You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Rogue Trooper Boulevard?
while I wouldn't argue with the desirability of reform to how the Head of State gets remunerated
It was in the last parliament, it is now linked to the income of the Crown Estate at a set percentage, the remainder of the income goes to the public purse. We could have a bicycling monarch like the Dutch, the only problem being they are even more expensive and have greater personal wealth.
[quote=Junkyard ]As for the actors. I dont think they deserve what they get paid but the critical difference is they get it due to their own talents rather than because who their mum and dad are.
Brooklyn Beckham?
I think you may have cherry picked the most expensive royal household in Europe- who only recently overtook ours- to overstate your point.
I am also not sure they are actually personally wealthier than ours. Not sure it matters as we can all agree they are al very very wealthy
As for the actors. I dont think they deserve what they get paid but the critical difference is they get it due to their own talents rather than because who their mum and dad are.
Even if some of the children [url= http://www.imdb.com/list/ls004897708/ ]listed here[/url] have gone on to do things in their own right, I am pretty sure that their starts were made significantly easier on the basis of who their parent(s) were.
And again, whereas all these people are pretty free to make good and bad choices with their wealth, I would argue that our royalty is not. At least not in the same way. So yes, the queen's net worth may be many many millions, but what does that even mean? She still has to live within some very strict parameters that the rest of us are free from.
Again, it may not be a perfect system, but I just don't think the imbalance is as gross as you're suggesting.
Even if some of the children listed here have gone on to do things in their own right, I am pretty sure that their starts were made significantly easier on the basis of who their parent(s) were.
Sure, but if you're arguing for a meritocracy, are you in favour of 100% inheritance tax?
She still has to live within some very strict parameters that the rest of us are free from.
Again, no-one is forcing her to be Queen.
How about 0% inheritance tax? much better idea all round
Again, no-one is forcing her to be Queen.
She comes from a family that has been dedicated to their national duty for generations. When King Edward VIII abdicated, he was seen as a disgrace and sent into exile.
It may not be something we post-moderns think that highly of, but it is still a guiding principle to some.
grum - MemberHere you go retro83.
Wow that's a pretty impressive disparity 😯
Considering that was just before the Olympics, hopefully there is less of a difference now, but I can't find any data. All the articles seem to be referencing that same 2011 study.
Do all you royalists have so little imagination?
It's an example, ffs. If we had a presidential election tomorrow, who do you think would be standing? And who would get elected? And exactly how would that make you personally better off?
I'm not a massive fan of royalty, but I really don't see that the alternatives are any more appealing. It's also true that the British Royal Family(TM) attracts a reasonable proportion of our tourist business - I can't see a president doing that, whoever they were.
How about 0% inheritance tax? much better idea all round
Much better idea for the already wealthy.
Sure, but if you're arguing for a meritocracy, are you in favour of 100% inheritance tax?
It would be shit for me personally but I think it's the only way to have a true meritocracy.
ransos - MemberSure, but if you're arguing for a meritocracy, are you in favour of 100% inheritance tax?
yeah, why not?
Why should my great grandchildren have an easy life of privilege and influence? just because i'm going to win £50million on the lottery?
I am pretty sure that their starts were made significantly easier on the basis of who their parent(s) were.
Do i really have to say that you pointing out multiple wrongs wont make the queen suddenly be fair. [s]Two [/s]three wrong dont make a right
It really sounds terrible Inheriting millions[billions of assets] must be why so many of them turn their back on it and embrace Pulp and live like the common people surviving only on their own merits/abilities.whereas all these people are pretty free to make good and bad choices with their wealth, I would argue that our royalty is not.
So yes, the queen's net worth may be many many millions, but what does that even mean?
It means she is very wealthy, somewhat privileged and lives like, prepare yourself for this, like a QUeen- What is the point of that "question?"
She still has to live within some very strict parameters that the rest of us are free from.
IIRC she hates this fact bitterly and wishes to give it all up for a simpler normal life. the proof being that she has done this 😕
AYe your right its not gross[ I say unfair BTW] in the 21 st century to have hereditary monarch with multiple places and castles reigning over an entire nation.Again, it may not be a perfect system, but I just don't think the imbalance is as gross as you're suggesting.
She comes from a family that has been dedicated to their national duty for generations.
She's not the only person who works because of a sense of duty. The difference is that other people do it to put food on the table.
It's an example, ffs. If we had a presidential election tomorrow, who do you think would be standing? And who would get elected? And exactly how would that make you personally better off?
It was an extreme example, and you know it. Other options are available, including employing one person to cut ribbons.
How about 0% inheritance tax? much better idea all round
If you're not in favour of meritocracy, sure.
