| The Royal family are so irrelevant 19:16 - Apr 10 with 10497 views | Bluefish |
Moving matches for that is so ridiculous
The contest to grieve the loudest continues
RIP old man but there is no tragedy |  |
| |  |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 09:42 - Apr 12 with 1747 views | dickie |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 23:56 - Apr 11 by Churchman |
My gut feeling is that the Royal Family are pretty popular, but I don’t know. If they are, much of that may be due to lack of viable alternatives when you look at the likes of idiot Trump and Emperor Macron.
Personally I have never been a monarchist. It’s not about the individuals, but a constitutional/support of privilege thing for me, which I believe is out of kilter with the 21st century. I’d definitely have been on the Parliamentarians side (New Model Army n all that jazz)- without the banning of Christmas and fun stuff that Cromwell and the Puritan gang were into.
It’ll be on the tv at home because the misses will want to see it. No problem, each to their own. I’ll be able to read up on our fine 4-0 win at Charlton....ahem |
I've got no problem having a royal family per se, I just begrudge the tax payer funding them. We're always told how much more they bring in than they cost - well if that's the case let them pay tax and keep the profits for themselves.
That said, irrespective of who they are you have to feel for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years. |  | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 09:58 - Apr 12 with 1720 views | Churchman |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 09:42 - Apr 12 by dickie |
I've got no problem having a royal family per se, I just begrudge the tax payer funding them. We're always told how much more they bring in than they cost - well if that's the case let them pay tax and keep the profits for themselves.
That said, irrespective of who they are you have to feel for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years. |
Absolutely. Tough for her. My dad lost my mum after 66 years of marriage and know how hard it is. Must be a sight tougher when you are in the public eye. It’s always sad when people lose people, though it’s different when somebody has led a full life as opposed to a child. A child’s funeral is just the worst. My comments about the monarchy were a principle rather than the personal.
I agree regarding the funding. I’ve never understood the idea that they bring in tourism either. I’ve been to Versailles etc and I didn’t need a live monarch to go. |  | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 10:42 - Apr 12 with 1696 views | itfcjoe |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 09:58 - Apr 12 by Churchman |
Absolutely. Tough for her. My dad lost my mum after 66 years of marriage and know how hard it is. Must be a sight tougher when you are in the public eye. It’s always sad when people lose people, though it’s different when somebody has led a full life as opposed to a child. A child’s funeral is just the worst. My comments about the monarchy were a principle rather than the personal.
I agree regarding the funding. I’ve never understood the idea that they bring in tourism either. I’ve been to Versailles etc and I didn’t need a live monarch to go. |
There is tourism directly affected by them - i.e. the Royal weddings where people from all over the globe come for......plus those pictures are beamed all over the world in primetime which is good free advertising for UK PLC.
I wonder how much tourism boards of countries pay to sponsor the news in the States with the little clips going in and out of the news? But things like Harry and William's respective weddings must have been a huge boon to the countries coffers, and the reach of them was almost unquantifiable.
Their soft-politicking around the world and the commonwealth as well must be very valuable.
Guess it's hard to know how the figures balance up against each other, and no doubt impossible to figure out - but doubt it is as clear cut as anyone on either side would present |  |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 10:47 - Apr 12 with 1684 views | Radlett_blue |
Cricket matches are supposed to stop for an hour on Saturday. Perhaps they can take a "late lunch" or combined lunch & tea interval.
I hope recreational cricket ignores the recommendation. If players don't want to play on Saturday, they can make themselves unavailable. |  |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 10:56 - Apr 12 with 1676 views | HARRY10 |
I doubt that projecting ourselves as some Ruritanian backwater makes a jot of difference to trade.
However, what they represent goes against modern democracy, irrespective if how nice they are personally, or what 'work' they do. It is the institution, that is out of place ,and step.
It is only recently that royals have begun to pay tax, and that hereditary Lords have been removed from Parliament. The country needs to continue moving towards being a meritocracy, and away from privilege.
