[Closed] Makes you proud to be British (German?)

She rakes in 240 Million a year and we give her just 34 million of it back? sounds like a bargain to me 😀 i think you need extra Maths lessons peasant!

I wonder what would happen if she appealed to the European courts about the compulsory grab of her income...

Worth every penny imo.

If only for the wonderful smile it put on Her Majesty's face.

Here's how she looked when she was struggling on £31million a year :

[img] [/img]

And this is how her face [Gawd bless 'er] lit up when she heard that she was getting another £5million :

[img] [/img]

It warms the cockles of your heart it does.

And to be fair it's all her money anyway, that's why there's a picture of her face on all them banknotes
- that's a fact.

She's not my queen, so IDGAS!

Get over it. She's the queen, she generates shed loads of cash for the UK, she's our head of state and the royals are here to stay.

Remember we had a go at getting rid of the royals a while back? Didn't go so well so we brought them back.

Have you not got anything worthwhile to whinge about?

[i]She rakes in 240 Million a year and we give her just 34 million of it back? sounds like a bargain to me [b]i think you need extra Maths lessons peasant! [/b][/i]

😆

[i]Have you not got anything worthwhile to whinge about[/i]

Well if they haven't, the STW forum is full of people who do.

Popocatapetl - Member
She rakes in 240 Million a year and we give her just 34 million of it back? sounds like a bargain to me i think you need extra Maths lessons peasant!

The Queen ? The Queens Estate

That property would still be making money without her.

That property would still be making money without her.

But even if that's true, is still not a reason to get rid of her, is it?

It's not a reason to keep her.

I feel its time for Charles though.

JoeG - Member

She's not my queen, so IDGAS!

There's no need to take such a disagreeable attitude just because you're a foreigner. A little respect wouldn't go amiss.

zippykona - Member
I feel its time for Charles though.
POSTED 20 MINUTES AGO #

It's time for a meritocracy not aristocracy.

Get over it. She's the queen, she generates shed loads of cash for the UK, she's our head of state and the royals are here to stay.

She generates shedloads of cash? Strange, because she's never done a day's work in her life.

Head of state? So, we are ultimately 'ruled' by an unelected individual who apparently has 'divine right' to do so? Wouldn't we be better off with an actual democracy?

But even if that's true, is still not a reason to get rid of her, is it?

It is true, and it's a very good reason to get rid of the monarchy; we'd be £35 million better off if they didn't exist.

Bloody benefit scroungers.

and it's a very good reason to get rid of the monarchy

No it's not. I disagree. I'm a Royalist, if there was another civil war I wouldn't be fighting for Parliament, put it that way.
But that's not the trendy point of view, is it?

I'm a Royalist, if there was another civil war I wouldn't be fighting for Parliament, put it that way.

So you don't believe in democracy then?

So you don't believe in democracy then?

Stop twisting the argument.

I'm not. I asked you a simple question.

❓

Perfectly valid question for someone choosing to fight for a monarch over an elected assembly.

[quote=MrSmith ]It's time for a meritocracy not aristocracy.

So replace the queen with a president? I'm willing to bet that wouldn't be that much cheaper in the long run what with elections to be held. Rough costs to run the election are 80-100M pounds plus campaigning etc and then there's wages, staff etc. Not sure what the point is to remove something for something that's not really saving much in the grand scheme of things.

I've been flirting with Republic-thoughts for quite a while. What does it mean to be British? I think it goes alot deeper than simply saying 'Queen and God'.

I think we are an Island-people who are opportunistic pure and simple with the mentality that wheres the muck theres brass (globally).

We've been led down the killing fields path in part by royal involvement in the past.

I think its time the Royals simply became a rich family and Britain was rebranded.

Strange, because she's never done a day's work in her life.

she normally attends over 300 engagements a year, even at her age - here's an old yahoo answer on the subject:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100407150926AA2B5RY

she normally attends over 300 engagements a year

I went to the cinema, theatre and the V+A this weekend. It was a hectic few days.

And your point was?

