Forum menu
Did you know that if any royal visits your town the local council picks up ALL the security costs associated with the visit.
Even if you don't (immediately) get rid of the royal family you don't need to give them a pay increase especially when so many other essential services are underfunded. They will still be here (unless removed) regardless. I don't think they will upsticks and head off to another country.
Did you know that if any royal visits your town the local council picks up ALL the security costs associated with the visit.
I did not. Do you have a source for that, I'd like to read more.
If a royal visit your town and the council picks up all - excuse me - "ALL" the security costs then is that a net profit or loss to the town? What about non-financial impacts like road closures or wellbeing improvements? They don't tend to rock up for a bacon sandwich, that's more of a politician's roll role.
Goodness me Cougar, you really do come across as a right a**e sometimes. Apologies for using caps to emphasise a point…
Your argument above about losing tourist revenue if we abolished them is simply not true. Versailles is the most popular tourist attraction in France by a long way because you can get in and see it all now. I’ d wager that more tourists would visit if they could traipse around inside & outside ALL the royal properties/estates.
I also reckon an awful lot of people visit Egypt to see the pyramids/Valley of the Kings etc but it won’t be the only reason, the same way that the vast majority of tourists do not visit the UK just to see the royals.
I’ll try to source the fact about the security costs when I’m back from hols; I think I got it from the Republic site.
Actually it’s ALL the extra security costs involved as their personal protection is funded from central govt.
As I said, I really don’t care about the royals. What irks me is when opinions get slung about as facts
For someone who doesnt care you always seem to get enthusiastic about the subject.
Its also rather odd how you only seem irked by those who dare question the royals and not those who sling opinions as facts the other way.
Personally I find the cost vs. tourist income debates rather tiresome and rather missing the point. I've spent the bulk of my adult life working with kids - trying to persuade them that ability and hard work trump all when it comes to what you can hope to achieve in your adult life. Now obviously this is barely a half truth in a world of nepotism and class divide; but when one of the biggest ticket, highest profile jobs in the country is so manifestly not appointed with any sort of ability metric it does rather shine a very bright light on the bollox of the whole thing.
However, I appear to be in the minority - my fellow citizens seem to like this shit. I find it utterly baffling, but there you go. IMO we're stuck with it until we either have an heir to the throne who has either done something so monstrous or (and this will sound like very poor taste) was born with an impediment so significant that they simply can't take on the job that the general public will be given pause for thought about where we go next.
Would you go to Egypt just to see the pyramids? Would it still be in the same position on your list of desirable destinations if they weren’t there?
Egypt is an interesting example because tourists there:
1) visit the Pyramids and Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and the Valley of the Kings and Luxor, where the fact that the royals that created the stuff are all long dead evidently doesn't matter.
2) go for scorching desert sun and norovirus-ridden buffets at Sharm, where they couldn't give a shit if Egypt was a republic or a monarchy or an anarcho-syndicalist worker's state so long ad they get unlimited chips.
I'm willing to pay Charles a generous commission for every tourist he can be proven to have brought to the UK or personally welcomed to the UK. It's only fair.
How did I miss this when I replied previously…
“Do YOU know?”
Oh, the ironing! Hypocrite much @cougar?
Could we not just get rid and replace with AI news footage and jobbing actors? Who would even know. Just make sure the plebs don’t get too close. Most die hard royalists are old so will probably have really poor eyesight too.
Would you go to Egypt just to see the pyramids? Would it still be in the same position on your list of desirable destinations if they weren’t there?
Bad example imo. Look how many tourists Egypt gets compared to Algeria, which is way nearer, and pretty similar in other non-pyramidy ways. I would go either way (but I've been to Syria and Saudi on holidays), loads of others wouldn't
Having moved to France I love that it’s a republic.
The Marseillaise might be a bit gory but it’s about protecting ourselves, the citizens. Not praying for some bloke to continue ruling over us.
There are things wrong with France but being a republic is a strength and a means for reinvention. We’re on the fifth now…
I don’t think they will upsticks and head off to another country.
TBF, between Edward 8 and Prince Harry, it seems like they would FTFO if there were more luscious pastures overseas. We keep hearing how much goodwill there is for them in the Commonwealth, maybe they'd like to try their luck there.