As to the rest, I am sure the country can afford the pomp and ceremony, the spectacle etc. What it cannot afford is to cling to outdated practices when running the country | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:06 - Apr 12 with 1668 views | brazil1982 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 09:42 - Apr 12 by dickie |
I've got no problem having a royal family per se, I just begrudge the tax payer funding them. We're always told how much more they bring in than they cost - well if that's the case let them pay tax and keep the profits for themselves.
That said, irrespective of who they are you have to feel for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years. |
The Queen does pay tax - income tax, VAT, capital gains. The Sovereign is mainly funded by the Sovereign Grant which is used for the maintenance of the Royal Residences. Having a President probably wouldn't change much of this cost (it is estimated the French President "costs" more than our Sovereign).
The Sovereign's expenses - official and personal - are funded by the Duchy of Lancaster which is an income from a portfolio of property held in trust for the Sovereign.
The Crown Estate which manages Sovereign assets, is a huge portfolio of land, property, energy etc. This contributes millions of £ to the Treasury.
The Queen, now, is the only recipient of the "Civil List". |  | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:10 - Apr 12 with 1659 views | MattinLondon |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 09:42 - Apr 12 by dickie |
I've got no problem having a royal family per se, I just begrudge the tax payer funding them. We're always told how much more they bring in than they cost - well if that's the case let them pay tax and keep the profits for themselves.
That said, irrespective of who they are you have to feel for the Queen losing her husband of 73 years. |
For me, the actual individuals seem to do a good job but it’s the institution itself which angers me. Just because of an accident of birth people are expected to bow down to them and call them Sir etc.
I know that a live of privilege can mean no privacy whatsoever but fundamentally, for me, it’s the absolute acceptance of it all that renders it unacceptable. And it’s not just totality, it’s hereditary peers and the way the honours system is used by politicians to backscratch their mates.
Royalists claim that they bring in a lot of tourism but people don’t go to Spain for their monarch or go to France because of they are a republic. |  | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:20 - Apr 12 with 1644 views | HARRY10 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:06 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
The Queen does pay tax - income tax, VAT, capital gains. The Sovereign is mainly funded by the Sovereign Grant which is used for the maintenance of the Royal Residences. Having a President probably wouldn't change much of this cost (it is estimated the French President "costs" more than our Sovereign).
The Sovereign's expenses - official and personal - are funded by the Duchy of Lancaster which is an income from a portfolio of property held in trust for the Sovereign.
The Crown Estate which manages Sovereign assets, is a huge portfolio of land, property, energy etc. This contributes millions of £ to the Treasury.
The Queen, now, is the only recipient of the "Civil List". |
If you understood the history and ownership of the Crown Estates you would not have written the above. And while you pack away your violin I will leave this for others to read
"In 2012, when George Osborne was Chancellor, the system of royal support was changed, meaning the Royals now benefit from income from land and property called the Crown Estates.
Since 1760, that income had all gone to the government — and so indirectly to the taxpayer.
But from now on, under the new ‘Sovereign Grant Act’ of 2011, 25 per cent of it goes to the Royal Family instead.
That single decision has seen money from the civil list - the money given to the Queen to pay for the monarchy — rise by an eye-popping amount, from £7.9 million in 2010 to £82.8 million last year.
What's more, this property portfolio includes the seabed round our coast where a huge number of windfarms are planned. This is likely to bring in another £100 million a year for the Queen."
The latter should not be handed over to any private person but should be used for the greater good of the public, if only to be re-invested in renewable energy. [Post edited 12 Apr 2021 11:26]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:22 - Apr 12 with 1639 views | Radlett_blue |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:06 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
The Queen does pay tax - income tax, VAT, capital gains. The Sovereign is mainly funded by the Sovereign Grant which is used for the maintenance of the Royal Residences. Having a President probably wouldn't change much of this cost (it is estimated the French President "costs" more than our Sovereign).
The Sovereign's expenses - official and personal - are funded by the Duchy of Lancaster which is an income from a portfolio of property held in trust for the Sovereign.
The Crown Estate which manages Sovereign assets, is a huge portfolio of land, property, energy etc. This contributes millions of £ to the Treasury.