It's also true that the British Royal Family(TM) attracts a reasonable proportion of our tourist business
Versaille annual visitors: 8 million
UK royal palaces: 2.6 million
it may as well be a monarchy, but to be honest it should be much reduced,
Monarch, immediate family and Next in Line, on the public purse, the rest can **** right off.
IHN - Member
I'm going to put this on my 'essentially inconsequential things that people give far too much of f%£& about' list.
I'm going to put your inconsequential post moaning about my moany inconsequential post on my "things not evidencing any self-awareness by the author".
Btw Crossrail is not just about reducing travel time - it's also about adding capacity. At the moment practically all public transport in and through London is far over capacity.
What are you chippy northerners whining about anyway? You don't want public transport, you're constantly whining about how awful it is when you visit London, how parking is too expensive and how you like making progress in your Audi estates between your office parks and your £100,000 palaces.
She doesn't HAVE to ****ing do it you know?
I just find it ironic that we malign a pretty well-functioning political system for certain imperfections, when some of those same perceived imperfections are practically celebrated in other areas of society.
The government isn't giving Jennifer Aniston free money. If some shampoo company wants to give her money and the Daily Mail wants to print her picture - it's nothing to do with me. It's a pretty big difference to the Royal Family.
I think you may have cherry picked the most expensive royal household in Europe- who only recently overtook ours- to overstate your point.
No I chose the one from a country where I have lived so have a reasonable idea of their relative visibility - ours is much more visible. I think they have been more expensive for some time I have been monitored it abit, but don't forget that cost have to be borne by a much smaller country.
They are very wealthy, they have a very significant shareholding in Shell.
The sooner we get a mega-tsunami that engulfs the whole greed obsessed, self-important, resource-grabbing cess pit that is London and the SE the better.
It's also worth noting that our generous gift of cash to the royal household is only a part of the story- we also pay for their security. pay for significant transport and other facilities to be made available to them from the policed and armed forces budgets.
In a country where child poverty is commonplace and every town has a food bank, why are we spunking public money and resources on one of the richest families in Europe? They should hang heads in shame and leave quietly.
Thank you and good night.
No I chose the one from a country where I have lived
In that case you got lucky - have to say the amount surprised me- but Spain is a 1/4 of us as another example. No idea how wealthy the Spanish ones are but I imagine it has , historically and eternally, been very difficult to find a poor monarch/ royal household.
No idea how wealthy the Spanish ones are but I imagine it has , historically and eternally, been very difficult to find a poor monarch/ royal household.
You've go to read more Dostoyevsky. 😉
How much do the French, Russian, Swiss, Austrian and Irish royal families cost their taxpayers?
At the moment practically all public transport in and through London is far over capacity.
Up north not one commuter train anywhere is full to capacity and we have no traffic jams as anyone trying to enter a "Northern powerhouse" will confirm.
I imagine it has , historically and eternally, been very difficult to find a poor monarch
Didn't even have a fireplace......
[img] 
[/img]
How much do the French, Russian, Swiss, Austrian and Irish royal families cost their taxpayers?
Just a guess, but about the same as their presidents/chancellors? Or, in the case of the completely debauched Russian presidency*, nowhere near as much.
*A scenario that is unlikely according to our system.
over 300 homeless people sleeping in london last night
Buckingham palace has over 750 rooms of which 250 are bedrooms.....
Just a guess, but about the same as their presidents/chancellors?
The answer is of course zero because they disestablished their royal families with various degrees of bloodiness.
I don't know why you keep banging on about countries in which the head of state plays a role in the executive. I don't see anyone suggesting the UK should adopt a presidential system of government instead of a parliamentary democracy with a formal head of state - of which there are numerous examples.
I don't see anyone suggesting the UK should adopt a presidential system of government instead of a parliamentary democracy with a formal head of state - of which there are numerous examples.
I suggested earlier that there is a range of options, from supreme Commander-in-Chief, through to cutter-of-ribbons.
How much do the French, Russian, Swiss, Austrian and Irish royal families cost their taxpayers?
No one is visiting France to see Hollande who by the way spent €500,000 per anum ln keeping his girlfriend in the Elysee whilst nipping out on a scotter to shaft the mistress
The Royal Family bring in a nially larger amountnof revenue from both Tourism and business as well as anchoring the Commonwealth and the Nation. Even the Australians voted to keep the British Monarchy
Going back to earlier point about what London cost us during the crises
Royal Bank of Scotland (Edniburgh)
Northern Rock (Newcastle)
Halifax - Bank of Scotland (Lloyds foolishly coerced into buying it)
Bradford and Bingley
Alliance and Leicester
I appreciate the Labour government and the regulator where based in London.
