[Closed] The Smiths' Morrissey: 'Royals are benefit scroungers'

arch old queen in not liking competition shocka ?

He is right though.

'Divine Right To Rule'? Really? Sez who? Not me.

Sooner we get rid, the better.

That may well be a valid point, but at least they haven't bailed out of three concerts that I purchased tickets to in a row!

🙄

Although I don't particularly care for the royal family, those views are a bit dim-witted really. About one rung up the ladder from 'I don't like you because you smell of poo and your mum is a prossie'.

He's got an album out soon so he needs to gob off a bit to shift some units ?

An ageing controversial (in his time) entertainer says something controversial about a large public event. Not really news is it?

Not at all, Winegums. The Royal Family serve no dolphin whatsoever in a democracy. They aren't elected, they're just in a position of incredible wealth and privilege because their ancestors where nasty buggers, mainly.
Having a monarchy is what's holding Britain back, in terms of democratic progression. Perpetuates the socially divisive class system and 'divide and rule'.

Get rid. Soon as.

Elfin - you may have a point and you put it across much better than Morrisey and that is my problem - he is just gobbing off trying to be controversial so he can make more wealth for Morrisey it appears.

If he had something constructive to say then all is good but I am disappointed at this half-arsed attempt at being controversial. As I say - I don't really care for them myself.

Elfinsafety - Member
The Royal Family serve no dolphin whatsoever in a democracy

So, you're saying they're not fit for porpoise?

😀

'Divine Right To Rule'? Really? Sez who? Not me.

I think that particular point was disproved by us snicking off Charlie's head some time back.

Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, we let them back in.

So, you're saying they're not fit for porpoise?

TBH, I wish more prominent figures in all areas of life would come forward and speak the truth about the royals. Too scared of missing out on a knighthood I spose.

Often-controversial pop star sez owt, and people are 'oh look he's only doing it for attention/sell a new album etc'. What we need is for all sorts of bods to say 'we don't need an unfair and anachronistic system of rule which only serves to prevent true democracy, any longer'.

Nah. Get rid.

Cod knows, these fish-related puns are terrible. Giving me a bad haddock, it is. Is there an op-perch-tuna-ty to stop?

I quite like Queen Elizabeth. I am in favour of a non-political head-of-state so accept the hereditary principle on the basis that it provides [u]continuity[/u] and is clearly separate from the policy-making part of the political system. I even support the idea that parliament and the armed forces report to the head-of-state, and of the privy council.

However, I think we totally overindulge our "royalty" - all that dreadful bowing and scraping like they are our betters, and spending our tax money on maintaining the vast royal estate and their security when they can afford it themselves or scale back.

I hope Wills takes a good, hard look at the "Royalty" scene when he becomes King and reforms the whole institution.

Often-controversial pop star sez owt, and people are 'oh look he's only doing it for attention/sell a new album etc'

The metro reckons it costs each of us 62p a year to keep the royal family - I think these extra bank holidays will be compensation enough for several years of contributions!

Didn't the royal family give up loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?

Idiots can sometimes be right.

I quite like Queen Elizabeth. I am in favour of a non-political head-of-state so accept the hereditary principle on the basis that it provides continuity and is clearly separate from the policy-making part of the political system. I even support the idea that parliament and the armed forces report to the head-of-state, and of the privy council

I hope Wills takes a good, hard look at the "Royalty" scene when he becomes King and reforms the whole institution

Didn't the royal family give up loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?

And that land came from where, exactly?

And that land came from where, exactly?

Once God had been proven to be a myth we needed someones else to believe in a be steared by, hence the royals oh and they used big sticks to beat up the poor and berate the rich into a truncated view of society..
Still the same thing going on now "cept" the Gov't have taken to thinking they're the new royals... which they're not.
The royals do bring in £'s in tourism though, shame we have to pump in 14 times more into them to provide the service they provide.. loss leader IMHO.
Lets take on the Spanish Model where there contribution is self fullfilling and self funded.
Won't happen tho' Political Types enjoy being knighted.

