| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) 08:42 - May 25 with 5858 views | BrixtonBlue |
I've just been reading this on a friend's wall on facebook, and I now see the royals do actually benefit the country. I'll always be a little uncomfortable about how they got there, but as some of you said on here, that was a very long time ago and nothing to do with the current people in the hot seat(s).
"Analyst house Brand Finance estimates the royal family contribute £1.8 billion per annum to the UK economy. The total annual cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is £292 million. The total monetary value of the monarchy, including its tangible assets as well as the value of its brand, is £67.5bn. Only £550 million is a boost to tourism, £150 million to brand support on international trade, and a massive amount on royal patronage of UK businesses, official Royal Warrants or high-profile visits to events.
The value internationally is under-appreciated in the UK - I was in Canada on business at the start of the month, and coverage on TV there was wall-to-wall then, with programs advertised leading right up to the event. When Catherine has another baby, everything she chooses - prams, clothes, bottles, etc sells out with immediate effect - not so much in the UK but online demand from US, Japan etc.
I attempted to ignore the royal wedding this weekend, but failed as I had to take the kids up to the park for the party. The pubs and shops were selling out of alcohol fast, all of which will be taxed. Data from the Office for National Statistics showed retail sales volumes rose 1.1% month-on-month in April, 2011, when William and Kate tied the knot, especially in food and drink.
CBS was quoted this weekend as the wedding generating $1 billion for the UK economy.
Whilst I don't care about the Royals, they are a considerable asset for the UK internationally, and a profit making machine for the UK."
So there you have it. Pretty conclusive I thought. The furore over royal weddings still seems a bit odd to me, but maybe I'd have got into it like my mum gets into football when the world cup's on, despite hating it the rest of the time. You get swept up in a national event.
Anyway, the royals can stay. God save The Queen. |  |
| |  |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:31 - May 25 with 2215 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:11 - May 25 by chicoazul |
An awful neoliberal interpretation of value. It's not at all about money, it's about important things like tradition and authority and law. |
Authority and law don't require a Queen anymore than being a good person requires religion.
No idea why tradition is important. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:33 - May 25 with 2215 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:36 - May 25 by Bluefish |
I always had you down as the most impressionable poster on the board anyway
It is utter rubbish. The tourist visit here because of the history of the monarchy and they still will long after they have gone. The concept is disgustingly outdated, they are just people like all of us and no one should worship them or be in awe of them. If one of them does or becomes someone incredible then fair enough but being born into that doesn't make You better.
They are a disgusting drain on resources we should get rid of them and like the buildings proper tourist attractions.
I wont drive through any French tunnels for a while after writing this and hopefully I won't suddenly have a dodgy heart either |
Some people say I'm too rigid, won't be swayed, debating with me is pointless etc... and here you are saying I'm the most impressionable poster on the board!
I literally can't win!
"They are a disgusting drain on resources"... does my post not prove otherwise? | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:36 - May 25 with 2201 views | BloomBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:31 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
Authority and law don't require a Queen anymore than being a good person requires religion.
No idea why tradition is important. |
Bit like when Town fans talk about the 'Ipswich way'; no idea why tradition is important |  | | |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:38 - May 25 with 2205 views | chicoazul |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:31 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
Authority and law don't require a Queen anymore than being a good person requires religion.
No idea why tradition is important. |
Oh I know you have no idea about that don't worry. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:42 - May 25 with 2196 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:38 - May 25 by chicoazul |
Oh I know you have no idea about that don't worry. |
When I said I don't know I meant it isn't.
With the amount of 'traditions' that have rightly died out, anyone who thinks tradition is important is a fool. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:43 - May 25 with 2194 views | Herbivore |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:25 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
Care to elaborate? |
The economic arguments aren't enough to convince me that a monarchy is a good thing. They're highly speculative for one thing but more importantly they don't address the fact that it's an outdated institution that is the embodiment of the worst of western culture in terms of venerating wealth and privilege. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:47 - May 25 with 2184 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:43 - May 25 by Herbivore |
The economic arguments aren't enough to convince me that a monarchy is a good thing. They're highly speculative for one thing but more importantly they don't address the fact that it's an outdated institution that is the embodiment of the worst of western culture in terms of venerating wealth and privilege. |
Your last point is a fair one. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:48 - May 25 with 2183 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:43 - May 25 by Herbivore |
The economic arguments aren't enough to convince me that a monarchy is a good thing. They're highly speculative for one thing but more importantly they don't address the fact that it's an outdated institution that is the embodiment of the worst of western culture in terms of venerating wealth and privilege. |
 |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:52 - May 25 with 2180 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:24 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
Money makes the world go round. |
Or facilitates/encourages its destruction.....take your pick! |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:53 - May 25 with 2177 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:25 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
Care to elaborate? |
Fairly sure he means this......
 | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:59 - May 25 with 2169 views | Herbivore |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:48 - May 25 by Lord_Lucan |
|
Ha! | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 18:01 - May 25 with 2167 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:24 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
I didn't know the figures. I'd heard arguments for and against. Hadn't seen such a detailed breakdown as this.
As I've said, I still find the hysteria around the wedding odd. |
That’s ok then. As long as you still find royal watchers odd you’re still sane  |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 18:01 - May 25 with 2167 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:52 - May 25 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Or facilitates/encourages its destruction.....take your pick! |
We have it though, whether you like it or not. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 18:39 - May 25 with 2137 views | HARRY10 |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:29 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
"In Britain if the Government loses the support of Parliament then the Queen (as Head of State outside the political process and therefore immune from re-election pressures herself) dissolves the Government and asks somebody else to form one, or asks the Prime Minister to call a General Election."