The Royal Family bring in a nially larger amountnof revenue from both Tourism and business as well as anchoring the Commonwealth and the Nation. Even the Australians voted to keep the British Monarchy
Versaille visitor numbers dwarf those to our royal palaces. I posted the link upthread.
If you think Prince Andrew prostituting himself with despots is a worthwhile exercise, I suspect you're in a small minority.
SOURCE for the jambyfact please.The Royal Family bring in a nially larger amountnof revenue from both Tourism and business as well as anchoring the Commonwealth and the Nation.
Has anyone ever actually bothered to a study to see tourism numbers for when the queen is her and when she is not- its seems unlikely they are coming just on the off chance they get to meet her. Has anyone actually asked - my google was fruitless.
Clearly jamby is exempt from the request for facts.
Clearly jamby is exempt from the request for facts.
One fact for you: people still flock to a Royal Palace not occupied by Royalty since 1789.
Whos this elizabeth you all speak of, some elderley old dear , never worked, never been ill,and needed the nhs, and living in a huge house paid for by the public think social housing no bedroom tax and living on state benefits, then gets londons new train set named after her.
"
Thety should have called the new line "singletrack" even though its doubled.
Wait, is it Nemesis Avenue?
Imagine what a worldwide spectacle we'd create with a French-style revolution? The TV exposure would be worth billions and tourists would come flocking in.
Joe Pineapples Crescent?
Imagine what a worldwide spectacle we'd create with a French-style revolution? The TV exposure would be worth billions and tourists would come flocking in.
Indeed, I would pay good money to watch
Slaine, The Horned God.
(easy when you see it...)
JY speak to some tourists when you are next down in London, read any amount of copious research
Grum 😀 The problem with revolutions is it's hard to chose the exact style, they tend to have life of their own and work out quite differently than expected.
over 300 homeless people sleeping in london last nightBuckingham palace has over 750 rooms of which 250 are bedrooms.....
More than 300 empty houses in Newcastle alone I'd wager ? Why have a bedroom when you could have a whole house.
Wow you absolutely swayed me there as nothing is more convincing [nor more evidence based] than you just repeating yourself.JY speak to some tourists when you are next down in London, read any amount of copious research
Surely your great well read self has some resource [ possibly fee paying so you cannot list it up] to prove your point. I for one will be astounded if you are just sounding off with no evidence to support your view beyond anecdote and your nan.
JY speak to some tourists when you are next down in London, read any amount of copious research
When making an assertion that appears to be cobblers,you need to back it up, or people will assume it's cobblers.
My problem with the Royal family = Andrew, he needs a good hoof in the slats.
The homeless rough sleeping figure is shameful on a country with the resources of Britain, what does Jambalaya say about that.
The Royal Family bring in a nially larger amountnof revenue from both Tourism and business as well as anchoring the Commonwealth and the Nation. Even the Australians voted to keep the British Monarchy
430,000 people visited Buckingham Palace in the average year.
1,500,000 people visited the Kremlin (Royal family executed in bloody revolution in 1918).
7,500,000 people visited Versailles (Royal family executed in bloody revolution in 1789).
It is therefore STATISTICALLY TRUE that not only are bloody revolutions good for tourism, the effect increases over time.
PS if the Australians want the Royal Family they are free to provide them with money and palaces after we've fired them and appropriated their assets.
Elizabeth Line is a better name than Crossrail, purple is a good choice, and once they open the Woolwich Branch of the line that will be my route to and from work.
I currently cross the river 3 times to get to work, and while it doesn't take long it does strike me as stupid that its the quickest way in.
You have not though this through as the anchor of the commonwealth and a nation - I assume she can do a job for others just as well as she has for us- we should be selling them all to the highest bidder- we probably have to give andrew away with somebody else but I reckon we can get millions for them.
The Paris Lees line?
Another expensive tunneling project funded by the taxpayer. 😉
We'd end up with Blair (having previously had Thatcher) as head of state, for that reason I'll take Queeny then Charlie any time. Thought of a career politician poncing around as if they were some makes me puck.
We'd end up with Blair (having previously had Thatcher) as head of state,
Yes, that's definitely what would happen. 🙄
How many people on this thread are familiar with the offices of President of Ireland or Israel?
kimbers - Member
over 300 homeless people sleeping in london last night
Buckingham palace has over 750 rooms of which 250 are bedrooms.....
Good point, well made.
😕
The homeless rough sleeping figure is shameful on a country with the resources of Britain, what does Jambalaya say about that.
No idea but I think it's great that we find homes for refugees from Syria before before finding homes for British homeless people.
Only kidding. 😉
Long term (as opposed to frictional) homelessness isn't really about housing stock, though, is it?
