| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) 08:42 - May 25 with 5862 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 08:48 - May 25 with 3623 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Fair play to admitting a change in view.
Is interest in the royal wedding any more odd than millions of men obsessing about 11 other men they don't know kicking a ball around? [Post edited 25 May 2018 8:49]
|  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 08:53 - May 25 with 3607 views | Keno |
Good post Dolly!!
xx |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:10 - May 25 with 3570 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 08:48 - May 25 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Fair play to admitting a change in view.
Is interest in the royal wedding any more odd than millions of men obsessing about 11 other men they don't know kicking a ball around? [Post edited 25 May 2018 8:49]
|
I dunno. I feel like sport is a bit different. It's a tribal thing. Then again I guess loyalty to the royals is a tribal thing too.
Maybe there's been a psychological study on it? | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:17 - May 25 with 3558 views | itfcjoe |
They are something that is so ingrained in soceity that it's hard to truly tell the financial benefit or cost of them - and things like a 2 hour prime time advert for the UK tourist board in every country in the world is hard to put a price on.
I can totally understand a republicans view point, but do think the point about how they got there is now a bit irrelevant as so much time has past.
On a separate but similar note I heard a fascinating quote from the book Sapiens about whether Empires like the British Empire are Good or Evil:
“In truth, neither the narrative of oppression and exploitation nor that of ‘the White Man’s burden’ completely matches the facts. The European empires did so many different things on such a large scale, that you can find plenty of examples to support whatever you want to say about them. You think that these empires were evil monstrosities that spread death, oppression and injustice around the world? You could easily fill an encyclopedia with their crimes. You want to argue that they in fact improved the conditions of their subjects with new medicines, better economic conditions and greater security? You could fill another encyclopedia with their achievements. Due to their close cooperation with science, these empires wielded so much power and changed the world to such an extent that perhaps they cannot be simply labelled as good or evil. They created the world as we know it, including the ideologies we use in order to judge them.
I almost think the royal family is similar in a way here. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:29 - May 25 with 3514 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
All very well if you regard us as UK P.L.C ? Fair does for a public change of view though. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:54 - May 25 with 3489 views | Herbivore |
I still want rid of them. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:08 - May 25 with 3459 views | MattinLondon |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:54 - May 25 by Herbivore |
I still want rid of them. |
The royal family is a bit like mick. Every other club (country) tells us how much they respect them and how fortunate we are to have them - but no one else really wants them. |  | | |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:10 - May 25 with 3457 views | connorscontract |
There's also the additional benefit of having stability provided by a permanent Head of State. The Queen is somewhere between a Ceremonial Head of State (as some countries have) and a Political Head of State, as many do.
In Britain the Executive (Government) is totally bound into the Legislature (Parliament), whereas in the US the President is the Executive and Head of State, and the Legislature (Congress) totally distinct. This led to complete paralysis under Obama and a current President who is largely rendering Congress (and all normal political processes and rules) impotent.
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.
So the Queen is also a guarantor that the rules will be followed.
Each other branch of state power (Parliament, Military, Judiciary, Police and Security Services) make oaths of loyalty to the Queen as Head of State and she in turn guarantees their independence.
Emotionally, and theoretically, I'm a republican, but the British system just works, although how much of that is just down to the fact that our Queen has taken it so seriously and been dedicated to it is another question. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:11 - May 25 with 3447 views | 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. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:12 - May 25 with 3443 views | Herbivore |
| 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. |
You do make me chuckle. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:14 - May 25 with 3434 views | chicoazul |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:10 - May 25 by connorscontract |
There's also the additional benefit of having stability provided by a permanent Head of State. The Queen is somewhere between a Ceremonial Head of State (as some countries have) and a Political Head of State, as many do.
In Britain the Executive (Government) is totally bound into the Legislature (Parliament), whereas in the US the President is the Executive and Head of State, and the Legislature (Congress) totally distinct. This led to complete paralysis under Obama and a current President who is largely rendering Congress (and all normal political processes and rules) impotent.
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.
So the Queen is also a guarantor that the rules will be followed.
Each other branch of state power (Parliament, Military, Judiciary, Police and Security Services) make oaths of loyalty to the Queen as Head of State and she in turn guarantees their independence.