The Queen, now, is the only recipient of the "Civil List". |
While the Queen does (voluntarily) pay some income tax, Royal finances are generally kept very secretive and shrouded in huge tax breaks e.g. none of them pay any inheritance tax. Exactly who owns the huge, profitable estates belonging to the Duchy of Lancaster & the Duchy of Cornwall has also never been made clear. Royalists love trotting out that "the Queen costs each citizen 50p a year" based on the Civil List, but this is complete obfuscation as other huge costs, such as security, are ignored. | |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:28 - Apr 12 with 1622 views | blue62 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 19:45 - Apr 10 by Bluefish |
It has never happened in my lifetime so a bit of a nonsense to claim traditions. If we are going back hundreds of years for royal traditions you will have a shock |
Unless you're under 18, there were no fixtures on the funeral of Princess Diana. |  | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:33 - Apr 12 with 1609 views | MattinLondon |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:28 - Apr 12 by blue62 |
Unless you're under 18, there were no fixtures on the funeral of Princess Diana. |
Weren’t they rearranged for the following day? | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant (n/t) on 11:50 - Apr 12 with 1588 views | HARRY10 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:28 - Apr 12 by blue62 |
Unless you're under 18, there were no fixtures on the funeral of Princess Diana. |
| | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 13:18 - Apr 12 with 1539 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 10:42 - Apr 12 by itfcjoe |
There is tourism directly affected by them - i.e. the Royal weddings where people from all over the globe come for......plus those pictures are beamed all over the world in primetime which is good free advertising for UK PLC.
I wonder how much tourism boards of countries pay to sponsor the news in the States with the little clips going in and out of the news? But things like Harry and William's respective weddings must have been a huge boon to the countries coffers, and the reach of them was almost unquantifiable.
Their soft-politicking around the world and the commonwealth as well must be very valuable.
Guess it's hard to know how the figures balance up against each other, and no doubt impossible to figure out - but doubt it is as clear cut as anyone on either side would present |
Do people around the world really look on a royal wedding like they would a country's tourism advert?
And if you got rid of the royal family, would people around the world say, "Well I'm not going to the UK now?"
They are a tourist attraction, no doubt, but to say they actually draw in tourism is a bit far fetched IMO. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 14:41 - Apr 12 with 1508 views | jeera |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 13:18 - Apr 12 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Do people around the world really look on a royal wedding like they would a country's tourism advert?
And if you got rid of the royal family, would people around the world say, "Well I'm not going to the UK now?"
They are a tourist attraction, no doubt, but to say they actually draw in tourism is a bit far fetched IMO. |
There can't be enough Royal weddings to make it viable, you'd need one a fortnight.
The concept is absolutely ridiculous and it's incredible the support the institution still gets in this day and age.
There you go, it is ingrained apparently. We are subservient to the point we will look for ways to justify its existence. |  |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 14:59 - Apr 12 with 1490 views | brazil1982 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 13:18 - Apr 12 by The_Flashing_Smile |
Do people around the world really look on a royal wedding like they would a country's tourism advert?
And if you got rid of the royal family, would people around the world say, "Well I'm not going to the UK now?"
They are a tourist attraction, no doubt, but to say they actually draw in tourism is a bit far fetched IMO. |
I do think they influence some of the tourist income, yes. Influence in business is also considerable. | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 15:09 - Apr 12 with 1473 views | brazil1982 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 11:20 - Apr 12 by HARRY10 |
If you understood the history and ownership of the Crown Estates you would not have written the above. And while you pack away your violin I will leave this for others to read
"In 2012, when George Osborne was Chancellor, the system of royal support was changed, meaning the Royals now benefit from income from land and property called the Crown Estates.
Since 1760, that income had all gone to the government — and so indirectly to the taxpayer.
But from now on, under the new ‘Sovereign Grant Act’ of 2011, 25 per cent of it goes to the Royal Family instead.
That single decision has seen money from the civil list - the money given to the Queen to pay for the monarchy — rise by an eye-popping amount, from £7.9 million in 2010 to £82.8 million last year.
What's more, this property portfolio includes the seabed round our coast where a huge number of windfarms are planned. This is likely to bring in another £100 million a year for the Queen."