How much money does the Royal Family bring in in tourism? They do also add some commercial clout to international ventures too.

I know they're not elected and in theory have ultimate power, but they do seem to be sensible about it. Charles won't be on the thrown for long, William looks like a sound chap and at least Harry won't get there now!

Can you even begin to imagine the cost and disruption to the nation, and in fact the world, if Royalty was disbanded? The only way to do it would be a military coup, and that just won't happen.

I think its time the Royals simply became a rich family and Britain was rebranded.

And you think the queen buggering off will somehow loop around in time and retrospectively fix the things our ancestors did? History is done and I doubt if we'd had a non-royal figurehead we'd have behaved that much differently. The French empire didn't vanish in 1793 when they shortened the king; it carried on regardless and they ended up with an Emperor shortly afterwards.

How much money does the Royal Family bring in in tourism?

she normally attends over 300 engagements a year,

How much money does the Royal Family bring in in tourism?

Go on; how much?

I was never aware that they were employed by the British Tourist Board.

Not sure what the point is to remove something for something that's not really saving much in the grand scheme of things.

The ruling classes, the class system and ultimately the aristocracy led to many many young men being slaughtered 'for King and country' in world war one.

Britain WONT collapse. It will carry on as we have past. Alot of countries don't. We'll evolve. Thats the thing, we've always evolved as a people.

Forget about the Queen, Vettel is a KNOB.

I know they're not elected and in theory have ultimate power, but they do seem to be sensible about it. Charles won't be on the thrown for long, William looks like a sound chap and at least Harry won't get there now!

The royal veto on legislation actually gets used fairly regularly, including I believe to stop a debate on the Iraq war. In the 21st century this is bloody ridiculous.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

Can you even begin to imagine the cost and disruption to the nation, and in fact the world, if Royalty was disbanded? The only way to do it would be a military coup, and that just won't happen.

Go on; how much?

You are really overstating the complexity of abolition of the monarchy.

12 million people come here just because we have a monarchy?

12 million people come here just because we have a monarchy?

Maybe. Who knows. Certainly lots do.
My point is simply that getting rid of the Monarchy and replacing with a President doesn't strike me as being beneficial enough to have to deal with the hassle of getting rid of the Royals, unless they do it themselves of course.

Imagine who'd be lining up to be President, and their "expenses", then lets stick with Royalty as a much more logical and less embarrassing option.

The deeper you dig the less obvious the costs are. The costs do not include security and some hangers on to the title etc. It could be much clearer than it is, usual political tactics.

I really don't see the point of royals in this day and age. I don't mean to say get rid of them just not financially support them! They have plenty of money and estates. They will still pull in massive revenue for the country. The Netherlands royals would be a good template.

I mean the scrap Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Wettin/Windsor have always been loyal ha ha!

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/01/Royal_Nazis.html

My problem with the monarchy is that it sends a very clear signal that we still think some people are better than others, by dint of who their parents were. The lauding of extreme wealth and privilege. Very poor message to be sending out in the modern world.

Quick Google brought up this statistic (may/may not be true): " 12 million tourists visit every year spending 7,000 million pounds"

And if we didn't have a royal family why would we need a president? We have a prime minister!

we still think some people are better than others, by dint of who their parents were

Edit, just seen this:

I think you need to think that through a bit

Having the Royal Family in place keeps the 2 in their place (by way of promoting the "old rich").

The Netherlands royals would be a good template.

Investigate the cost of them to the Dutch taxpayer, you will be surprised how expensive they are, see [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9412600/Dutch-royal-family-overtake-Britains-as-most-expensive-in-Europe.html ]here[/url]. They are also a lot richer than ours in a personal capacity.

But there will always be rich families owning masses of land, banks, businesses.

Yes but we don't have to fawn over them and have national holidays to celebrate how awesome they are.

Not convinced 'keeping the nouveau riche in their place' is a good argument for monarchy personally.

And your point was?

what was your point - did you read that link? - probably not as it was yahoo - so here it is in another form:

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

don't see much time for messing around on a bike there. Plus she is 26 years past retirement age.

