You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
60% of international tourists, from which my buisness benefits to the tune of around 15k a year, say that the monarchy is part of the reason they visit the UK. So upto 9k of my trade pa could be indirectly due to the royals
Even if the survey was valid data, your statement alone has some wonky assumptions.
The fact that "Part" of the reason means that it's neither the sole reason nor necessarily enough of a reason to have compelled them in the first place, there's really no evidence that if the royalty no longer existed then people wouldn't come to visit.
Then look at what's behind the concept of 'the Royals' - that doesn't meant they expect to see them in person. It's the buildings and all the other crap.
Do people go to Italy expecting to see a Roman Emperor?
... I'm not saying it would be good to have Alan Sugar as President btw.
there’s really no evidence that if the royalty no longer existed then people wouldn’t come to visit.
Now there's also a equally wonky assumption.
The tourist data is wonky, I give you because it's very difficult to quantify precisely reasons for visiting countries and I don't particularly fancy doing a thesis and publishing it here - however the fact that we have an active royalty is a reason that people do come. Some of that 60% would go else where if our royal family weren't active.
"Some" is that 3 people or 3 million?
There are more important things wrong with our society but the idea that we are somehow "led" by this bunch of dysfunctional folk is absurd in the 21st century and that their heredity makes them different in some way
Charles’ visit to Germany is an example of an advantage of having a non-political head of state (unlike France and the US for example). That type of soft diplomacy is important, and best done by some one who is above politics.
The King is not "above politics" (!). The visit changed nothing because no-one is impressed by the monkey in Berlin when they know the organ grinder is back in London.
and that their heredity makes them different in some way
To be fair with the level of inbreeding in the royal families over the generations it sort of does.
Some of that 60% would go else where if our royal family weren’t active.
Nonsense.
How does an "active" Royal family help?
How many tourists come over to watch a Royal open a hospital, bridge etc?
Tourists come to the UK for a lot of reasons.
I live and work in North Northumberland, we don't see many "active" Royals up here, however, we have lots of people coming to see the castles, wildlife etc. There was a German coach trip in the other day, not one of them was looking for Charlie.
& I live in the Cotswolds, highgrove is about 30mins away, Gatcombe is closer etc. - lots and lots of tourists come, just to see the royals / walk around the gardens where they live etc.... I used to drive lots of Asian tourists around in my taxi who wouldn't have visited if it wasn't for the royals.
lots and lots of tourists come, just to see the royals / walk around the gardens where they live etc…
They are stalking Our Royal Family?
That must pose a serious security risk.
lots and lots of tourists come, just to see the royals / walk around the gardens where they live etc
I would wager that the numbers that do that are very much in the minority, or you would literally have hundreds of taxis driving around the Cotswolds with stalky tourists in them!
I'm not going to try and justify the figures claimed, but to pretend that the fact that we have a high profile Royal family isn't a factor in tourists coming to the UK, rather than, say, Belgium or Sweden, is a bit daft.
Just because a lot of Brits aren't interested and/or want rid of them doesn't mean that a lot of foreign tourists have a different view. Possibly a side effect or our toxic empire days
I think the country recognised that at a time when a lettuce had become Prime Minister, it was useful to have a head of state that had a reputation for talking to plants.
That deserved more love.
“Some” is that 3 people or 3 million?
It's hard to quantify, isn't it. Why does anyone go anywhere on holiday? I highly doubt it's for just one reason.
One might go to Spain because it's close, warmer than here and they've always wanted to see the Basillica. If instead it was any one of notoriously rainy, over near the Pacific or Basillica-less, might they choose to go to France instead? Who's to say.
Tourists come to the UK for a lot of reasons.
I live and work in North Northumberland, we don’t see many “active” Royals up here, however, we have lots of people coming to see the castles, wildlife etc. There was a German coach trip in the other day, not one of them was looking for Charlie.
Very true. But plenty just come to London and have "visited England." Without anything beyond personal anecdotes to back it up, I'd say it's likely the majority. Your coachload of Germans there probably didn't have Northumberland as a final destination, they were on their way to Edinburgh or some such.
we have a high profile Royal family
What do you mean by "high profile"? I suspect most people living in the UK haven't seen the monarch, including the one who recently died and reigned for over 70 years.