The latter should not be handed over to any private person but should be used for the greater good of the public, if only to be re-invested in renewable energy. [Post edited 12 Apr 2021 11:26]
|
From 2017/18, the cause of that large increase is due to property maintenance, especially updating of Buck Palace. Once this update has completed, the % reverts back to pre- 2017/18 levels of 15%. | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 15:40 - Apr 12 with 1449 views | HARRY10 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 15:09 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
From 2017/18, the cause of that large increase is due to property maintenance, especially updating of Buck Palace. Once this update has completed, the % reverts back to pre- 2017/18 levels of 15%. |
That increase remains in place until 2027 - and were it to be the original figure of 15% that would still equate to over £50m.
Hardly the 'impoverished' amount s originally indicated
And it is nonsense to suggest trade is won on the basis of some archaic monarchy.
If it makes some folk fell better about themselves then fine, but less not have all manner of buffoonery and misleading claims to distract from that need. | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 15:53 - Apr 12 with 1429 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 14:59 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
I do think they influence some of the tourist income, yes. Influence in business is also considerable. |
I agreed they're a tourist attraction. Whether many people specifically come to the UK because we have a royal family is what I'm doubting. | |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 16:05 - Apr 12 with 1405 views | HARRY10 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 14:59 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
I do think they influence some of the tourist income, yes. Influence in business is also considerable. |
"Influence in business is also considerable. "
That is patent nonsense | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 16:53 - Apr 12 with 1372 views | Radlett_blue |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 23:31 - Apr 11 by J2BLUE |
Victoria lived for forty years after Albert died. She was 42 when he died.
Apples and oranges. |
And while some might get misty-eyed about the "Victorian era", Victoria went into mourning after the death of her beloved Albert & became something of a recluse, wearing black for the rest of her life. While that's not necessarily her fault, she was actually not a popular monarch. | |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:00 - Apr 12 with 1357 views | Ryorry |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 16:05 - Apr 12 by HARRY10 |
"Influence in business is also considerable. "
That is patent nonsense |
I think the royals do wield some influence, but it simply cannot be actually quantified or measured, in helping to win trade & other deals such as the 2012 London Olympics (Princess Anne's role in that, as well as that of other influential figures such as the Beckhams', obviously). |  |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:02 - Apr 12 with 1352 views | brazil1982 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 15:40 - Apr 12 by HARRY10 |
That increase remains in place until 2027 - and were it to be the original figure of 15% that would still equate to over £50m.
Hardly the 'impoverished' amount s originally indicated
And it is nonsense to suggest trade is won on the basis of some archaic monarchy.
If it makes some folk fell better about themselves then fine, but less not have all manner of buffoonery and misleading claims to distract from that need. |
I don't know why you think this is misleading. The Sovereign and costs associated have to be funded, and are by the issue of the Sovereign grant amongst other income.
Whether you approve of having a Monarchy or not, the Head of State has to be funded. | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:07 - Apr 12 with 1337 views | HARRY10 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:00 - Apr 12 by Ryorry |
I think the royals do wield some influence, but it simply cannot be actually quantified or measured, in helping to win trade & other deals such as the 2012 London Olympics (Princess Anne's role in that, as well as that of other influential figures such as the Beckhams', obviously). |
really ?
so what happened with the GB World Cup bid ?
and the idea that successful multi nationals make decisions based on archaic fancy dress parades and feudal customs is absurd
but it does highlight the level of self-delusion monarchists are obliged to resort to in defence of this buffoonery | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:07 - Apr 12 with 1336 views | Bluefish |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:02 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
I don't know why you think this is misleading. The Sovereign and costs associated have to be funded, and are by the issue of the Sovereign grant amongst other income.
Whether you approve of having a Monarchy or not, the Head of State has to be funded. |
Does the head of state usually get funded and take an enormous private income off state land? Do they do both of these and expect extra payments for repairs for their private residences?
The Royal family is disgusting. Abolish them and level the country up | |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:12 - Apr 12 with 1321 views | Leaky |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:07 - Apr 12 by HARRY10 |
really ?
so what happened with the GB World Cup bid ?
and the idea that successful multi nationals make decisions based on archaic fancy dress parades and feudal customs is absurd
but it does highlight the level of self-delusion monarchists are obliged to resort to in defence of this buffoonery |
I think corruption by others lost us the world Cup |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
