people to give you a pound? 

Anyway, I won’t bore you with the whole argument but it got quite heated. We also covered Boris, the Tories and Brexit in a short spell of very satisfying release that left her wondering why her son wasn’t a Daily Heil indoctrinated Tory 

I always vow to never discuss politics with her but sometimes it can’t be helped. 

[Panto_Villan]

5 minutes ago, It's Your Round said:

I had a heated debate with my mum yesterday about the monarchy. She tried to say that the Queen doesn’t cost the country anything as she brings so much tourism in. She then downplayed the £85m + sovereign grant payments, chunking it down to less than a pound per person and “hardly worth getting annoyed about”. I mean yeah, it’s less than a quid each. Imagine how great it would be if you could convince 67 million people to give you a pound? 

Anyway, I won’t bore you with the whole argument but it got quite heated. We also covered Boris, the Tories and Brexit in a short spell of very satisfying release that left her wondering why her son wasn’t a Daily Heil indoctrinated Tory 

I always vow to never discuss politics with her but sometimes it can’t be helped. 

Is it impossible to believe the monarchy brings in more than £85m a year in tourism etc? And grants the UK a form of soft power that we would otherwise have to pay for - e.g BBC World Service and Foreign Office staffing are both things that cost money but are justified on that grounds, as is hosting stuff like the Olympics or bidding for the World Cup etc.

The cost to the taxpayer is actually higher because the £85m a year doesn’t include security costs etc, btw. But I don’t think it’s impossible that the benefits outweigh it. I mean, a quick example - The Crown is the most expensive tv show ever made and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to a few more holidays over here being booked.

[choffer]

Had the misfortune to visit Romford today (although to be fair it was for a wedding that was lovely) but I couldn’t get my head around quite how many union flags there were. I suspect if those flags weighed more than they did, the whole of Essex would have collapsed under the weight. 
I’m not as anti-Queenie as many on here but it did strike me as some form of reverse virtue signalling. 

[markavfc40]

I think I have pretty much escaped all this nonsense pretty much unscathed and with a day of crap weather tomorrow I think I'll have done the whole weekend without having it rammed in my face.

I have been to the local boozer twice in the last three days with my wife and thankfully they have made zero reference to it. No flags, no bunting, no balloons, no silly life size cardboard cut outs of the Queen and I have heard no one talk about it. I have walked the dog a few times and I'd say locally about 1 in 15 houses has made any effort. Been one local street party yesterday and another localish one planned for tomorrow which will be a washout. 

[Only2McInallys]

2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Is it impossible to believe the monarchy brings in more than £85m a year in tourism etc? And grants the UK a form of soft power that we would otherwise have to pay for - e.g BBC World Service and Foreign Office staffing are both things that cost money but are justified on that grounds, as is hosting stuff like the Olympics or bidding for the World Cup etc.

The cost to the taxpayer is actually higher because the £85m a year doesn’t include security costs etc, btw. But I don’t think it’s impossible that the benefits outweigh it. I mean, a quick example - The Crown is the most expensive tv show ever made and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to a few more holidays over here being booked.

This argument is often used to justify the monarchy.Many people who want to get rid of the monarchy don’t necessarily want to follow the French and Russian model.We don’t need to execute them(although maybe in Andrews case it might be justified)

We just want to remove them as head of state and having any constitutional power.They will still be alive,they could have TV shows like the Kardashians and will still provide interest to foreigners,maybe even more than now where they can be more open.Many weathly people abroad will be able to pay openly to have an audience with the Queen et al(rather than at present where it’s hidden)

Then maybe we can be proud to have a country where your own abilities are more important than your birthright.

[maqroll]

My aunt and uncle are at a Jubilee party tonight. Weird.

[TheAuthority]

7 minutes ago, maqroll said:

My aunt and uncle are at a Jubilee party tonight. Weird.

Americans obsession with the Royals is just weird.

[TheAuthority]

2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

Is it impossible to believe the monarchy brings in more than £85m a year in tourism etc? And grants the UK a form of soft power that we would otherwise have to pay for - e.g BBC World Service and Foreign Office staffing are both things that cost money but are justified on that grounds, as is hosting stuff like the Olympics or bidding for the World Cup etc.

The cost to the taxpayer is actually higher because the £85m a year doesn’t include security costs etc, btw. But I don’t think it’s impossible that the benefits outweigh it. I mean, a quick example - The Crown is the most expensive tv show ever made and I wouldn’t be surprised if it led to a few more holidays over here being booked.

Point is if we dissolve the monarchy, we would still have had a monarchy. 

So the houses, outfits, cars, flags all of the junk could just go over to the national trust. The palaces etc. would actually bring in more money than they do now because people could tour them. 
 

It surprises me every time the Queen reaches one of these 10 year milestones there isn’t more of a reasoned debate about slowly fading it all out. But it’s like the majority of folks decide they’d like to lose all sense of reality for a weekend and revel in the insanity of it all.

I feel sorry for everyone in the UK I bet it’s wall to wall throughout the media. You unlucky buggers.

[Davkaus]

37 minutes ago, TheAuthority said:

Point is if we dissolve the monarchy, we would still have had a monarchy. 