If you mean high profile as always in the press some of it is for all the wrong reasons.
Your coachload of Germans there probably didn’t have Northumberland as a final destination, they were on their way to Edinburgh or some such.
Well sat next to a retired American couple on a flight from Newcastle to Schiphol, one their way to get there flight home.
They had just done a tour of the Border area, yes they went to Edinburgh but they did as part of a circuit, lots of castles seem to be the theme.
Although I except they were very much a minority and the vast majority of overseas tourists come to see London.
I still disagree that the Royals "generate" tourism. As has been said many times, Paris doesn't struggle attracting tourism.
What do you mean by “high profile”?
It's hard to argue that QEII wasn't an (perhaps even the most) instantaneously recognisable public figure of the 20/21stC for most of the world's population.
Mleh, choosing a Head of State is always a crap shoot whichever way you do it, It may as well be the Windsors (it is, after all, the only thing they have experience in)
What do you mean by “high profile”?
Are you unfamiliar with money?
It’s hard to argue that QEII wasn’t an (perhaps even the most) instantaneously recognisable public figure of the 20/21stC for most of the world’s population.
High profile means recognisable? Well yes having your face on all the coins and banknotes of the 5th wealthiest nation on earth, along with all the stamps, for 70 years, as well as being head of state of 32 countries, does give someone a certain degree of recognisability, it would indeed be very hard to argue against that.
Are you unfamiliar with money?
I hadn't realised that high profile in this case referred to recognisability.
There is little doubt that Adolf Hitler would be recognised by millions of people across the world, despite the fact that he has been keeping a very low profile for almost 80 years.
Adolf Hitler
And we're there - Godwin for the win !!111!
That's probably enough about germanic autocrats, Saxe Coburg Gotha or otherwise...
Asian tourists...who wouldn’t have visited if it wasn’t for the royals.
Before COVID, France had about ten times as many Chinese tourists as the UK, despite not having a live royal family.
https://jingdaily.com/op-ed-brexit-will-deter-chinese-tourists/
It’s hard to argue that QEII wasn’t an (perhaps even the most) instantaneously recognisable public figure of the 20/21stC for most of the world’s population.
You're really overstating the importance of Our Liz to the average Chinese, Indian, Congolese, Brazilian person...
I think there's probably a handful of people that you could show a photo to anyone in the world and they'd know who that person is. Elvis, Mohammed Ali, Einstein, The Queen. A few more maybe.
I don't have any idea how important any of them they are to some-one in Bangladesh, but I'd bet you 50p that they recognise them.
but I’d bet you 50p that they recognise them.
So you are not particularly confident then?
The 50p might give them a clue.
I hadn’t realised that high profile in this case referred to recognisability.
Fair enough. What did you suppose it referred to?
What did you suppose it referred to?
I had assumed that it meant the normal dictionary definition of the term...."attracting much attention or publicity".
they’d know who that person is. Elvis...
You're definitely overstating the importance of Elvis to the average Gabonese, Burmese, Kazakh person...
PS we could elect Elvis as Head of State.
I had assumed that it meant the normal dictionary definition of the term….”attracting much attention or publicity”.
Right. Now take that definition and apply it back to your original question. Glad we cleared that up.
PS we could elect Elvis as Head of State
Isn't he on the moon, fighting the drug war undercover for the CIA for Nixon? And/or running a chip shop? anyway, maybe a bit busy?
Right. Now take that definition and apply it back to your original question. Glad we cleared that up.
I did exactly that, you obviously didn't bother reading my post. The claim was high profile 'royal family' no mention of QE2.
This is what I said before it was sidetracked into whether someone in Bangladesh would recognise the former UK monarch:
If you mean high profile as always in the press some of it is for all the wrong reasons.
anyway, maybe a bit busy?
Well, his multitasking is impressive, at least.
Do you suppose they’d have the same international appeal if they lived in a 3-bed semi in Barry Island?