The ruling classes, the class system and ultimately the aristocracy led to many many young men being slaughtered 'for King and country' in world war one.

But how does getting rid of the monarchy "fix" that. If we hadn't had a King it would have been "For Emperor and Country" or "For President and Country" or maybe just the plain old "For the country". Wars don't need monarchs to start them. I don't think the queen ordered anyone into Afghanistan or Iraq.

My problem with the monarchy is that it sends a very clear signal that we still think some people are better than others, by dint of who their parents were. The lauding of extreme wealth and privilege. Very poor message to be sending out in the modern world.

I don't know anyone under the age of about 80 who thinks the royals are "better" than the rest of us. There's a load of pomp and pageant where people bow and give respect, but I doubt anyone does it because of the sheer awesomeness of queen Liz, they do it because it's part and parcel of the whole thing. I seriously doubt it'd change if we had an elected head of state.

Mefty, its odd how those calculations differ depending on where you look. The uk cost to the royals does not include additional non direct costs! Which could be more than 40 million. And will be for year 2013/14. I would like the choice to support or not in my case a monarchy. I find it vile that I need to support a filthy rich family and there entourage in this day and age.

Well you were the one advocating the Dutch as a template, I was just pointing out that they are actually quite expensive.

I am sure it is not a perfect comparison, but no doubt there are indirect costs associated with the Dutch royal family as well which need to be taken into account.

What is interesting is what good PR getting on a bicycle is.

so here it is in another form:

That being from ' The official website of the British Monarchy'. That well known neutral and unbiased source of information on the monarchy. 😆

It must be so hard for her, to be whisked about in planes and expensive cars, to be waited on hand and foot everywhere she goes, to be afforded the very best food, healthcare and home life, and tp simply shake people's hands and look at stuff. I'm glad I don't have such a hectic 'working day' ( 😆 ) . Maybe if I just worked harder, I could have all those things- oh, hang on...

Mefty, fair point. Every country needs its heritage, I just think the people should not pay for them forever more. No easy answer.

I was never aware that they were employed by the British Tourist Board.

If you truly think the Royal Family contributes nothing to the economy then you are very, very deluded..

edit: &, may I add, only seeing half the argument. Perhaps that suits you?

Why do people still visit France, Italy, Germany, China and Russia on holiday even though their monarchies are disestablished?

Indeed, Paris gets more tourists than London does, getting rid of their monarchy doesn't seemed to have affected business.

Paris gets more tourists than London does

That's completely irrelevant.

London has crap weather, no pavement cafes in leafy boulevards, shit food, dull and boring architecture, and a third world public transport system. If it wasn't for Her Majesty no one would bother coming at all.

Ernie, I think your talking utter pants there. If you think people go to London just for the royals your clearly very badly informed/nuts!

I don't know anyone under the age of about 80 who thinks the royals are "better" than the rest of us. There's a load of pomp and pageant where people bow and give respect, but I doubt anyone does it because of the sheer awesomeness of queen Liz, they do it because it's part and parcel of the whole thing. I seriously doubt it'd change if we had an elected head of state.

so why have them then. Its like going to church but not believing in god.

Serious question though. Why would we need a president? The queen does **** all politically and would soon be got rid of if she started so why would we need a president rather than just a prime minister and second house?

If you truly think the Royal Family contributes nothing to the economy then you are very, very deluded..

So the Queen et al going round looking at things and smiling at folk 'contributes to the economy' does it? Well I never. 😆

It's good that the royals have loyal [i]subjects[/i] like you to help perpetuate the myth that they are actually of any practical benefit to our nation.

If you look up the list of the world's wealthiest nations, you will find that none of the countries that are above the UK have monarchs, except for Japan. So retaining a monarchy has no bearing on the economy. In fact India, which was once under British rule of course, is gradually climbing up the table, whilst Britain itself is sinking. Proof then that getting rid of fuedal rule is economically beneficial. 😀

Paris gets more tourists than London does, getting rid of their monarchy doesn't seemed to have affected business.

