The British Crown is a useless anachronism.

@Fil Albuquerque,

I "opt for this approach" because you so often just make **** up and throw it out there, then try to behave as though it were defensible. I'm not explosive, i'm contemptuous of seeing yet more of your fantasy bullshit.

I've already provided what one might call my "insight" on this topic. It's hardly my fault that you seem to have missed that.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

...further I am honestly convinced I said more on 2 or 3 posts on the nature of Royalty as you said as I go along then you could possibly say in your entire life...but then to each its own.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I "opt for this approach" because you so often just make **** up and throw it out there, then try to behave as though it were defensible. I'm not explosive, i'm contemptuous of seeing yet more of your fantasy bullshit.

I've already provided what one might call my "insight" on this topic. It's hardly my fault that you seem to have missed that.

No you didn't, and the following sentence puts you reasoning miles away of my approach on this matter let me quote myself back there:

Royalty represents the visible image of power and there are of course all sorts of power beyond the traditional monochromatic conception of State.

...in fact its not my fault that you constantly show inability of going beyond formal definitions...as I see it you are just another 20 century relic !

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

It's all for show, is all.

that's not the impression I get when I read former Brit prime ministers' autobiographies - the current monarch is apparently a pretty good guide - a smart woman with excellent institutional knowledge

~~~

Separately, the royal family provides good value for money - they put more into the Brit economy directly than they take out - and they're still a good revenue creator by way of their tourism value

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4121170.stm

http://news.sky.com/story/795150/monarchy-still-a-draw-to-overseas-visitors

Quote:

The Royal Family and its heritage brings in more than £500 m of revenue a year from overseas tourists, a new report has found.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/7850335/The-Royal-family-is-a-bargain-for-Britain.html

Quote:

The Civil List was established in 1760, when George III surrendered the income from the Crown Estate to the government in exchange for a fixed annual payment from the Treasury. The taxpayer gained an exceptional bargain from that arrangement: last year, total government spending on all functions of the monarchy amounted to £7.9 million from the Civil List, £22.6 million in grants-in-aid for communications, travel and property from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and £4.6 million from other departments. That total of £35.1 million is dwarfed by the £226.5 million profit passed to the Treasury by the Crown Estate.

so they contribute somewhere around £720,000,000 to the British economy for a cost of about £35,000,000.

That's a pretty good return.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

The Royals themselves couldn't have cared less about either the dead Princess or the British People.

I think you've been watching too many telenovellas.

Seriously.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

We got rid of all the Kings or Ireland 300 years ago,

who cares?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I've already provided what one might call my "insight" on this topic. It's hardly my fault that you seem to have missed that.

I think we all did.

0 Replies

@contrex,

contrex wrote:

izzythepush wrote:

So would you like a system like America where the president is independent of Parliament?

Well, I'm not sure if that's what I meant; I would like a system like France or Germany.

I don't know if I'd prefer those systems either. It's not getting rid of the Royal Family that I have a problem with, it's what we should replace it with.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

I'd be a little wary of the Telegraph on this matter, they are quite an establishment paper. Does the figure you quote take into account income from the Duchy of Cornwell, because I don't think Charles should have that in the first place?

2 Replies

Oh my god, I decided what my problem is:
I don't about any silly twits whether they are in the United Kingdom or Hollywood.

(The easiest, and probably only, way to beat me in Trivial Pursuit is to ask me which starlet was married to which ape in an open white shirt.)

Ehbeth answered the question well: the Royals apparently earn their keep through tourism just as American heart-throbs do it by pumping money into the film and television industry, advertising and the collection of gewgaws.

Still, there is the entitlement thing: you get to be a Royal because of who your great-grandad shagged. In order to become a king of Hollywood,you got to shag and be shagged in several different ways AND then there is no guarantee that you will stay King unlike the Royals who cannot be ignored into non-existence, kings of Hollywood can disappear faster than a chocolate cake at party for Paula Deen.

Joe (Whatever happened to Matthew McConaughey??) Nation

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

Ha!

Joe(The dead kings do)Nation

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

At the end of the day, you're far more bothered about it than we are.

I've always found it hard to understand how anyone could get all worked up about the Royals one way or the other.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

True Kings come and go as well, all it takes and all you ever needed was peoples will to send them away which often they did...it is not trivial to recognize royalty as the expression of a human need for symbol although it might be trivial to easily point towards Hollywood to provide an example...my bad.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Actually, Izzy, I'm not worked up about the subject at all.

It's a curiosity for me. All this pomp, horses and trumpets, carriages and footmen ~all from a time long distant~paraded out to honor some people who really have done nothing more than pop out of a particularly right vagina.

That's why I asked the question about the necessity of the Royals. Ehbeth showed, if we can believe her sources, that they bring in money, but they aren't really necessary, they are just nice to have. That seems weak to me.

If some DNA disorder arose tomorrow and it swept through all the blood related and marriage related Royals all the way to 12th cousin. (That would be a lot of people.) Do you think there would be a coronation,?? or would people say "Alright, enough of that, let's just stick with adoring footballers and torch singers."

Joe(Let's have Adele sing first)Nation

4 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

That's why I asked the question about the necessity of the Royals. Ehbeth showed, if we can believe her sources, that they bring in money, but they aren't really necessary, they are just nice to have.

So you really indulge in the idea that huge amounts of money can come from a minor necessity...if anything from cars to cheese to champagne all that sells in the world sells at expense of being "noble"...weather noble constitutes any true value is of course a matter of perspective or in simple terms a matter of culture...we all are just a collection of chimp gangs...and we all want to sell the idea our group is the most royal in line...you bet your ass that wont go away any time soon...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

we all are just a collection of chimp gangs

I love this.

Joe(My group's asses are bluer than yours)Nation

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

you haven't seen my ass yet, and I wont show you for sure...
(not just for obvious reasons as I am straight but because you might be right)
...people wear cloths cars and castles for a reason... Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

You were worked up enough to start a thread about it. For you it's a curiosity, for us it's rather humdrum and everyday. You ask about their necessity, but you could flip that round and ask why is it necessary to remove them.

It's not just the Royal family that's anachronistic, but the whole system of government. The recent attempt to reform the House of Lords by the ConDems was dropped because it would have been defeated by an alliance of Tory backbenchers and the Labour Party. It was seen by both as a cynical attempt by the Liberal party to get all their MPs who will be wiped out at the next election seats in the second PR elected chamber.

Throughout all of this, people were pointing out, that in the country at large, nobody really gives a **** about Lords reform, and most people don't give a **** about the Royal Family. There are far more important things to worry about.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I found about a half dozen sources for the numbers in the first page of google hits (there are tons of articles on the subject) - the fine details vary but the bottom line ends up in about the same place

the Duchy of Cornwall barely factors in (at least from the links I looked at)

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

I'd be a little wary of the Telegraph on this matter, they are quite an establishment paper.

the Telegraph actually had about the highest numbers for the cost of keeping the Royals - other sources had lower numbers, resulting in a much better than 20+:1 ratio

0 Replies

The British Crown is a useless anachronism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know