Obviously not which proves my point. Tourists come to see the sites like the Palaces etc - hence my first post pointing this out. With or without that lot leeching the tourists would still be coming.
Like them or not – and I’m not particularly a fan myself – it’s well documented that they’re a net benefit to the country financially. US tourism alone probably pays for them, I’ve been to the US many times and quite often as soon as I open my mouth the second question (after “where are you from?”) was “ooh, have you met the Queen?” They’re obsessed.
We’ve had this argument before. (Unsurprisingly, as we’ve had most every argument before.)
Is it well documented? How's that then? Seeing as they are above the law and most of their finances/taxes are a closely guarded secret (I wonder why) I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Offshore anyone? Tax evasion? Avoidance? But they're the country's most patriotic servants aren't they? Surely they would swerve taxes? Absolutely flawed.
And I don't care anyway. Even the most narrow minded flag waver can't make any sort of moral argument for the money they take from the country, all the while millions are suffering and public services are struggling more than ever. They are an out dated bunch of scrounging lazy perverted wrong uns. If those frauds all disappeared tomorrow this country would be in a far better place.
The OP claiming they're 'doing the right thing' (what does that nonsense even mean?)fighting the good fight in the face of a shambolic tory government is so cringeworthy and ignorant its difficult not to burst out laughing. Must have been living in a cave for the last few decades.
I’m a fan of Charlie – he’s done a lot for the environment, the countryside and was way ahead of his time with knowing about climate change. And, no I’m not a flat earther, covid denier or any of those other ridiculous things.
All well, that makes everything ok then. You and the other flag wavers are far worse than anything you mentioned there. Far worse.
Imagine being a 'fan' of that lot. Sends shivers down your spine.
And I don’t care anyway
And therein lies the problem. Plenty of reasons to get rid of tne monarchy, I get that, but you'd better be damn sure that whoever fills that void is "better", however we want to define it.
Sends shivers down your spine.
Get a grip. Whatever your personal opinion of the monarchy the majority of people in the UK have a positive opinion.
I’ve been to the US many times and quite often as soon as I open my mouth the second question (after “where are you from?”) was “ooh, have you met the Queen?” They’re obsessed.
I have worked in the US many times, sometimes for weeks at a time.
I have never once been asked if I had met the Queen.
Obsessed? The vast majority of Americans don't even realise there is a World outside of the US and maybe Canada. They are absolutely indifferent to it.
Who can forget the saintly and do gooding Prince Charles was mates with that horrific vermin Bishop Peter Ball.
All just another coincidence of a Royal being mates with a peado of course.
Charlie boy even wrote to this monster in support and lobbied on his behalf even after the accusations were pouring in. Even harassed the archbishop to reinstate him. Renting him a house on his estate. Wonder what the payment terms for that were? That must have been another innocent error of judgement, of course. Just how unlucky are this family?
Of course when the brown stuff hit the fan with Peter Ball, Charlie boy tried to reverse asap and claimed he'd been deceived for years. Now where does that ring a bell? Oh yes, Randy Andy and Epstein. All just another coincidence, just like it was with Savile.
Bless them, so very very unlucky.
you’d better be damn sure that whoever fills that void is “better”
Ireland and Israel both have parliamentary systems reasonably similar to that of the UK, and their models for Presidency could easily be adapted to the UK system without reorganising the rest of the state.
In fact, we could ask Ireland if we could borrow their head of state. He seems be popular and...you know...considering the history
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Israel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland
I did exactly that, you obviously didn’t bother reading my post. The claim was high profile ‘royal family’ no mention of QE2.
Did you read your own post?
"What do you mean by “high profile”? I suspect most people living in the UK haven’t seen the monarch, including the one who recently died and reigned for over 70 years."
You're being wilfully obtuse. It's not helpful to the conversation.
I have worked in the US many times, sometimes for weeks at a time.
I have never once been asked if I had met the Queen.
Obsessed? The vast majority of Americans don’t even realise there is a World outside of the US and maybe Canada. They are absolutely indifferent to it.
Then your experience is different from mine. That's anecdotes for you. The US is a big place.
