Gushing over royals

I think they do more good than bad, generate more wealth than 'take out' and seem decent enough people - i suspect they also help and maintain alliances around the world and do a lot of charity work.
Cant say i am overjoyed about a royal wedding or baby etc, but its easy enough to ignore all that.
 
I worry for all those countries who have got rid of their Royal families. How do they cope? :)

It's like all those countries who don't have an independent nuclear deterrent. How do those poor fuckers sleep at night.

Luckily we have both. Phew.
 
The three most prominent arguments in favour of the Royal Family are: 1) They are great for tourism; 2) They are good for diplomacy; and 3) The institution provides a check on government.

On (3), I'd give you. Any government needs a check, a level of governance above it, in order to limit the risk of tyranny. Granted, the role of our Royal Family in this is almost symbolic - the chances of the Queen rejecting a Prime Minister's request to form a government after an election are slim - but the fact that constitutionally she can do that is enough to provide that check and balance.

On (2), I'd definitely give you that for the Queen, Princes Harry and William, and Princess Anne. They are probably the best diplomats we have in this country. But the others - Charles, Edward, Philip, Andrew, and the hangers on like Andrew's kids' - are not. In fact, they've probably been more damaging than helpful when employed on diplomatic missions.

But point (1) is, to be frank, bollocks. Even Visit Britain - the UK's official tourism body - has said that Royal Tourism doesn't account for much here. And you just have to look at France as as a great example of why the notion is complete BS; the Palace of Versailles get's 17 millions visitors compared to Buckingham Palaces 13 million per year...and they got rid of their royal family over 200 years ago...and their palace isn't even in a major city, let alone a capital one.

If we got rid of the monarchy, tourists would still come here. In fact, we could then open up all the palaces fully to tourists, which would probably attract even more.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Wasn't arguing - I don't know what the establishing law was.

The government essentially get 85% tax on it, and then fund the Royal Family and all the people they employ).
Click to expand...
Sort of but I'd slightly change that to either:

The government receive 100% tax on profits and then fund the royal family from it.

Or

The government receive 85% tax on profits and don't fund the royal family as they've funded themselves.

Either way, Crown Estate pays a fuck higher percentage in tax then our republican proles in here do.
 
SWP's back said:
Sort of but I'd slightly change that to either:

The government receive 100% tax on profits and then fund the royal family from it.

Or

The government receive 85% tax on profits and don't fund the royal family as they've funded themselves.

Either way, Crown Estate pays a fuck higher percentage in tax then our republican proles in here do.
Click to expand...

Yep, badly worded on my part. 85% after funding the family.
 
che_don_john said:
The three most prominent arguments in favour of the Royal Family are: 1) They are great for tourism; 2) They are good for diplomacy; and 3) The institution provides a check on government.

On (3), I'd give you. Any government needs a check, a level of governance above it, in order to limit the risk of tyranny. Granted, the role of our Royal Family in this is almost symbolic - the chances of the Queen rejecting a Prime Minister's request to form a government after an election are slim - but the fact that constitutionally she can do that is enough to provide that check and balance.

On (2), I'd definitely give you that for the Queen, Princes Harry and William, and Princess Anne. They are probably the best diplomats we have in this country. But the others - Charles, Edward, Philip, Andrew, and the hangers on like Andrew's kids' - are not. In fact, they've probably been more damaging than helpful when employed on diplomatic missions.

But point (1) is, to be frank, bollocks. Even Visit Britain - the UK's official tourism body - has said that Royal Tourism doesn't account for much here. And you just have to look at France as as a great example of why the notion is complete BS; the Palace of Versailles get's 17 millions visitors compared to Buckingham Palaces 13 million per year...and they got rid of their royal family over 200 years ago...and their palace isn't even in a major city, let alone a capital one.

If we got rid of the monarchy, tourists would still come here. In fact, we could then open up all the palaces fully to tourists, which would probably attract even more.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with all your assessments here, save in (3) I'd add that the reverence in which the Queen is held personally must of itself act as some form of check to outlandish bevaviour from PMs, plus she's canny as fuck. She'd give a gentle tug on the reigns to a wayward PM, if she felt it was necessary. Not so sure how democratic that is, mind, and I can't see Charles having remotely the same gravitas. I think both his lads would make very good monarchs, however.
 
che_don_john said:
The three most prominent arguments in favour of the Royal Family are: 1) They are great for tourism; 2) They are good for diplomacy; and 3) The institution provides a check on government.

On (3), I'd give you. Any government needs a check, a level of governance above it, in order to limit the risk of tyranny. Granted, the role of our Royal Family in this is almost symbolic - the chances of the Queen rejecting a Prime Minister's request to form a government after an election are slim - but the fact that constitutionally she can do that is enough to provide that check and balance.

On (2), I'd definitely give you that for the Queen, Princes Harry and William, and Princess Anne. They are probably the best diplomats we have in this country. But the others - Charles, Edward, Philip, Andrew, and the hangers on like Andrew's kids' - are not. In fact, they've probably been more damaging than helpful when employed on diplomatic missions.

But point (1) is, to be frank, bollocks. Even Visit Britain - the UK's official tourism body - has said that Royal Tourism doesn't account for much here. And you just have to look at France as as a great example of why the notion is complete BS; the Palace of Versailles get's 17 millions visitors compared to Buckingham Palaces 13 million per year...and they got rid of their royal family over 200 years ago...and their palace isn't even in a major city, let alone a capital one.

If we got rid of the monarchy, tourists would still come here. In fact, we could then open up all the palaces fully to tourists, which would probably attract even more.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is entirely fairly represented.
Buck House is only open for a few months, and is a few rooms without gardens as far as I know, so 13M is a lot (I'm surprised it's anywhere near that high, in fact).

Comparing the UK now with France two centuries after the revolution seems disconnected - both have fine royal-related buildings and links, and they all need upkeep. I'm surprised by the Visit Britain quote, but I think whether the 42M (or whatever) sovereign grant represents value for money is opinion rather than something that can be based on fact (see the next point for one instance of royal 'value add').
Andrew is a very good trade presence (when he's not larging it up), and several parts of the world absolutely love a British Royal showing up. He's no diplomat, but doesn't claim to be.
Only Charles does much diplomatic stuff, and he's well respected - certainly not damaging. Several of those mentioned are not covered by the grant anyway.

The third point is the most important one. If not a royal family, we'd have to have a presidential figure of some sort (who'd need a house, guards, security...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.