There you go; more proof.

London has crap weather, no pavement cafes in leafy boulevards, shit food, dull and boring architecture, and a third world public transport system. If it wasn't for Her Majesty no one would bother coming at all.

😆

Ernie, I think your talking utter pants there. If you think people go to London just for the royals your clearly very badly informed/nuts!

I think you should take Ernie's comments on this thread with a pinch of salt. As it is Ernie, this should be table salt not that poncey Maldon muck.

If you think people go to London just for the royals your clearly very badly informed/nuts!

Of course they do. They come from as far as the United States and Japan just to take photographs of where Her Majesty lives, and possibly get a glimpse of the world's most admired and respected lady. These foreign types love all our Royal Family - just look how devastated the yanks were when the People's Princess died.

Ha ha I'm sure they do!

If you look up the list of the world's wealthiest nations, you will find that none of the countries that are above the UK have monarchs, except for Japan. So retaining a monarchy has no bearing on the economy. In fact India, which was once under British rule of course, is gradually climbing up the table, whilst Britain itself is sinking. Proof then that getting rid of fuedal rule is economically beneficia

That's the worst argument I've ever heard, for anything. It's so full of holes it's untrue. The primary reason the UK economy is shot is because we produce next to nothing! Not because we have a Royal Family in situ...
edit: carrying on your argument, are you suggesting that the reason the economy if feked is down to the Royals? PRICELESS!! 😆

It's good that the royals have loyal subjects like you to help perpetuate the myth that they are actually of any practical benefit to our nation.

Is that an attempt to patronise me? How weak... 🙄

London has crap weather, no pavement cafes in leafy boulevards, shit food, dull and boring architecture, and a third world public transport system. If it wasn't for Her Majesty no one would bother coming at all.

Crap weather yes, but we have all the rest & plenty to spare. Ok the Public Transport system isn't great, but having lived in a fair few cities elsewhere, Londons isn't all that bad...

That's the worst argument I've ever heard, for anything. It's so full of holes it's untrue. The primary reason the UK economy is shot is because we produce next to nothing! Not because we have a Royal Family in situ...

Whereas your argument for preserving the monarchy is absolutely watertight. 😆

are you suggesting that the reason the economy if feked is down to the Royals? PRICELESS!!

No, I'm not, actually. Having an incumbent monarchy has no real benefit for our economy, is the absolute truth. I never stated that our economy is in decline because we have a monarchy. You seem to have added two and two together, and come up with five. 😕

Is that an attempt to patronise me?

It wasn't actually an 'attempt'. 😉

If we got rid of the monarchy we could get a good national anthem, and I might even start singing it.

You seem to have added two and two together, and come up with five

You'd know all about that.

edit: I made the point to show how weak yours was. If you truly think that not one tourist comes to the UK because of the Royal Family, then there is no point in carrying on this discussion as your blinkers are blinding you to some very important fundamentals.

If you want to get rid of them because you believe that a Republic would have more value (I use that in the widest sense of the word, then fine lets talk about that) but if its just to get rid of them because you dislike wealth & privilege then thats just cutting off your nose to spite your face. The Royals DO have a financial value to the UK economy, Anyone with any understanding of economics knows this to be true.

It wasn't actually an 'attempt'.

In any case you failed, miserably may I add.

If you truly think that not one tourist comes to the UK because of the Royal Family, then there is no point in carrying on this discussion as your blinkers are blinding you to some very important fundamentals.

And what fundamentals are those then?

😆

And what fundamentals are those then?

Prove to me they have no value economically.

No; how about you prove that their continued incumbency actually does have economic value. Bearing in mind that France and Germany are doing ok without monarchies.

Bearing in mind that it actually costs us taxpayers millions in things that aren't mentioned, like protection teams, extra policing for events and visits etc.

And if we dissolved the monarchy, we'd still reap the benefits of the royal estates, without it costing us anything to keep the scroungers in luxury.