All just another coincidence of a Royal being mates with a peado of course.
Makes you think.
You’re being wilfully obtuse. It’s not helpful to the conversation.
That is spectacular coming from you.
Here is my entire post:
we have a high profile Royal family
What do you mean by “high profile”? I suspect most people living in the UK haven’t seen the monarch, including the one who recently died and reigned for over 70 years.
If you mean high profile as always in the press some of it is for all the wrong reasons.
For some bizarre reason you have decided to take issue with that, as you relentlessly pursue me through the thread.
All just another coincidence of a Royal being mates with a peado of course.
To be fair, while charlie is brother to the prince of nonce, I am not sure they are mates.
I’m a fan of Charlie – he’s done a lot for the environment, the countryside and was way ahead of his time with knowing about climate change
IM sorry but what has he actually done? He still insists on private jet and helicopter flights everywhere with an entourage of servants. He still thinks that having multiple homes so he can travel between them is a good thing. So apart from making a few speeches what has he actually done?
Get a grip. Whatever your personal opinion of the monarchy the majority of people in the UK have a positive opinion.
Brilliant. That's the greatest example of barrel scraping I think I've ever read. Astonishing. I'm humbled.
The majority of people in this country still have a positive option about a lot of things. Biggest so what ever.
Seeing as a majority voted for Boris and the Tories at the last election (probably the same bunch of flag waving led by the nose self defeating unfortunates) they're hardly a yardstick for sane, rational thinking are they. I mean Boris Johnson FFS.
I suppose if a choice had to be made between Charlie and Boris you'd probably be forced into going with Boris, because despite all his shortcomings shall we say, he's probably a decent upgrade on old Charlie and his poisonous, mis-guided grubby little letter writing to bail out his mates from hideous crimes. Although it is a tough one I'll admit.
To be fair, while charlie is brother to the prince of nonce, I am not sure they are mates.
Aye,too similar I suppose. When it comes to being mates with the dregs of society these two have plenty to choose from aside from each other.
IM sorry but what has he actually done? He still insists on private jet and helicopter flights everywhere with an entourage of servants. He still thinks that having multiple homes so he can travel between them is a good thing. So apart from making a few speeches what has he actually done?
Yeah but apart from all that he's done a lot for the environment, the countryside and was way ahead of his time with knowing about climate change
So wave your flag and say hello King Charlie is going to save the planet you know.
That’s the greatest example of barrel scraping I think I’ve ever read.
Hyperbole much?
What are you under the impression that I am scraping the bottom of the barrel for?
You suggested that people who support the monarchy "Sends shivers down your spine.
Shivers down your spine? Whatever your personal opinions of the monarchy people who support it aren't weirdos, they are just very normal average people, the majority of the population in fact.
As I said, get a grip.
I do find it strange in this thread that the person that claims to have the least amount of interest in the royals has the biggest word count.....😉
So apart from making a few speeches what has he actually done?
Well he got rid of the grouse moors and well stocked pheasant shoots.
Oh wait no he didnt.
Ah well looks like it is just speeches.
The majority of people in this country still have a positive option about a lot of things. Biggest so what ever. Seeing as a majority voted for Boris...
That's not quite true. A plurality of those who voted voted for the Tories. It was not a majority of people in the UK and nor was it even a majority of people who bothered to vote. You could even say that a majority of voters had a negative opinion about the Tories - but that majority couldn't agree about who they would prefer, so quite legitimately the Tories won.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
I do find it strange in this thread that the person that claims to have the least amount of interest in the royals has the biggest word count…..😉
To be fair, there's probably a pattern to that...
I suppose keeping the Windsors does add something to the UK brand. As the family slowly unravels like a badly made imported jumper, it mirrors the image of faded opulence that the nation has come to represent to the rest of the world.
Dubious morals, decreasing global relevance, out of touch but desperate to cling on to power.
Perhaps the royals just align nicely with the idea for outsiders that the UK is a living museum or worse, a slow motion car wreck.
60% of international tourists, from which my buisness benefits to the tune of around 15k a year, say that the monarchy is part of the reason they visit the UK.