The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue
[url= http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ ]link[/url]
But Buckingham Palace is not open all the time hence the lower numbers - in fact its only open for a handful of weeks over the summer, so if it was open all year round the visitor numbers would easily beat the Kremlin and Versaille. There is nothing to see in Russia apart from Red Square/Keremlin etc - it's a crap hole. It was in the news recently that Versailles was facing ruin in the face of horrendous state of repairs that the French Government is struggling to afford despite all the visitors. Probably because the President is spending all the money on his mistress.
At worst our Royal Family cover their costs (show me the stats that say otherwise) - they are busy public servants after all and really do a fantastic job being ambassadors for our country - fact. At best they make us a tidy profit.
I really struggle to understand why people get so hot under the collar about them. They do a good job, and create a bit of drama in otherwise a pretty dull and boring world. They're not doing any harm, infact do alot more good than anyone on this forum.
Buckingham Palace would still stand without a Monarchy but it would be a folly without any real substance without a proper Royal Family residing there. It would have far less appeal for tourists.
[quote=wobbliscott ]At worst our Royal Family cover their costs (show me the stats that say otherwise) 🙂 sorry, but it doesn't work like that. If you're going to make assertions, it's up to you to provide supporting evidence.
We'd end up with[s] Blair[/s] Kinnock
FIFY
6. The Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British tourism with The Tower of London, Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace the most popular Royal destinations.
That's the stat as the Telegraph (the source for the Atlantic) described it - and NB they don't attribute it to the UK's tourism agency. They also seem to be attributing all visits to historical palaces to the Royal Family - ignoring the fact that more people could and would visit them if they weren't clogged up with squatters.
It doesn't make sense to say Buckingham Palace would be less attractive to tourists if the Royal family was disestablished when Versailles (and a zillion other palaces in India, Russia, Germany, Italy, Austria, Turkey etc are all hoaching with tourists despite their original inhabitants having been bumped off ages ago.
Who cares about the historic stuff - no need to change it. This is about today.
Well, considering Crossrail is just the name of the project, and the Victoria Line was named after the then head of state, it makes perfect sense to name the new line after the current head of state, making it about today, rather than the past.
As fat as the cost is concerned, I notice nobody is making a peep about the insane cost, and destruction of countryside and habitation, of the proposed High Speed Rail project, to make the North this powerhouse of finance and industry,
And then there's the electrification of the Great Western, capital spend supposed to be £7billion, but already overrunning and nowhere near any sort of finish date! There's a bridge that I would usually drive over to pick up a mate when we go to the pub or gigs, it's been closed for many months now, I [i]think[/i] getting on for six, if not more, and there's absolutely no indication when it'll be reopened, and that's causing significant inconvenience to local residents.
the Victoria Line was named after the then head of state
Ahahahahahha ahahah ahahahaha ahahaha lol lol lol lol
CountZero - MemberWell, considering Crossrail is just the name of the project, and the Victoria Line was named after the then head of state,
I know she hung around for a long time but she'd have been 150 years old when the Victoria Line was opened. Indirectly maybe, the line's named after the station which is named after the queen. Or possibly the station's named after the street, but the street's named after the queen.
But you made me curious- I went and looked it up and several underground lines did open during her reign. The Circle Line, the City and South London Railway and the Waterloo and City Railway. So if you want to hearken back to Victoria's time, there's your naming convention.
But Buckingham Palace is not open all the time hence the lower numbers - in fact its only open for a handful of weeks over the summer
Then what we could do is turn it into a large (nationalised) hotel for all the wealthy tourists to stay in. Or it could be a new hospital maybe. Or a large homeless hostel/refugee centre.
Either way would be of better use than it is now. (In my humble opinion).
The line should have had a more sympathetic name, something maybe in honour of the original tribes who were cleansed from the area in the name of Diversity and Enrichment. Should have called it the Stan/Ronnie/Terry/Mickey/Arfur/Gladys/Mabel/Violet etc Line.
They weren't cleansed in the name of anything. They buggered off because they were given modern houses in Essex for practically nothing so they didn't have to live in slums. That was back in the days when squalor was a state issue.
But you're talking about years ago I'm not. Personally I don't get offended by the Elizabeth Line. Not worth getting all pissy about tbh.
I notice nobody is making a peep about the insane cost, and destruction of countryside and habitation, of the proposed High Speed Rail project, to make the North this powerhouse of finance and industry,
😆
Most people have been slating this as a massive waste of time and money for ages, and it's not even going to go to the north of England. If they actually wanted to help the north they'd make high speed rail between Leeds and Manchester. I think the 'northern powerhouse' has officially been cancelled anyway.