So the houses, outfits, cars, flags all of the junk could just go over to the national trust. The palaces etc. would actually bring in more money than they do now because people could tour them.

Absolutely key. You won't find many French people wishing they'd reintroduce the monarchy to boost tourism.

[Panto_Villan]

6 hours ago, Only2McInallys said:

This argument is often used to justify the monarchy.Many people who want to get rid of the monarchy don’t necessarily want to follow the French and Russian model.We don’t need to execute them(although maybe in Andrews case it might be justified)

We just want to remove them as head of state and having any constitutional power.They will still be alive,they could have TV shows like the Kardashians and will still provide interest to foreigners,maybe even more than now where they can be more open.Many weathly people abroad will be able to pay openly to have an audience with the Queen et al(rather than at present where it’s hidden)

Then maybe we can be proud to have a country where your own abilities are more important than your birthright.

I don’t think I ever said I thought people wanted them executed? I’m just saying it’s not only loons that read the Daily Mail who think the royals might bring in more than £85m of economic benefit each year.

I think the interest in the royals would be reduced to almost zero if they were no longer the head of state. They currently have (effectively) a purely ceremonial role already, and primarily what people are interested in these days is all the pageantry that goes with the role. Nobody would pay to meet Charles if they abolished the monarchy when the Queen dies.

Also, I very much doubt abolishing the monarchy would magically transport us to a society where your abilities are more important that your birthright. A lot of your opportunities in life are defined by your location of birth and the earnings / general attentiveness of your parents. I get the royals are an extreme example but the problem won’t go away.

@TheAuthority @Davkaus so are you guys suggesting the French monarchy (probably the most famous ex-monarchy given how it ended) brings in more money and gives more soft power than ours? I’d definitely have to see some evidence before I believe that.

Personally I’m pretty neutral on the royals. I don’t see many problems that abolishing the monarchy would meaningfully improve, and as I also I don’t think they’re much of a drain on the public purse I’m content to let them chug along as is for now.

Thing is, most anti-monarchy sentiment I’ve encountered seems primarily to come from wanting to take away things enjoyed by groups you don’t like. I’ve got two issues with that. The first is that that’s a bad idea in general - the Welsh language is pointless, expensive and all the Welsh people I currently know are cocks, but that’s hardly a reason to abolish part of our (their) heritage.

The second thing is that most people aren’t actually very into the monarchy. It’s an excuse to have a loosely crown-themed party / day out once in a while. If you asked them to do anything strenuous for the Queen they’d tell you to jog on. It’s just the same as the World Cup campaign or the Olympics. I don’t really see any value to taking that away on a point of principle.

Sure, you wouldn’t want to create a royal family if you didn’t already have one but that’s not the discussion we’re having.

[Eligius]

Plenty of under privileged people mainly youngsters have been helped tremendously by Royal charities which is something you can't put a price on in what the monarchy brings to many, some of the poorest in society have been funded by Prince Charles's charity in setting up businesses and have gone on to run successful companies whilst taking on staff from the very same social poor background. Plus, the hundreds of charities that have a Royal as patron have helped in gaining extra funds to help the under privileged people, animals etc. 

 

If people feel better about their lives by having a party and celebrating the jubilee then good for them, because over the last few years there hasn't been much to be cheerful about.

[chrisp65]

People that want to be a loyal and obedient subject of King Charles III are soft in the head.

 

[tonyh29]

9 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Absolutely key. You won't find many French people wishing they'd reintroduce the monarchy to boost tourism.

the argument is already lost when “what would the French do “ is  your reasoning   

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

The second thing is that most people aren’t actually very into the monarchy. It’s an excuse to have a loosely crown-themed party / day out once in a while. If you asked them to do anything strenuous for the Queen they’d tell you to jog on. It’s just the same as the World Cup campaign or the Olympics. I don’t really see any value to taking that away on a point of principle.

Exactly , some people like a day out toppling statues , disrupting boat races and some people like a bit of pomp and ceremony as a day out  … never heard any anti royals moaning about the cost of policing and cleaning up after a good old left wing demonstration and saying if we hadn’t smashed up London we could have bought  5 nurses instead 

Our street is having a gathering today , it will be like we did for VE Day , just a gathering out the front of the houses a few drinks and a bit of community natter with the people we live close to , there won’t be any flag shagging , we won’t be singing the national anthem , I suspect the only mention of the Queen will be about her sketch with Paddington and I doubt there will be a group reading of the Daily Mail either 

Edited June 5, 2022 by tonyh29

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

we could have bought  5 nurses instead 

Life isn’t a board came

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, Eligius said:

Plenty of under privileged people mainly youngsters have been helped tremendously by Royal charities

Well, quite apart from the argument that charity is an abrogation of government responsibility, you don't need a monarchy to have a charity. Are you seriously suggesting that people only donate to (say) the RSPCA or the RNLI because of the "R" in the name? 

[Davkaus]

55 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

the argument is already lost when “what would the French do “ is  your reasoning   

I was about 80% sure someone would post that, and 99% sure that if someone did it'd be you
 

[ml1dch]