I don’t think they will upsticks and head off to another country.
TBF, between Edward 8 and Prince Harry, it seems like they would FTFO if there were more luscious pastures overseas. We keep hearing how much goodwill there is for them in the Commonwealth, maybe they’d like to try their luck there.
We could be lucky but I doubt it. Not all countries are total suckers.
Is anyone really that surprised?
@ratt1er - all whilst flying around in a private jet, helicopters, a fleet of Range Rovers....i bet his thermostat isn't set at 19 in his various estates and palaces either. Not bad for someone concerned about 'climate change' right?
Goodness me Cougar, you really do come across as a right a**e sometimes.
Well, I am sometimes. Most people are.
Your argument above about losing tourist revenue if we abolished them is simply not true
Yes it is.
(It might not be, but I've presented precisely as much evidence as you have.)
---
For someone who doesnt care you always seem to get enthusiastic about the subject.
Its also rather odd how you only seem irked by those who dare question the royals and not those who sling opinions as facts the other way.
I'm far from enthusiastic. A rich bloke lives in a big house somewhere South of Birmingham, usually. Some folk seem to hate him. Anecdotally at least, plenty more seem to love him. Either way it affects my day-to-day life not one jot.
But I've already explained why I chip in, people get all shouty with knee-jerk reactions but no actual substance. People want to get rid of the royals for little other coherent argument than because they don't like the idea of them. We saw this same phenomenon in 2016, remind me how well that's working out for us?
We have an inequality of wealth in this country, film at 11. Is abolishing the monarchy the best way to address that? I have no idea, though plenty of people seem really certain yet oddly unable to explain why. "ZOMG he works three days a month and has a helicopter" isn't a deep-dive economic analysis, it's jealousy. Based on that score I think I'd rather abolish Elon Musk.
If I've missed other 'opinions as facts' then I can only apologise. Feel free to highlight them and I'll call them out also.
Oh, the ironing! Hypocrite much @cougar?
No, that was intentional, I generally use italics for emphasis. I'm not that daft, I thought it was amusing was all.
And again in case you missed it,
I have no love for the royals. The Queen seemed nice though like many people we only know from TV could have been an arse, and running that blonde lass into a bridge was sad. I'm quite looking forward to new coin designs.
But if you're going to deconstruct a national institution, regardless of how right or wrong either it or you may be, then it may be prudent to put some work into backing up assertions or you'll just sound like Wolfie Smith or some singer from the 1970s who's now making a living hawking butter.
Otherwise we end up with shit like this, which the forum denizens were quick to call out at the time when it clashed with their views:
Abolish the monarchy. Sure, I'm listening. Why? Prove it. Show your working. "He's got a gold hat" isn't compelling, so does Flavor Flav.
Know your enemy. It’s certainly not the King, He may be very wealthy but he is fighting and lobbying for environmental change and using his influence for the greater good.
Utter nonsense. they routinely kill raptors on the royal estates and forbid the police from investigating. ~they muirburn. He flies a lot.
We have an inequality of wealth in this country, film at 11. Is abolishing the monarchy the best way to address that? I have no idea, though plenty of people seem really certain yet oddly unable to explain why.
Very much my view. The monarchy has reformed massively in my lifetime, but theres plenty of scope for more.
Some people want to abolish them outright for a variety of reasons, which is fine, but no one seems to have proper costed evidence of the economic argument for doing so, which is the basis of this thread.
Its kind of like Brexit - lots of people instinctively thought it was a good idea, but there was a lot of confusion about what the alternative would involve, and some people discovered that there were unexpected consequences to their preferred option.
I'm loathe to abolish the monarchy until I know that they won't be replaced by some even worse money grabbing power crazed idiots, and that someone has some independent costings for the project.
Why does it need to be replaced by anything?
OK, i'll have a bit of a go at it.
It's more about replacing the monarchy, aristocracy and hierarchy with a devolved, flatter (in power terms) republic.
So instead of a royal family as head of state, there is an elected president.
Redistribution of land - not sure how this would work, but some mechanism for encouraging better quality food production and less speculation.
Proper written constitution
House of Lords fully elected.
Taxation completely overhauled. A single tax for any increases in wealth (so no different income tax, NIC etc), punitive taxation on negative effectors (e.g. pollution) and tax for offshoring wealth.
