The British Monarchy

[mexico1970]

If they were proven to be a drain on our finances, they’d be fucked off pretty damn quickly.

Therefore, we never really see what their Nett benefit really is.

Again, doesn't look like people agree with that at all. Even on this site the yays have it. They are popular and they fill newspapers and webpages.

I have paid more for parking for tomorrow than I have towards the royals for a year, I can handle that.

 

[WNRH]

It’s easier to keep everyone in the dark and keep them relevant.

What were the figures on Diana’s death? Anyone know?

Course not.

Why in 2022 do the Royal Family need to be kept relevant? For what and who's benefit?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Again, doesn't look like people agree with that at all. Even on this site the yays have it. They are popular and they fill newspapers and webpages.

I have paid more for parking for tomorrow than I have towards the royals for a year, I can handle that.

Indeed as no one knows whether they’re a benefit or a negative on our finances.

Ask the same question again after 10 years of Charles, do you think it will be more or les than 47%?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Why in 2022 do the Royal Family need to be kept relevant? For what benefit?

I asked that question earlier.

If you do the touristy stuff, you get told who gets killed where etc.

Now you’ll be shown where the Queen did her Xmas message.

Not quite the same, is it?

 

[aguero93:20]

What were the figures on Diana’s death? Anyone know?

7 million for Thatcher, would have been cheaper to dig straight to hell.

 

[ROCKET80]

Which is what? No one is adding any facts regarding this to the debate. If you said that the monarchy costs British tax payers a net loss of £50m per year then their relevance and worth in a modern society would be none.

But until someone provides the fact on that then it's just shaking a fist in with an envious glare.

Any estimates of financial pros and cons linked to the monarchy should be treated with scepticism, especially around tourism.

The questions are more political and moral.

If there was a scenario where 50million people were starting a new country, would you argue for a constitutional monarchy (and how it is funded) to be part of the government structure?

If the answer is yes you would, then what are the political and moral reasons you'd put forward?

If you wouldn't, then why do you currently support the UK having a constitutional monarchy?

 

[Tugay One Cup]

If people insist on clinging onto royalty then that's whatever but I just don't see any logical reason why it has to be a family. It's completed backward.

Once that horrible **** Charles croaks then I think it should be open for interview. At least make the candidates face each other in combat or something. Make them earn it and actually tick at least some sort of relevant criteria for the job other than not being the victim of the pull out method.

Would have been nice if we could have had this sorted for when Liz died because her son is a dickhead.

 

[Don Karleone]

If people insist on clinging onto royalty then that's whatever but I just don't see any logical reason why it has to be a family. It's completed backward.

Once that horrible **** Charles croaks then I think it should be open for interview. At least make the candidates face each other in combat or something. Make them earn it and actually tick at least some sort of relevant criteria for the job other than not being the victim of the pull out method.

Would have been nice if we could have had this sorted for when Liz died because her son is a dickhead.

Battle Royale style would be good. My money would be on Andrew, he gets away with all sorts. (Allegedly)

 

[Protein Junkie]

That's some fucking arse.

You’ve watched Underworld too ? :-)

 

[shemnel]

Bayern last night.

 

[threespires]

Be interesting to see how it plays out in a year or two. From the bits I've seen I think Charles can come over as an uptight, entitled, petulant and grumpy bloke who looks like deep down he'd rather be doing something else. Sensibly I think he tries to mask/moderate it but it still pops out regularly. Now he's got the top job it could go one of two ways, he'll either relax a bit more or he'll double down. If it's the latter it'll be interesting to see how people respond.

 

[Blue Maverick]

Be interesting to see how it plays out in a year or two. From the bits I've seen I think Charles can come over as an uptight, entitled, petulant and grumpy bloke who looks like deep down he'd rather be doing something else. Sensibly I think he tries to mask/moderate it but it still pops out regularly. Now he's got the top job it could go one of two ways, he'll either relax a bit more or he'll double down. If it's the latter it'll be interesting to see how people respond.