Ah, I've actually gone and proven we'd be economically better off without them. 😀

The Royals are a brand & a very marketable one at that. You may not like what they stand for but you cant deny there cash value to the UK economy.

I think they are largely irrelevant too, I do though recognise their value in terms of £'s. The Windsors are a brand (dont perceive them as anything more or you're losing sight of the point) & one worth a lot of money to the UK.

Seems you prefer to swear at folk rather than discuss it, your loss.

Ah, I've actually gone and proven we'd be economically better off without them.

No, you've just given me your opinion & not one fact.

No, you've just given me your opinion & not one fact.

Yes I have! The fact that if they weren't around, we wouldn't have to pay for their keep!

That's just plain simple economic truth, is that! Only an idiot would argue against it!

😮

Yes I have! The fact that if they weren't around, we wouldn't have to pay for their keep!

That's just plain simple economic truth, is that! Only an idiot would argue against it!

Go google the Windsor brand & its value to the UK. I can't be bothered to put it up here for you, theres too much info on the web & it would take too long to do.

Besides I always think its better to find things out for yourself....

edit: [url= http://www.brandfinance.com/knowledge_centre/stories/introduction-understanding-the-value-of-the-british-monarchy-as-a-brand ]link[/url]

Its just one of many, but it seemed to have the most info in one place.

You may not like what they stand for but you cant deny there cash value to the UK economy.

To serious businesses and countries, they represent the backwardness of Britain, look at the damage the prince of golf did as business envoy. It was a position created to try and pretend the royals had a use, and he went around acting like a child insulting other nations, and general making the country into a laughing stock.

As for tourism the palace of Versailles seems to do rather better than the UK palaces for visitor numbers, and its a long time since that was a Royal abode, maybe if we chopped of the royal heads we could actually generate more tourism. It's not as if queeny greets all the visitors at the gates of Buckingham palace and gives them a personal tour.

mrlebowski - Member
Seems you prefer to swear at folk rather than discuss it, your loss.

I dislike people trying to shut down the debate by saying 'if you think x you just don't understand y' and just restating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

mrlebowski - Member

edit: link

Its just one of many, but it seemed to have the most info in one place.

And most of those revenue streams would still be open if we didn't have a Royal Family. Plus we'd be able to charge people to go round all the Royal residences, which would not be insignificant income.

I dislike people trying to shut down the debate by saying 'if you think x you just don't understand y' and just restating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true.

Hardly shutting the debate down. More a case of introducing a truth which some chose to ignore. They do have a cash value, thats a fact.

ps. next time dont gob off at me, its not nice & just creates a bad atmosphere.

El-bent - Member

Why do people still visit France, Italy, Germany, China and Russia on holiday even though their monarchies are disestablished?

Indeed, Paris gets more tourists than London does, getting rid of their monarchy doesn't seemed to have affected business.

[url= http://terrifictop10.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/top-ten-countries-by-tourist-arrivals/ ]Top visited countries pub. Jan 2012[/url]

According to this, and other sources going back to 2007, London is the most visited city in the world. As someone who has worked in high end tourisim and travel, a Royal approval/visit counts for serious kudos with overseas and UK based people alike.

And most of those revenue streams would still be open if we didn't have a Royal Family. Plus we'd be able to charge people to go round all the Royal residences, which would not be insignificant income.

True, but I think its the intangible finical value that needs to be considered too. A trickle down affect to other businesses perhaps?

I like the Royals, they're funny! Don't care about the rest of the rubbish spouted on here though. 😀

mrlebowski - Member

"I dislike people trying to shut down the debate by saying 'if you think x you just don't understand y' and just restating the same thing over and over doesn't make it true."

Hardly shutting the debate down. More a case of introducing a truth which some chose to ignore. They do have a cash value, thats a fact.

ps. next time dont gob off at me, its not nice & just creates a bad atmosphere.

It's not a truth just because you believe it. Plenty of stuff on both sides (benefit or cost) so to say 'you just don't understand' is frankly insulting, hence my response.

PS awwwwwwwwwwwww