I'm sorry, but that's patent nonsense. Republic has already been linked up - it really is worth spending some time on that site as they expose the mendacious sh*t that goes with the Royals.
And that tourism stat... you'll have heard of France? Where they get 3 times more global tourists than the UK does, and tourism is an even bigger chunk of the economy? And what happened to the French Royals...?
The clear take away is that if we are concerned about the economics of the royals - and we should be concerned about benefit cheats - then we need to abolish them and make their/our palaces into proper tourist attractions like Versailles. Or something useful like homeless hostels.
The royals are an absolute blight on the UK for the way in which they entrench the class system. Frightful people.
^ Well said ^ and now we have queen effing Camilla
I bet the tourists are queuing up. 🙄
So apart from making a few speeches what has he actually done?
His Aston db6 runs on E85? Big woop.
You suggested that people who support the monarchy “Sends shivers down your spine.
Shivers down your spine? Whatever your personal opinions of the monarchy people who support it aren’t weirdos, they are just very normal average people, the majority of the population in fact.
As I said, get a grip.
Again, biggest so what ever. A load of people used to love Savile and Rolf Harris. They got rightly put in the trash and so should Charlie and his grubby mob.
Having a load of dumb ignorant folk waving flags and clapping like demented seals means nothing. Like I said, a majority voted for Boris. That's is a big red flag for the intelligence of the 'majority. Something you ignored on my last post. Strange that.
And you don't know its 'the majority of the population' at all, more barrel scraping from someone who is weirdly desperate to defend people who cheer a family who try and protect criminals and one of them is very likely a serial abuser. Very very odd behaviour.
You've got to have something fundamentally wrong with you, if despite everything they've done you choose to support them. He tried to use his influence as a Royal to get a paedophile priest off the hook. So yes they are weirdos as you put it. Stupid pig thick ignorant ones.
The royals are an absolute blight on the UK for the way in which they entrench the class system.
You could abolish the royal family tomorrow (and I would), but it wouldn't even change the class system. There's only 2 aristocrats in the top 40 richest people in the UK (admittedly these lists are always ropey, and it omits the monarch).
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list
Like I said, a majority voted for Boris.
No, they didn't.
And you don’t know its ‘the majority of the population’ at all
Yes, you do.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/institution/The_British_Monarchy?content=trackers
They are a horrible lot.
Edward VIII should of been the end of them and nearly was.
He also should of been tried for treason for his antics during the war.
Despite this, good old Lizzie called him her favourite Uncle.
QEII played the role as she did because of how close they came to getting dumped.
Yet she still gave millions of pounds to cover her nonce of a son and then put him front and centre at the 1st big event after he had told to step away from Royal duties.
Now we have "Queen Camilla" despite being told that wouldn't happen, not that I really care but hopefully some of their "base" will get pissed off about it.
Vive La Republique!
You could abolish the royal family tomorrow (and I would), but it wouldn’t even change the class system
Exactly this. Whether you keep, reform or abolish the monarchy it won't make a blind bit of difference to the actual lives of ordinary people. It might make you feel better, you might think that you are sticking it to the man, but the people who properly pull the strings and who properly get away with the greatest tax scams and exploit the system and negatively impact our lives will sit chuckling away that their dead cat wearing a crown has caught you all out.
Don't let your hate blind you to reality
Having a load of dumb ignorant folk waving flags and clapping like demented seals means nothing. Like I said, a majority voted for Boris. That’s is a big red flag for the intelligence of the ‘majority. Something you ignored on my last post. Strange that.
And yet, you think the royals enforce the class system? Think you need to look in the mirror mate. You're most certainly not part of the solution that's for sure.
Having a load of dumb ignorant folk
That’s is a big red flag for the intelligence of the ‘majority
Very very odd behaviour.
Stupid pig thick ignorant ones.
All that just in the one post. Lovely.
I bet the tourists are queuing up.
They're just doing a phone in on Five Live. Its quite an eye-opener. Theres some mad old bat on there saying she'll be camping on the Mall for 4 nights before the coronation to make sure she's got her prime spec. Another one saying that she's in the Guiness Book of Records for having the largest collection of royal memorabilia.