The metro reckons it costs each of us 62p a year to keep the royal family

Didn't the royal family give [s]up[/s] [b]back[/b] loads of land in exchange for being on the civil list?

'we don't need an unfair and anachronistic system of rule which only serves to prevent true democracy, any longer'.

I'm hardly a raving royalist, but I do take issue with this point. What real influence do they have on how the country is run apart from procedural pomp? Now theoretically they [i]could[/i] veto a governmental policy, but unless it really deserved vetoing (invading Iraq, anyone?), they know they'd be out of the door double-quick.

I know unofficially people like Charlie have been implicated in influencing planning decisions, but how is this any different to any large company's [s]lobbying[/s] bribing our democratically elected politicians? At least the royals can be held to some recourse for this.

You seem to have forgotten Charley. I'd like to as well mind.

I don't think King Henry will be a reformist. I think King William might be.

His understanding of economics is as great as his appreciation of charcuterie...

he is right though isnt he??? i mean dont get me wrong they generate money, but what else do they do other than that???

the life and lifestyle is all paid for by the taxpayer, they have made hundreds of millions through the name of being 'royal' and for what?? we havent had a war since the 50's, and what exactly do they contribute to the country other than income for 'being royal'?? all the family members and assocaited families are worth an absolute fortune....

basically everything they do/have is paid for by the country at somepoint....

at the end of the day they are just people like you or me..if we had a need for a royal family and a royal family that dictated how the country is run then id be all for it...but they dont, they live in a bubble of what people think england is...and its really not!

needles to say (partridge reference) i will not be watching that big pile of shite tomorrow....

I like Mozzers music, but this sounds tired and a bit pathetic

He lives in L.A. ffs

And while I'm not a Royalist, I can't see why so many people have a problem with them

They don't rule anything, but I think they definitely add something to this country of ours, even if it's just something for the tourists to point their cameras at

we havent had a war since the 50's

Maybe they could be sold to English Heritage or The National Trust to look after? It'd keep them in their palaces, but we could all go along and have a nosey and if they became really unpopular we could just leave them to crumble in a 5000 acre country park before the BBC came along to make a new series of Restoration.

5thElefant - Member

we havent had a war since the 50's

sorry i meant world war....not interested in the littles one since 😆

Lets imagine there is no royal family and they attempted to sell the case for one to the public....

so we will take a family, let them live like royalty in castles and palaces, jetting all over the world etc. This will be paid for by the state out of tax revenue and the right to live like this will be heriditary

right

Having a monarchy is what's holding Britain back, in terms of democratic progression. Perpetuates the socially divisive class system and 'divide and rule'.

If they had any influence, maybe. But they don't. They've done even less for their fame than Big Brother contestants and have the clout to match, imo.

And I'm really not convinced about the stats for how much they cost us. I think it's too comlpicated to tot properly, isn't it?

Same place that all land came from. It was taken by force.

From whom? Other people who'd taken it by force? Every square inch of this country has been taken by force four or five times probably on the larger scale and countless times on a small scale.

royalty is shite, absolutly shite, it means nothing other than the rich get richer, whether it be our royal family, the netherlands etc etc etc....they are all a bunch of robbing barstewards in my eyes....

i bet they dont pay a single penny for anything in life and thats morrisseys point, they are as bad as the scrotes who claim endless beniefits and the same as politicians in my eyes

i bet they dont pay a single penny for anything in life

Lets imagine there is no royal family and they attempted to sell the case for one to the public....

so we will take a family, let them live like royalty in castles and palaces, jetting all over the world etc. This will be paid for by the state out of tax revenue and the right to live like this will be heriditary

right

Interesting thought experiment. The problem is that it doesn't take into account the value of the "Royal" brand. Though how you put a value on that is a bit more difficult. That's where the arguments really start!

What does the tax payer actually pay for then with regards royalty?

I don't see how they can be compared to benefit scroungers

They don't sit around watching Jeremy Kyle and eating at the chippy every night

Being a Royal isn't the charmed life that some people think it is. Of course they are never going to be struggling for cash, but I wouldn't want to do what they do thanks very much

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen....

