The British Monarchy

[Bill Walker]

Life is not morally fair Bill. My gripe with yourself is that you go after this one area but not for the others or at least not as constant as you do with the Royals.

It's not morally right that the City players drive through the 1st, 3rd and 4th most deprived areas in Greater Manchester in cars worth more than the homes they are passing to get to their multi bedroom houses.

It's not morally right that our owner who is worth £20bn has fans organising food banks on his property.

But KDB, Pep, the Sheikh and the Royals cannot change anything, not on the scale that's needed to eradicate it anyway but you don't seem to attack them, in fact it's the opposite.

I'm not a royalist or pro monarch by the way, i find it interesting but there is enough history to keep me interested for the rest of my life.

I have nothing against people making money. It's a fact of life that people earn more than others.
But City players are not funded by the taxpayer or government. The RF IS...you can't equate them.
The taxpayers dont buy KDB's car or pay Pep's salary.

Is it morally right that the government should fund their thousands of rooms and thousands of acres, servants, cars, train, helicopters ?
You haven't answered that question.

 

[Bill Walker]

A quick search online says it's £1.29 per person to fund the Royal Family. A total of £102m per year.

Are we really quibbling over £1.29? I've just spent that in energy typing this post.

If you believe that you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Ah i see, so it's now about how they've earned it now how much of it they have in this moral utopia world.

So families starving yet players on £350k a week is morally ok.
Yet families starving and Royal Family having lots of rooms and money is morally bad.

Glad that has been cleared up.

At least they are a part of capitalist culture.

You can debate who is worth what, but that then that delves you into mexico70 territiory.

The blame of the imbalance of society is squarely at the government and neoliberal principles.

Margins have tightened, so social thinking has been erased from corps to maximise shareholder dividends.

You can still boo KDB for earning too much tomorrow though if you want to.

 

[WNRH]

I have nothing against people making money. It's a fact of life that people earn more than others.
But City players are not funded by the taxpayer or government. The RF IS...you can't equate them.
The taxpayers dont buy KDB's car or pay Pep's salary.

Is it morally right that the government should fund their thousands of rooms and thousands of acres, servants, cars, train, helicopters ?
You haven't answered that question.

If by funding that it brings in more money then yes i think it is morally right.

Do you know what the net profit/loss is of funding the royal family? I don't claim to know, but surely if it's a net profit for the country then why is that not morally right?

If it is a net profit then in your world the people sleeping under bridges, or starving families would be worse off.

 

[WNRH]

If you believe that you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

What is it then? I'm interested to know. Considering you are so against having them due to moral financial issues, you must know what loss they cost the country?

 

[WNRH]

At least they are a part of capitalist culture.

You can debate who is worth what, but that then that delves you into mexico70 territiory.

The blame of the imbalance of society is squarely at the government and neoliberal principles.

Margins have tightened, so social thinking has been erased from corps to maximise shareholder dividends.

You can still boo KDB for earning too much tomorrow though if you want to.

I've no need to boo KDB, he can be paid £700k a week for all i care, it has no effect on my life.

Just find it strange to bash one rich person yet laud another just because they play in sky blue but that's me and my football card.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I've no need to boo KDB, he can be paid £700k a week for all i care, it has no effect on my life.

Just find it strange to bash one rich person yet laud another just because they play in sky blue but that's me and my football card.

One has been bought by a company as they are the best in the business. He can pick a lock past any form of inkwell defence.

Charles on the other hand…

 

[ROCKET80]

Ah i see, so it's now about how they've earned it now how much of it they have in this moral utopia world.

So families starving yet players on £350k a week is morally ok.
Yet families starving and Royal Family having lots of rooms and money is morally bad.

Glad that has been cleared up.

I think you're arguing in bad faith.

Anyone earing $350k a week in a country where people are struggling to pay for food and power is morally wrong, but that is a product of the capitalist utopia/dystopia we live in and for another thread.

This is about the monarchy, their use, relevance and worth in a modern society.

 

[Bill Walker]

What is it then? I'm interested to know. Considering you are so against having them due to moral financial issues, you must know what loss they cost the country?

I don't know what it is neither do you, but I don't believe 102 million, thats laughable. But if you googled it, well it must be true.
Anyway mate carry on defending your Royals. And what they represent.
I suspect the Republic isn't far away now Lizzie has gone.

Have to go out now, my dog is getting twitchy.

 

[meltonblue]

If by funding that it brings in more money then yes i think it is morally right.

Do you know what the net profit/loss is of funding the royal family? I don't claim to know, but surely if it's a net profit for the country then why is that not morally right?

If it is a net profit then in your world the people sleeping under bridges, or starving families would be worse off.

Depends where the money that’s generated goes to surely, at least for the economic argument. The “there’s other rich people” argument has other differences.