In practice, has this ever happened? And with the branches of state power you mention, surely all of those would be just fine without the Queen's involvement? Surely the oaths are nice, traditional ceremonies and largely meaningless? |
Up to 2011
"Hypothetically, yes she could, whether she would is another matter entirely. The Queen, over the past 65 odd years, has observed the unwritten constitution of the UK, so, unless it was something major or unexpected, it would even then, be doubtful.
The interesting thing is that the military and police forces swear allegiance to the monarch, not to parliament or to the executive in Parliament. Which means that if the military decided to remove a rogue government, it would happen in her name. Again, it is very doubtful if the military would bite the hand that feeds it. And it would also require the willing connivance of the Civil Service to continue running the administration of government, which considering the reputation of the civil service in maintaining the status quo of the 1800's is looking unlikely."
As the fixed term parliament act of 2011 meant that 2/3rds of MPs had to agree if it was before 5 years. So although it is given as Theresa May calling the 2017 election, that decision could only be enacted if Parliament agreed.
As to the Royal Family it is not the money it is what they represent, which is a negation of meritocracy. I doubt anyone on here would want Mark Thatcher as PM, or some top brain surgeon's adult child inheriting his job either.
You cannot divorce how they got here, or bleat about how out of date the House of Lords is, from how much power is still handed down.
What you can do though is have a good look at the pics of King Juan Carlos of Spain and William Windsor |  | | |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 18:40 - May 25 with 2137 views | Bluefish |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:33 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
Some people say I'm too rigid, won't be swayed, debating with me is pointless etc... and here you are saying I'm the most impressionable poster on the board!
I literally can't win!
"They are a disgusting drain on resources"... does my post not prove otherwise? |
No it doesn't. We spend fortunes to get tourism that we would get anyway. We also miss out on huge extra revenue. Sell the buildings and the jewels and plug the brexit gap and solve some poverty. I wouldn't cross the road to see the queen but i would drive miles to look at "her" houses |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 19:30 - May 25 with 2123 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 18:40 - May 25 by Bluefish |
No it doesn't. We spend fortunes to get tourism that we would get anyway. We also miss out on huge extra revenue. Sell the buildings and the jewels and plug the brexit gap and solve some poverty. I wouldn't cross the road to see the queen but i would drive miles to look at "her" houses |
But as has been said, royal events like the one we've just had are seen by millions all over the world and help maintain the brand. Even Haribo has to maintain its brand.
From the figures I posted it does appear we're financially better off, if nothing else, with the royals in place. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 21:25 - May 25 with 2102 views | connorscontract |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:29 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
"In Britain if the Government loses the support of Parliament then the Queen (as Head of State outside the political process and therefore immune from re-election pressures herself) dissolves the Government and asks somebody else to form one, or asks the Prime Minister to call a General Election."
In practice, has this ever happened? And with the branches of state power you mention, surely all of those would be just fine without the Queen's involvement? Surely the oaths are nice, traditional ceremonies and largely meaningless? |
Yes, it has happened any time a Government has lost a vote of Confidence. List here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of_no_confidence_in_the_United_Kingdom
The bar for this used to be just a simple defeat: Callaghan lost a Vote of No Confidence in 1979 by just one vote, and the result was the General Election that Thatcher won.
It hasn't always led to a General Election: if an alternative leader can command the confidence of the Commons then the Queen can ask them to form a new Government.
Many other countries have a different system, and their legislature and judiciary get along fine. But the fact that the Queen has to sign off on every Act of Parliament, for example every Declaration of War, is a theoretical safeguard.
There would be many members of HM Armed Forces who would deny very strongly that the oaths are meaningless. | | | |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 21:35 - May 25 with 2096 views | Bluefish |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 19:30 - May 25 by BrixtonBlue |
But as has been said, royal events like the one we've just had are seen by millions all over the world and help maintain the brand. Even Haribo has to maintain its brand.
From the figures I posted it does appear we're financially better off, if nothing else, with the royals in place. |
If a busker played in Hyde park would he get the credit for the 100k people walking through that day? | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 01:39 - May 26 with 2064 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 21:35 - May 25 by Bluefish |
If a busker played in Hyde park would he get the credit for the 100k people walking through that day? |
That analogy makes no sense. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 14:54 - May 27 with 1996 views | DiceMan |
''a considerable asset for the UK internationally, and a profit making machine for the UK."
You could say the same about the Arms Trade, which is worth billions of £'s to the UK economy. Just because something has a financial benefit doesn't make it right. it's disgraceful that we sell weapons to repressive regimes, and put profit ahead of human rights.
The Royals are so out of touch with society. These scumbags kill animals for entertainment I would be happy to get rid of the royal family, but I know that's not going to happen. However, we could at least follow Denmark's example, and cut funding for the minor royals. These minor royals cost millions of pounds each year, which is unacceptable, especially when public services are being squeezed. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 15:35 - May 27 with 1982 views | slideaway |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 14:54 - May 27 by DiceMan |
''a considerable asset for the UK internationally, and a profit making machine for the UK."
You could say the same about the Arms Trade, which is worth billions of £'s to the UK economy. Just because something has a financial benefit doesn't make it right. it's disgraceful that we sell weapons to repressive regimes, and put profit ahead of human rights.
The Royals are so out of touch with society. These scumbags kill animals for entertainment I would be happy to get rid of the royal family, but I know that's not going to happen. However, we could at least follow Denmark's example, and cut funding for the minor royals. These minor royals cost millions of pounds each year, which is unacceptable, especially when public services are being squeezed. |
I take it you would have the same view if you were born into the Royal Family and took advantage of all the benefits. You would step away from it wouldn't you? Of course not.
I do agree with you that just because sometihng makes money does not make it right. But you could dissolve the royal family but you would never be able to see where the funds are redistributed, if they even would be in that case. I think people need to get over it and stop being bitter over the royal family to be honest. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