Devolution of power to local councils.
That's all I can think of right now.
there is an elected president.
Why? I have never seen the need
Well, yes that is a debatable point. You could just have a large council, with majority rules.
You don't need anything to replace the monarchy. Get rid of the HOL as well. Why do we need these remnants of fuedalism
Nothing new here really. The money is always there for things 'they' want.
Why does it need to be replaced by anything?
Arguably doesn’t need to be. But that needs to be sorted out before the abolition is started.
If you voted to abolish the moarchy and then found Boris was being made president/head of state.....
I don't see it as arguable even. I see precisely zero need for a "head of state" in this way. Many countries don't have one in a similar ceremonial role.
Some people want to abolish them outright for a variety of reasons, which is fine, but no one seems to have proper costed evidence of the economic argument for doing so
No. The point of the thread was pointing out they had received a bunch more cash whilst the country is in crisis.
We cant have a proper costed evidence since despite cougars confidence a lot of the figures are hidden.
So sure lets have a proper discussion but that would need, for example, the exemption from FOI removing so we can actually see what they are up to.
It will also need their trips, including security, fully costing.
That the royals arent keen on this is rather telling though.
Oh and knock it off with the comparisons to brexit. Whilst I dont think there is a definitive survey (as demanded by cougar when it suits them) I would put money on the venn diagram between royalists and brexiteers being rather stronger than that between republicans and brexiteers.
Revolution live on Tiktok. Then a further pay per view event when it is axe time.
Maybe do the axe thing in stages to ensure the best world-wide audience. Perhaps with a phone vote as to the one royal that is spared and sent to exile in The Crown meets Truman Show (brought to you in association with Nando's).
Proceeds go into crumbling hospitals and schools.
🪓🤴
💰💰💰💰
But that's the point of a republic. The ownership is with the majority, not the minority.
Look at UK elections, only 80% turnout and only 30% of them vote for the winner, which is then replicated 650 times. Where laws can be overturned by unelected Lords. That's not democracy.
House of Lords fully elected.
Because election works so well in the House of Commons, right? Another house of party stooges chasing votes would probably be even worse than what we have now. A better solution is needed.
Get rid of the HOL as well. Why do we need these remnants of fuedalism
It's a remnant of feudalism only in name, and the fact there are hereditary peers. We need a functioning second chamber to rein in the ****s in the House of Commons.
The point of the thread was pointing out they had received a bunch more cash whilst the country is in crisis.
So have lots of people.
No- what we need is a democratic HoC and no house of lords - and of course its remnants of feudalism.
Better. I'll squeeze an actual considered debate out of you lot yet. 😁
We cant have a proper costed evidence since despite cougars confidence a lot of the figures are hidden.
Despite Cougar's question.
Oh and knock it off with the comparisons to brexit.
Why?
The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism. Everything that's wrong in your life is caused by someone else, those [better|worse|different] than you. You have no money, it's those rich folk in London. You have no money, it's those poor people coming over here simultaneously working and not working, all two dozen of them in a small boat. You have no money, it's literally anyone else's fault bar your own.
Which, at the risk of repeating myself, may actually be true but you cannot just state that it is and then stride off into the sunset without expecting any further questions.
We're in the middle of an international-scale systematic dismemberment of our country by the very people we "democratically" voted to look after us, yet seemingly some rich septuagenarian having aircon is a bigger issue. **** my old boots, seriously?
Why - because the parallels with brexit only exist in your mind. 🙂
Why – because the parallels with brexit only exist in your mind. 🙂
Or, because that's how analogies work and I'm trying to make people think.
A friend was telling me the other day that his otherwise well-adjusted mother was glad when she heard that a boatload of children had drowned because it was "sickening" that they were coming over here. (This is true, I'll C&P the exact text if anyone wants.) Meanwhile, it's "sickening" that Charlie boy and his extended family have more personal wealth than many countries. Which may be true but it's the same emotive language.
I'm going to leave this thread here for tonight because I'm not well myself. Enjoy.
because that’s how analogies work
No it isn't. There is no comparison between a woman who is, for whatever reason, glad children have drowned, and believing that it is wholly unacceptable for a highly wealthy and privileged family receiving a huge pay rise from UK taxpayers during a cost of living crises. Even if you throw the word "sickening" into the argument in an attempt to connect the two.