You know that on the day there will be thousands of people like them that generally invoke that slight embarrassment at being English that you get when you see the crowds at Wimbledon on Henman Hill/Murrys mound/Whatever its called next year. A sort of badly dressed, terrifyingly passive aggressive middle-classness. Their union flags being the only thing they own that isn't beige.
I find it all absolutely baffling. I watched the outpouring of cap-doffing when Lizzie shuffled off in complete bemusement. At the end of the day though they're all harmless enough and if it stops them, however briefly, from deluging social media with complaints about wheely bin collections and writing to local papers about antisocial behaviour, then surely we all win?
And yet, you think the royals enforce the class system?
Deference innit?
Certainly does enforce and promote the idea of a class born to rule, rather than a meritocracy.
I find it all absolutely baffling
Me too Binners. A riding buddy of mine told me he’d driven back early from a holiday in France to queue up to see queenie’s coffin. There was a tear in his eye! I was indeed baffled!
Mleh, choosing a Head of State is always a crap shoot whichever way you do it, It may as well be the Windsors (it is, after all, the only thing they have experience in)
If a windsor is the best candidate why can’t we elect them? Why do their siblings and offspring all automatically get “roles” too?
so Charles doesn’t offend me, in fact like Bunnyhop, I think he’s probably got a lot of views I like. BUT the system offends me. The “tourism” argument is weak, and if it is true the U.K. tourist industry needs to seriously up its game as if people aren’t coming for your attraction and you just benefit by chance you don’t really deserve success. The can’t trust the public argument is stupid - yes you might get Boris as president but you can boot him out after 5 yrs. actually half the issue with U.K. politics is people don’t know who/what they are voting for - perhaps separating the figure head from the politics would help with that.
I was in Canada when the Queen died and on hearing my accent a couple of people asked me if I was OK, or whether I was upset!
Also met a Canadian woman in YVR flying to the UK to attend the funeral, she was telling me what a nightmare it was to book a hotel, and so on.
Mind you, I've seen the look in folks eyes when I tell them I enjoy MTB in the depths of winter mud wind and rain, so there is that.
Also met a Canadian woman in YVR
British Columbia is a strange place regarding the Royals.
I spent a few weeks there in 1994.
Never in my life had I seen so many portraits of the Queen. Way more than in the UK.
Exactly this. Whether you keep, reform or abolish the monarchy it won’t make a blind bit of difference to the actual lives of ordinary people. It might make you feel better, you might think that you are sticking it to the man, but the people who properly pull the strings and who properly get away with the greatest tax scams and exploit the system and negatively impact our lives will sit chuckling away that their dead cat wearing a crown has caught you all out.
Don’t let your hate blind you to reality
I didn't say that at all, and what you're saying is complete toss. Abolishing and expropriating the royals would return billions of assets to the state, and save millions in unncessary expenditure. That's money that could be spent on teachers, social workers and pensions thay would improve the actual lives of ordinary people. None of the assets the royals have appropriated or the money they take every year improves the actual lives of ordinary people - and it's precisely because of that it should be reduced to zero.
Equally, the idea that republicanism is a false flag operation by moustache-twirling plutocrats to divert attention from capitalist inequality is just stupid.
I just said the class system in this country is much more than the Royal Family (sex offenders or otherwise).
I find it all absolutely baffling. I watched the outpouring of cap-doffing when Lizzie shuffled off in complete bemusement.
two friends of my wife have barely spoken since, on hearing that one of them was about to go and queue up to see the the coffin in Edinburgh, the other one laughed because she thought it was a wind up. Like religion, and even a lot of politics it’s ingrained culture that we get from those around us and it’s difficult to see how stupid it is if you are wrapped up in it.
The bit that I really don’t like about the monarchy is the huge amount power they still have. I fully accept that they rarely use even a tiny part of the power they have but why do they even still have it?