35 million of the taxpayers money....

regardless of what the royal family generate tourist wise, why on earth should WE everyday working people fund that?!?!?!?!?

she has 100's of millions sat there, and the same with all the royal family.....

i hope it goes tits up tomorrow really do

I can't see why so many people have a problem with them

There is resentment about the god-like elevated status and public wealth they are entitled to; a feeling that the entitlement is archaic and unjust.

at least the royals are the 'classy' side of celebrity - otherwise we would just have Katie Price in all the papers...

Without the tax earned as a byproduct of having a world famous royal family and the associated income the taxpayer would be worse off, not better.

If every 'benefit scrounger' was as productive we'd be living in some kind of utopia!

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..

On what, exactly?

TurnerGuy +1 and they'd only replace them with some dumb president Katie Price for President anyone or perhaps you'd prefer Kerry Katona?

Plus, theoretically, the military are loyal to the royals and not the politicians which is supposed to separate the powers. The same with the judiciary.

molgrips - Member

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..

ive no idea, keeping her safe (police etc) will be a massive cost, the upkeep of buckingham palace and all the staff etc? keeping her in general i have no idea, but thats what i read....she can generate as much as she wants, but it shouldnt cost the taxpayer money to do it....

being royalty is like winning the lottery (every week)

chiefgrooveguru - Member

Without the tax earned as a byproduct of having a world famous royal family and the associated income the taxpayer would be worse off, not better.

If every 'benefit scrounger' was as productive we'd be living in some kind of utopia! chiefgrooveguru

rubbish, alot of other contries dont have kings or queens and do you see them struggling for money (USA for instance?!?!?!?!?!??!)

we work, we pay taxes, we have a good business and industries, the royal family is an attraction, just like florida walt disney, does the US government fund that?!?!??!

rubbish, alot of other contries dont have kings or queens and do you see them struggling for money (USA for instance?!?!?!?!?!??!)

My big worry is that the facade of being “Royal” is based on being a member of a particular family. It was the case therefore that to maintain the perception of being “Royal” it was necessary to breed with other Royals. Clearly, due to the demise of other royal families around the world the “royals” are now having to dip their bread in our commoners gene soup to avoid the possibility of horse faced or elephant eared genetic mutations. 😯

Therefore by that token Will and Harry were only 50% royal, and Will and Kate’s offspring will only be 25% royal. So the question is when does the Royal wee stop being royal and become piss?

the royal family is an attraction, just like florida walt disney, does the US government fund that?!?!??!

Ooh, now there's a conspiracy theory! If Disney is like many other large US corporations then you can bet that there is a vast amount of stuff going on behind the scenes which would amount to something similar.

yeah why and what proof do you have that we would be worse off??!?!?!?!?

why would the taxpayer be worse off exactly? england will always generate plenty of tourists, regardless of whether the royal family exists....i dont go on holiday to spain/bulgaria/italy to see there royalty do i?

people would come and visit england because its a cool place to be, with a fascinating way of life and general hustle and bustle of london and the likes....they dont all come just to sit and take a photo of buckingham palace....

if we want to generate money that way then the queen should be considered a busniess, running costs and pay for her own business and staff and claim the profits like a business...

id have no problem with that, as im sure many other would'nt i do however mind paying taxes for the already rich, to get richer

i moan about somebody claiming £70 a week benefits, so that is a mere fly in the ointment compared to £35,000,000 a year ..

BENEFIT SCUZZERS 4 LOIFE!

the royal family is an attraction, just like florida walt disney, does the US government fund that?!?!??

No, but it does fund the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Smithsonian etc etc etc etc.

i moan about somebody claiming £70 a week benefits, so that is a mere fly in the ointment compared to £35,000,000 a year .

If it were just one person benefit scrounging then yes, but it's not it's millions. Adds up to a lot more than HRH's bill.

they dont all come just to sit and take a photo of buckingham palace

Sure about that? 🙂

.i dont go on holiday to spain/bulgaria/italy to see there royalty do i?

