[Closed] Family of scroungers costs taxpayers £200 million/year!

Obama's mum was on food stamps. Charles' mum was on stamps.

Quality! 😆

You ever wonder if the Queen carries a fiver round for identification purposes?

Nicked it off of this bloke: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-royal-frenzy-should-embarrass-us-all-2267904.html

In most countries, parents can tell their kids that if they work hard and do everything right, they could grow up to be the head of state and symbol of their nation. Not us. Our head of state is decided by one factor, and one factor alone: did he pass through the womb of one aristocratic Windsor woman living in a golden palace? The US head of state grew up with a mother on food stamps. The British head of state grew up with a mother on postage stamps. Is that a contrast that fills you with pride?

Whereas, look how well we're doing with all the ones we've elected instead

Agreed apart from two important points:

1) when we elect them its our decision
2) when we get it wrong we can change our mind

Enjoyed that article.

The claims then drift even further from reality. We are told that the Windsor family is great for tourism. In fact, of the top 20 tourist attractions in Britain, only one is related to the monarchy – Windsor Castle, at number 17. Ten places ahead is Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should make a Lego man our head of state.

So, did the Royal Wedding actually benefit the nation in any real measurable way (apart from bring to our collective attention Pippa Middleton's lovely bottom), or is it simple perceived benefit which doesn't actually exist?

When you host an event that maybe a quarter of the world population watches (or is aware of) - and it goes off perfectly with huge amounts of positive coverage across the globe - then that is a pretty spectacular boost for your global profile and the "UK brand image".

That may be a "perceived benefit" but I'm not sure how you can deny it exists (though I'm sure you will).

If you want a more measurable benefit you;d have to look at: how much Royal Wedding tat was sold? How many tourists came to the UK specifically for the wedding? How many people travelled to the wedding (rooms, meals, flights etc)? How many people spent extra cash during the extra holiday?

[url= http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/259812-wills-and-kates-wedding-fund-raises-over-1m-for-charity/ ]The donations of guests to their wedding fund raised over £1 million for charity.[/url]

In America, you can tell your kid that they could be president one day, if they work hard.

You really believe that? Last time I looked America, France and the other "great republics" were still ruled by the rich elite.

In the UK, in theory, we can tell our kids that they could by prime minister if they work hard. Of course that isn't really true. They'd really have to go to Oxbridge, get in with the right boy's club, then throw away all their principles and become slimy cretins.

Ten places ahead is Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should make a Lego man our head of state.

Go to another country. Ask anyone to list what they know about the UK.

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

Yeah, but...

What's the point?

As for all the tat sold for the Royal Wedding, how much of it was made in China?

You really believe that? Last time I looked America, France and the other "great republics" were still ruled by the rich elite.

Yes, but they're still republics aren't they? That's the important point - yes, there will always be a ruling elite, but "anyone" still has a chance. And an infinitely better chance than by right of birth.

If you want a more measurable benefit you;d have to look at: how much Royal Wedding tat was sold? How many tourists came to the UK specifically for the wedding? How many people travelled to the wedding (rooms, meals, flights etc)? How many people spent extra cash during the extra holiday?

The donations of guests to their wedding fund raised over £1 million for charity.

Fair points.

I'd sacrifice that for an at least nominally more egalitarian society mind.

I'm sure you could organise other events what would bring in revenue and raise moneys for charidee though...

[img] [/img]

GrahamS - Member

Go to another country. Ask anyone to list what they know about the UK.

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

'What they know' doesn't claw back any of the money that we hand over to them though, does it? Nice try moving the goalposts though.

[b]maybe[/b] a quarter of the world population watches

😆

I'm sure you could organise other events what would bring in revenue and raise moneys for charidee though...

True. It'll be interesting to see how the Royal Wedding compares to the Olympics in terms of costs, worldwide audiences, and measurable benefits.

Go to another country. Ask anyone to list what they know about the UK.

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

Although quite what thats got to do with it I dont know. What people imagine when you mention the UK abroad doesnt necessarily transfer to revenue does it.
Maybe more people would mention the world service than the Royals, depends who you ask doesnt it.

Berm Bandit - Member

Whereas, look how well we're doing with all the ones we've elected instead

Agreed apart from two important points:

1) when we elect them its our decision
2) when we get it wrong we can change our mind

and:

3) Lahnderners seem to have elected Boris fair and square. The rest of us didn't [i]really[/i] elect the current lot though.

*runs away from thread and hides under 'yes campaign' duvet cover.*

2) when we get it wrong we can change our mind

... but not that it'll make a blind bit of difference.

I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

Legoland's associated with Denmark, to my mind at least.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost

The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers

In the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade.

... but not that it'll make a blind bit of difference.

But, occasionally, just occasionally, it does...or has the potential to.

If you want a more measurable benefit you;d have to look at: how much Royal Wedding tat was sold? How many tourists came to the UK specifically for the wedding? How many people travelled to the wedding (rooms, meals, flights etc)? How many people spent extra cash during the extra holiday?

[url] http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/the-2-9bn-royal-wedding-bank-holiday/5099 [/url]

😆

Legoland's associated with Denmark, to my mind at least.