Emotionally, and theoretically, I'm a republican, but the British system just works, although how much of that is just down to the fact that our Queen has taken it so seriously and been dedicated to it is another question. |
Good post in general. Theoretically you can be what like but as you rightly observe, the system we *actually* have works very well. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:17 - May 25 with 3427 views | chicoazul |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:12 - May 25 by Herbivore |
You do make me chuckle. |
Once the Maximum Leader gets in in 4 years, and Prince Brian takes over from Liz, and together they work to continue to destroy all that is good about our sceptered isle, i'll still be here to say I told you so and make you chuckle some more. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:31 - May 25 with 3394 views | Herbivore |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:17 - May 25 by chicoazul |
Once the Maximum Leader gets in in 4 years, and Prince Brian takes over from Liz, and together they work to continue to destroy all that is good about our sceptered isle, i'll still be here to say I told you so and make you chuckle some more. |
You're so conservative that it verges on parody. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:36 - May 25 with 3385 views | 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 |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:36 - May 25 with 3383 views | connorscontract |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:14 - May 25 by chicoazul |
Good post in general. Theoretically you can be what like but as you rightly observe, the system we *actually* have works very well. |
It's perfectly possible to have an elected Head of State who serves as guarantor of independence of the judiciary etc, but *if* we were ever to go down that route, because of the stability inherent in the current system, I would want an elected President to be elected on a much longer term than the 5 yearly Parliamentary cycle.
For example: President for 20 years, with an elected Deputy President who succeeds on the death of the President to oversee the interregnum, but can't stand for President themselves and reverts to Deputy on the election of the new President.
Which all sounds horrendously complicated and very un-British. Just typing "President" in that context felt wrong.
The problem will come when we have a King or Queen mired in scandal, or if a succession occurs with a younger King or Queen succeeding who wouldn't be able to be a young adult and grow up healthily whilst also living up to the pressures of the role, or take the time and space William and Kate did by disappearing to Anglesey for a few years.
We've been bloody lucky to have had the Queen we've had. | | | |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:40 - May 25 with 3375 views | Lord_Lucan |
I accept your apology.
It's nice to change ones mind now and again, it proves you have a brain.
Take a Haribo from the jar! |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:41 - May 25 with 3374 views | chicoazul |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:31 - May 25 by Herbivore |
You're so conservative that it verges on parody. |
Small c, definitely! | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:52 - May 25 with 3353 views | MattinLondon |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:54 - May 25 by Herbivore |
I still want rid of them. |
Think you should know your place and because of an accident of both knell down before them and show complete respect. Just due to an accident of birth. | | | |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 12:59 - May 25 with 3287 views | Ryorry |
Fair dos Dolly  |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 13:04 - May 25 with 3271 views | Swansea_Blue |
Seriously? You didn't realise they made a positive contribution previously?
I thought that was pretty well known, and besides even acknowledging that isn't inconsistent with thinking that the hysteria around the wedding was a bit excessive. |  |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:24 - May 25 with 3176 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 13:04 - May 25 by Swansea_Blue |
Seriously? You didn't realise they made a positive contribution previously?
I thought that was pretty well known, and besides even acknowledging that isn't inconsistent with thinking that the hysteria around the wedding was a bit excessive. |
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. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:24 - May 25 with 3174 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:29 - May 25 by BanksterDebtSlave |
All very well if you regard us as UK P.L.C ? Fair does for a public change of view though. |
Money makes the world go round. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:25 - May 25 with 3173 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 09:54 - May 25 by Herbivore |
I still want rid of them. |
Care to elaborate? | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:26 - May 25 with 3171 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:08 - May 25 by MattinLondon |
The royal family is a bit like mick. Every other club (country) tells us how much they respect them and how fortunate we are to have them - but no one else really wants them. |
That clearly isn't the case if you watch the UK hysteria around every royal event. | |
| |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 17:29 - May 25 with 3164 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Just to prove I can change my tune - the royals (part 2) on 10:10 - May 25 by connorscontract |
There's also the additional benefit of having stability provided by a permanent Head of State. The Queen is somewhere between a Ceremonial Head of State (as some countries have) and a Political Head of State, as many do.
In Britain the Executive (Government) is totally bound into the Legislature (Parliament), whereas in the US the President is the Executive and Head of State, and the Legislature (Congress) totally distinct. This led to complete paralysis under Obama and a current President who is largely rendering Congress (and all normal political processes and rules) impotent.
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.
So the Queen is also a guarantor that the rules will be followed.
Each other branch of state power (Parliament, Military, Judiciary, Police and Security Services) make oaths of loyalty to the Queen as Head of State and she in turn guarantees their independence.
Emotionally, and theoretically, I'm a republican, but the British system just works, although how much of that is just down to the fact that our Queen has taken it so seriously and been dedicated to it is another question. |
"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? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