But there is clearly huge interest in our royal family (hence the coverage it is getting tomorrow). I was in the unfortunate position to be in the USA the day after Di died and you wouldn't believe the coverage it was getting, the people giving me their sincere condolences (!!!!) in the street etc. That love of the royals surely converts to tourist activity. For example - how many people go to London on holiday so they can visit Buck Palace etc? Without the family in place it would just become another monument rather than a meaningful location with the guards etc to visit.

comparing them to one family though?? a family of 2 elderley oaps, a son and a couple of grandchildren? and then the 100000000 more people on the bandwagon we have to employ because of them?

all funded for by us the taxpayer?

i wonder just how much the royals have ACTUALLY physically paid towards this wedding.

i bet not a penny and they will still make 10's of millions from the rights to it....

BIKE THIEVEZZ HAVE NOTHING ON THESE GUYSZZ

mastiles_fanylion - Member

.i dont go on holiday to spain/bulgaria/italy to see there royalty do i?

I don't know, do you?

But there is clearly huge interest in our royal family (hence the coverage it is getting tomorrow). I was in the unfortunate position to be in the USA the day after Di died and you wouldn't believe the coverage it was getting, the people giving me their sincere condolences (!!!!) in the street etc. That love of the royals surely converts to tourist activity. For example - how many people go to London on holiday so they can visit Buck Palace etc? Without the family in place it would just become another monument rather than a meaningful location with the guards etc to visit.

i dont go to look at the royalty no, i go to look at naked ladiez on the beach 😆

and i agree, it doesnt make it right though does it? people are infactuated with the most pointless and ridiculous things in life...

media propaganda probably sourced from the royal family, sways anyones impartial views on this to a massive event turning it into something that means very little....

its a wedding for 2 people who have been fed on silver spoons and will continue to do so for years to come for no reason what so ever other than being born......

i can only say i appreciate the elder generation, when probably the royal family meant something getting excited by all this...but for anyone born after 60/70's i cant see how it just goes down as one big rip off/con/show...it just goes above and beyond my head, perhaps if they were running things id have a sense of pride for the occasion, but below the royals are MP's and the likes and they are just as bad, the whole heirarchy is terribly corrupt here....

the rich getting richer

rubbish, alot of other contries dont have kings or queens and do you see them struggling for money (USA for instance?!?!?!?!?!??!)

its a wedding for 2 people who have been fed on silver spoons and will continue to do so for years to come for no reason what so ever other than being born

Anyone know of a proper "profit / loss" statement on the royals? How much do they cost vs how much they bring in via tourism etc. i.e. our return on investment?

Surely this must exist???

Rank Country International tourist arrivals
1 France 74.20 million………….. Republic
2 United States 54.88 million…… Republic
3 Spain 52.23 million …………… Constitutional Monarchy
4 China 50.88 million ……………Republic
5 Italy 43.24 million ……………..Republic
6 United Kingdom 28.20 million .. Constitutional Monarchy
7 Turkey 25.51 million …………..Republic
8 Germany 24.22 million ………...Republic
9 Malaysia 23.65 million ………...Federal Elective monarchy
10 Mexico 21.45 million………….Republic

I see how that monarchy thing really makes a difference for the toursim industry. Thank god for the Royals where would we be without em eh?

What real influence do they have on how the country is run apart from procedural pomp?

If they had any influence, maybe. But they don't

What does the tax payer actually pay for then with regards royalty?

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..
On what, exactly?

Can you not google and educate yourself on the topic whilst also telling us what you think despite not knowing?

BB - That is an abstract piece of information. Why else do people visit the UK other than to see the royals? What percentage of those visits are because of our heritage? Why are people travelling to other countries? Weather? Other seasonal activities? Ancient history?

Crap stats, BB. The question is not whether a monarchy brings in more tourists than countries without one, it's does a monarchy bring in more tourists than would otherwise come to the SAME country without a monarchy.

Your table does nothing to answer that question.

Calls elections
Signs act to make them law
Chooses who forms a government
Weekly meeting with the PM
Royal prerogative

Those things are all absolute formalities.

High 5s Molgrips....