It popped out when he was doing the signing the other day!

 

[Blue and true]

View attachment 55706

Bayern last night.

Respect.

 

[Gabriel]

Charles is starting from a comparatively low base of support, and the harsh reality is that there is not enough sand in his egg timer for him to build anything like the rapport his mother enjoyed with society. He either accepts that and rules benignly until his son ascends, or he uses his time to be more proactive and involved in society. Going to be an interesting period not only for him but also for the future of the British monarchy.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Charles is starting from a comparatively low base of support, and the harsh reality is that there is not enough sand in his egg timer for him to build anything like the rapport his mother enjoyed with society. He either accepts that and rules benignly until his son ascends, or he uses his time to be more proactive and involved in society. Going to be an interesting period not only for him but also for the future of the British monarchy.

On the first rendition of God Save The KIng I thought of that newly elected Pope some years back who only lasted about a month. We could be stuck with another minutes silence when the match gets started after having our next coach gets wrecked down t' other end of the East Lancs.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

Why in 2022 do the Royal Family need to be kept relevant? For what and who's benefit?

“While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers(*) in royal upkeep comes to around £500m per year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5b to the British economy in the same timeframe.”

How much money does the royal family bring in tourism?

Each year, millions of tourists travel to the UK to visit its many historical royal landmarks

www.independent.co.uk

I read somewhere else this week that they’ve brought in over £18b to the Bitish economy over the last decade. All for £1.50 a year per person(*).

Well worth it.

If they want to live a life similar to permanently being on a reality TV show, constantly in the public eye, almost like real life Royal cartoon characters for the world to constantly gawp at (I couldn’t think of a worse way to live), to bring in so much money for the economy, then it’s a no brainer to keep them.

They are just an amusement product or tourist attraction that we use to bring in money to the country. Why would we get rid of something that brings in a lot more money money than it costs to run?


(* all of our taxes - every penny, every year - go straight to the country’s deficit so we actually don’t personally fund them at all)

 

[aguero93:20]

You’ve watched Underworld too ? :-)

Probably jacked off to it a few times tbf.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

“While the average annual cost for UK taxpayers(*) in royal upkeep comes to around £500m per year, Brand Finance estimates the monarchy’s brand contributes £2.5b to the British economy in the same timeframe.”

How much money does the royal family bring in tourism?

Each year, millions of tourists travel to the UK to visit its many historical royal landmarks

www.independent.co.uk

I read somewhere else this week that they’ve brought in over £18b to the Bitish economy over the last decade. All for £1.50 a year per person(*).

Well worth it.

If they want to live a life similar to permanently being on a reality TV show, constantly in the public eye, almost like real life Royal cartoon characters for the world to constantly gawp at (I couldn’t think of a worse way to live), to bring in so much money for the economy, then it’s a no brainer to keep them.

They are just an amusement product or tourist attraction that we use to bring in money to the country. Why would we get rid of something that brings in a lot more money money than it costs to run?


(* all of our taxes - every penny, every year - go straight to the country’s deficit so we actually don’t personally fund them at all)

It’s not a provable figure though. The figures £1.5B and £18B, two that I’ve seen in the past week are hugely different.

It seems that reports make up their own figures to suit whether they are pro or anti monarchy.

 

[Gabriel]

On the first rendition of God Save The KIng I thought of that newly elected Pope some years back who only lasted about a month. We could be stuck with another minutes silence when the match gets started after having our next coach gets wrecked down t' other end of the East Lancs.

John Paul I back in 1978. His rule was a mere 33 days, exactly the same tenure as Pope Coppell I (and last).

 

[Gabriel]

It’s not a provable figure though. The figures £1.5B and £18B, two that I’ve seen in the past week are hugely different.

It seems that reports make up their own figures to suit whether they are pro or anti monarchy.

One would imagine that if they really were such cash cows, then other countries would be stampeding to reinstate their monarchies and 'pomping up' their pageantry. Time perhaps for Zog II to get the tills singing in Tirana.