The one at Windsor's a big tourist attraction. Bigger than Windsor Castle, which is the only Royal-linked tourist attraction in the top ten UK tourist attractions.

predicts

estimates

Never any actual factual proper evidence though is there?

The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers

In the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade

Let’s start with the extra bank holiday itself. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills expects the cost to the economy to be around £2.9bn,

So still not covering costs then...

The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years

Tourist crowd talks in meaningless and groundless positives shocker! 🙂

(I don't doubt that it was an overall positive thing BTW, but it has been overplayed somewhat IMO)

Never any actual factual proper evidence though is there?

LOL, are you that blinkered that you just happily ignore anything else that doesn't support you're view point?

You are willing to believe an anti-monarchy website, yet everything else is rubbish? - Good work!

The fact that they perpetuate the myth that some people are "better" than others based on birth

If you can find me a single person from the lower or middle classes who thinks that, then I'll admit that the myth has been perpetuated. Personally I think that myth died on its arse in the 50s.

You are willing to believe an anti-monarchy website, yet everything else is rubbish? - Good work!

Pot. Kettle.

'What they know' doesn't claw back any of the money that we hand over to them though, does it? Nice try moving the goalposts though.

Well yes it does. The fact that people abroad know the royal family means it is demonstrably a part of their awareness of the UK "brand".

So if you're determined to look at it in purely financial terms then any money we spend on keeping the Royals is essentially "advertising budget". Likewise sending them off to visit other countries is "PR budget".

maybe a quarter of the world population watches

I didn't count them. 🙂 The published estimates were that 2 billion people watched. Even if that is way off and the actual figure was less than 10% of that, it is still an incredible audience (and probably a lot cheaper than reaching the same number through advertising).

£2billion [b]extra [/b] as opposed to £202m?

Come on, take the blinkers off! Stop typing and give your brain a chance to catch up.

If you can find me a single person from the lower or middle classes who thinks that

I saw plenty of the eejits on TV getting rather over emotional about a flipping wedding involving two people who they'll never meet, let alone know other than what they read about them.

You are willing to believe an anti-monarchy website, yet everything else is rubbish? - Good work!

Not rubbish as such but "what can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

LOL, are you that blinkered that you just happily ignore anything else that doesn't support you're view point?

Erm, no. I would like to see some actual hard evidence to support these 'predictions' and 'estimates', is all....

LHS - Member
£2billion extra as opposed to £202m?

Come on, take the blinkers off! Stop typing and give your brain a chance to catch up.

What are you referring to there?

If you can find me a single person from the lower or middle classes who thinks that, then I'll admit that the myth has been perpetuated. Personally I think that myth died on its arse in the 50s.

Sadly I know a few and as you set the bar so low finding one should be easy. I live on the Wirral what time can you make it?
On reflection I think that sadly there are many more ready to genuflect at the whiff of Royalty.

In for a Penny in for a Pound...

Cant do a Royal Family on a Budget!

For all I hate them, you cant do it on the cheap, becomes pointless!

of course you can do royal family on the cheap. Denmark. Netherlands.

Norway. Sweden. Belgium. Luxembourg. Andorra. Liechtenstein.

haha nice one TJ 😆

Mornington Crescent.

I know it's an old arguement but "President Blair"

An I'd much rather have Prince Phillip than Cherrie!

Anyone got any figures on the cost of the Japanese Emporer?

Norway. Sweden. Belgium. Luxembourg. Andorra. Liechtenstein

who?

Norway. Sweden. Belgium. Luxembourg. Andorra. Liechtenstein.

O behave... not even in the same league..

On reflection I think that sadly there are many more ready to genuflect at the whiff of Royalty.

What age group?

Denmark. Netherlands. Norway. Sweden. Belgium. Luxembourg. Andorra. Liechtenstein.

And using the same test: asking people what they know about these countries - I bet you'd have "Royal Family" show up a LOT less in the answers.

For me

Denmark=bacon
Netherlands=drugs
Norway=ice
Sweden=blondes
Belgium=beer
Luxembourg=where?
Andorra=cheap skiing
Liechtenstein=tax haven

🙂

I used to be a staunch republican, but as I've gotten older I've actually developed a soft spot for the monarchy. The logical part of me says that it's utterly ridiculous to hold up one family above all others in a massively privliged position because they were born into that position, rather than earning it. But the other part of me has a sneaking fondness for the utter absurdity and pagentry of it all, and a morbid fascination in seeing the result of generations of in-breeding.

Denmark = Lego.
Netherlands = tulips and windmills, and little boys sticking their fingers in dykes.
Norway = fjords, pining for the. Also, Slartibartfast.
Sweden = Ikea, porn.
Belgium = beer, chocolate, waffles, chips with curry ketchup, did I mention the beer?
Luxembourg = nil points.
Andorra = uh, them shaggy goat things.
Liechtenstein = couldn't find it on my map at first, finally discovered it under a Jammie Dodger crumb.

The logical part of me says that it's utterly ridiculous to hold up one family above all others in a massively privliged position because they were born into that position, rather than earning it

That goes for any rich family tho.