🙂

They do have their uses - if Henry 8 hadn't been the man he was we might still be ruled by the church - does that appeal more ? (Sweeping generalisation and possible ulterior motives involving leg-overs, aside)

I think they are mostly harmless.

if Henry 8 hadn't been the man he was we might still be ruled by the church - does that appeal more

He just didn't fancy the Catholic Church's rules so created a Church of England instead...

...I think.

(I may have needed to wiki or google that one 🙂 )

if Henry 8 hadn't been the man he was we might still be ruled by the church

What, like France and Italy are?

Henry 8 was just jumping on the bandwagon for his own personal benefit. Martin Luther was the real brains behind that.

The question you pose [molgrips] is unanswerable as you well know
However the fact that when she is not here it does not seem to affect visits indicates that it does not matter.
How many tourists actually see the Queen anyway
IMHO they are not coming to the UK solely because of the monarchy like you may go to Oktober fest solely because of the festival for example
Egypt gets some tourists for their monarchy iirc. They have been dead a long time.

Those things are all absolute formalities

In any critically important system, formality is what matters.

Your table does nothing to answer that question.

and didn't seek to thanks very much, those are your issues not mine... However regardless of whether you want to take a blinkered and dare I say out of date view of royalty, what it indicates clearly is that royal watching is not a priority for the vast majority of tourists. In this instance by a factor of about 3 : 1, (and thats presuming that all visitors to Spain, the UK and Malaysia came solely due to the Royals which is also clearly not the case). So rather than banging on about the self evidently flawed argument that the royals are justified by tourist revenue how about moving on to some other point, preferably one with some form of validity.

I think they are mostly harmless.

(Allegedly)

How much does it cost Ireland / France for their President?
That role, that the Royalty take, is still required and you can't run the country (like the French/Irish Prime Minister) and do all the meet & greet required.

Therefore by that token Will and Harry were only 50% royal, and Will and Kate’s offspring will only be 25% royal. So the question is when does the Royal wee stop being royal and become piss?

what it indicates clearly is that royal watching is not a priority for the vast majority of tourists. In this instance by a factor of about 3 : 1

How did you figure that out?

And anyway even if you're right a quarter of all tourists making a trip here partly because of the Queen would still be significant.

So rather than banging on about the self evidently flawed argument that the royals are justified by tourist revenue how about moving on to some other point, preferably one with some form of validity

I'm not banging on about that, I've no idea if they pay for themselves. All I've done here is ask genuine non-rhetorical questions.

What I really want is an end to sh*t reasoning and some actual data and vitriol free discussion 🙂

What I want is an end to sh*t reasoning and some actual data and vitriol free discussion

You're in the wrong place.

Lol.. yeah what was I thinking?

id love it if wills turned up at the alter, only to decline to marry on the final verse and state he loves 'botty' instead then runs off with elton john into the sunset 8)

Those things are all absolute formalities.

What I really want is an end to sh*t reasoning and some actual data and vitriol free discussion

How did you figure that out?

Out of those top ten world tourist destinations 294 million visitors went to countries with no royal family. Therefore royal watching was self evidently not a factor in their travel choice.
104 million went to countries with royal families, therefore if you make the obviously flawed assumption that those that did made their travel choice 100% due to the royal family thats a ratio of approximately 3 : 1 clearly and unquestionaly making a choice to go somewhere for reasons other than royalty, even with the figures heavily weighted in favor of the pro royal argument. So tourism being the big winner really doesn't stack up even with that very simple assessment.

The reality is the vast majority of tourists will never see or come close to a member of the royal family, nor have any real expectation of doing so. So its not them that they come to see is it?

if you make the [b]obviously flawed assumption[/b]

What's the point in that?

In reality, a lot of people come to see the sights of London - one of the big ones is the changing of the guard. Which probably wouldn't happen if it weren't for the royals. So it's one of the things that makes London a draw.

The original point I was getting at was that I think some (or a lot) of the money that the taxpayer spends is for upkeep of the Q's buildings and houses. Which we would quite possibly do anyway because they are historic monuments and tourist draws in their own right.

And in other news republicans demonstrate that 2+2=5