For analogies to work the comparisons need to be reasonable.
I hope you feel better soon Cougar.
The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism
I dont suppose you have any evidence for stating this do you?
As you demand from everyone else?
Your arrogance is only matched by your incoherence and hypocrisy.
The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism. Everything that’s wrong in your life is caused by someone else, those [better|worse|different] than you. You have no money, it’s those rich folk in London. You have no money, it’s those poor people coming over here simultaneously working and not working, all two dozen of them in a small boat. You have no money, it’s literally anyone else’s fault bar your own.
Not from me it isn’t. I couldn’t care less about how much money they have. For me it’s the very basic concept of being in a modern world with some, quite frankly insane, weird arse Middle Ages Disney thing cobbled on. It’s some out of touch, old fashioned bullshit with absolutely no place in a civilised society. It’s the antithesis of progressive and just needs to go away.
It is in no way remotely related to immigration. I’d bet my left nut that there’s some substantial crossover between the royal loving flag wavers and those that support the horrendous Rwanda deportation idea.
No. The point of the thread was pointing out they had received a bunch more cash whilst the country is in crisis.
But that's the laughable point I already made.
Charlie never put the country in crisis. Neither did Liz.
Dave, Theresa, Boris, a lettuce and Rishi did. By choice. Because let's not pretend every one of those ****ers made a political decision to take us where we are today.
That's not a case of not being able to look at two issues at once, it's a case of one issue being so ****ing insignificant in the big scheme that it's barely a blip and yet...
As for Brexit comparisons it's absolutely legit. Bad bad bogeyman that's stealing your money/land/sovereignty/raptors. Look, squirrel!
I'm no fan of them and honestly @covert is probably the only one that's put forward a decent argument regarding meritocracy. The rest is just tabloid nonsense that doesn't focus on the real reasons for the inequalities in question.
How on earth is it anything like brexit? No one is saying its a big bad bogey man taking our money. There is no populist campaign in the press being taken up by politicians. there is no racist scaremongering
Its just some of us do not want a royal family - you know republicans. Its perhaps not the most important issue around but its time we lived in a modern democracy not this pseudo democracy we have.
Because the depth of argument and evidence base is the same. At the end of the day a lot (not all but a lot) of the arguments are either emotional or costed as "but Versailles!". Even fat Eck's Book of Dreams had more depth. It suits certain people's agendas that folk get hot under the collar about Charlie costing the nation a fraction of a percent of **** all (if you believe Rone) whilst they syphon and spaff untold billions. As I said, I'm not a royalist by any means but I at least try to be objective. If you're going to make an argument against the status quo then you'd better come prepared with a good case, so far I've seen very little that could be called more than an accounting error (in the grand scheme).
Put it this way, which is going to deliver a bigger benefit to the nation; change of government, electoral reform or abolition of the monarchy?
As for Brexit comparisons it’s absolutely legit.
No its utter drivel and really the exact opposite of the interaction.
With how the royals (especially charlies approach to architecture and farming) harks back to the gilded age just the same as the brexiteers did.
The tedious declarations that patriotism is the simplistic monarchy support and wrapping in the union jack to hide the looting. The casual disregard of laws that bind the rest of us.
We need all 3 and proper electoral reform which includes getting rid of the monarchy and the HOL would be the best for the country long term. We need a proper democracy
The fact we have these remnants of feudalism of which the royal family are a part holds this country back. Unelected lawmakers including the god botherers, Monarch is able to interfere in the legislative process, royal estates are immune from police action over raptor deaths.
I don't think you realise how insidious and all pervading their actual power is and how much they exercise it
I am not bothered by the money. I am bothered by the antidemocratic nature
As am I but there are far greater and more immediate concerns on that list that would better serve our interests. Pick your battles and all that.
I disagree that in the long term that's the battle we should focus on now (not sure if that's what you actually meant, if it's not apologies), it's really not. The biggest hurdle is electoral reform, after that the world's your lobster.
@dissonance I'm doing my best not to make an obvious joke but the substance of your argument is exactly the same. That is to say none. You have shown no evidence in your working, no hard data to back up your claims. Two cheeks of the same arse as they say up here.