The monarch still has the power to
sack the government and rule directly. This is what the PM has to go and see the monarch to be allowed to set up a government. The monarch can say no
Royal Assent of all legislation because without the monarch signature then it isn’t law. There is nothing saying they have to sign it
Have legislation changed to suit themselves. It is well documented that the monarch has legislation changed to suit themselves. One of the more recent examples what QE2 no Charles having legislation on the right for leaseholders to buy the freehold. The monarch had the law changed to except the Dutchies from this to protect thier financial interests
Deference innit?
Certainly does enforce and promote the idea of a class born to rule, rather than a meritocracy.
The USA doesn't have a monarchy but an absolutely thriving class system. In a lot of ways worse than ours.
A lot of new money adding to that divide as well. Meritocracy doesn't negate ego and cruelty.
Abolishing and expropriating the royals would return billions of assets to the state, and save millions in unncessary expenditure
The State already owns the majority of tne assets, which is why we have to pay for tne upkeep. If we sell it off, I'm not sure we'd like tne kind of folk who could afford to buy it either.
That’s money that could be spent on teachers, social workers and pensions thay would improve the actual lives of ordinary people
It's a tiny amount per person. And once you've disposed of an asset, it's a one off amount,not a never ending source of funds
None of the assets the royals have appropriated or the money they take every year improves the actual lives of ordinary people –
They employ quite a few folk directly, often in rural areas. The Princes Trust, that relies on his position to attract funding and support, helps hundreds of folk a year. The DofE scheme, again relying on the position for support and funding, gives thousands of kids a chance to develop skills and support local volunteering activities. Charities up and down the country benefit from "royal patronage" to get support for their work.
Equally, the idea that republicanism is a false flag operation by moustache-twirling plutocrats to divert attention from capitalist inequality is just stupid.
Which isn't what i said either, I said it was a dead cat. Other folk grab assets and exploit their position. There are are far bigger tax losses through exploiting loopholes than tne Royals. Other people have defended abusers in the church. Prince Andrew wasn't the only person at Epsteins parties. Doing away with royals addresses none of tne underlying causes, its fiddling with symptoms.
The whole thing needs reform, but removing the royals altogether may have unintended consequences, which the haters seem not to recognise.
The USA doesn’t have a monarchy but an absolutely thriving class system. In a lot of ways worse than ours.
A lot of new money adding to that divide as well. Meritocracy doesn’t negate ego and cruelty.
I've worked with various local landowners in my housing days. The landed gentry, on the whole, had a better understanding of their responsibilities to their tenants, communities and environment than most of the newly rich wannabe "Lords of the manors", even if it may have been due to self interest.
They employ quite a few folk directly, often in rural areas. The Princes Trust, that relies on his position to attract funding and support, helps hundreds of folk a year. The DofE scheme, again relying on the position for support and funding, gives thousands of kids a chance to develop skills and support local volunteering activities. Charities up and down the country benefit from “royal patronage” to get support for their work.
Those jobs and those charities won't disappear if we got rid of the Royals. Maybe a change of name but the mechanisms and organisations would still exist.
Would the 200+ lifeboat stations cease to exist if the RNLI dropped the R from their name?
Always fascinates me when the Royal Corps of Royal Defenders immediately point out the problems in America, as if it is the only alternative solution.
I'm writing this from Scotland, and I'm going to suggest we should look to Ireland for inspiration - given the imposition of a corrupt Westminster upon us here, and a Royal Family that rewrites Holyrood laws for its own benefit, I can only look at Ireland with a sense of wonder. They have a proud tradition of presidents, they have remained in Europe because forelock tugging nostalgia is less of an issue...
Give me Michael D Higgins and his dogs any of the week.
Or the German system. Or, or, or.
Also, at the risk of totally derailing the thread: Team Meghan all the way 😉 You can have your Wills and Kate and make beige paint with them...
I simply pointed out that removing the royal family will do nothing to the class system. Plenty of countries without a royal family have corruption and thriving class systems.
I fully respect individuals beliefs when it comes to cost, etc. I can see the points in those arguments. But when it strays into the class system, that's disingenuous at best.
And those posters know it.
That’s money that could be spent on teachers, social workers and pensions
It's not either or, we can do both those things.