comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 6 minutes ago
Vote for a non Tory party who isn't the SNP that has candidates standing throughout the country who has a chance of winning. Like labour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SNP wins all over Scotland. It is VERY different to England you see. It's almost as if that's the point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then stop blaming the rest of the UK for subjecting you to a Tory GVT which then makes you want to leave the UK and admit that you just want to leave the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still really don't understand your point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 6 minutes ago
Vote for a non Tory party who isn't the SNP that has candidates standing throughout the country who has a chance of winning. Like labour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SNP wins all over Scotland. It is VERY different to England you see. It's almost as if that's the point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then stop blaming the rest of the UK for subjecting you to a Tory GVT which then makes you want to leave the UK and admit that you just want to leave the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still really don't understand your point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to explain?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
RB&W's point "oh you don't want a willy in your bum? Maybe you should have suggested putting it in your mouth instead then? That's your only other option if you don't want it thrust up your arrse. But you have the cheek to say that you don't want the willy in any orifice."
I will preface this post with the caveat/acknowledgment that I’m not a professional expert on these matters and I may be factually wrong on certain items, I am just expressing my opinion and stating things that I understand to be true. Happy to be factually corrected.
So often I see tax payer’s money brought into every conversation regarding the monarchy and whilst arguably the country (I.e. the tax payer) does contribute/pay money for the royals, their net contribution is undoubtedly positive. Now you might say that is irrelevant and that no money should go to them but they are a part of our country, a big part whether you like it / them or not.
The counter argument to the monarchy’s income generation is often that the major sites (Buckingham Palace) will still draw huge amounts of tourism revenue whether there is a monarchy or not (often citing France as an example) but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it. People also often neglect to mention that in the early 90s taxes began being voluntarily paid. I believe that the sovereign grant, the often labelled ‘us paying for the royals’ comes from a percentage of profit made from the crown estate revenue which is not part of the government nor the monarch’s private estate. It’s part of our history and the grant is about 15-25% of the CE’s surplus revenue. So whilst we could theoretically keep all of that money for the public, it’s not really the same as ‘us tax payers paying for them’. For context, it’s about £1.30 per person for the year. The vast majority of this money is property maintenance which would be similar with or without a monarchy (should we decide to keep the properties to use as tourist attractions for example). We could perhaps sell Buckingham Palace for a couple of billion say but that’s a drop in the ocean so obviously wouldn’t happen.
Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely on a global scale.
Pro or anti monarchy - just as much of a divide publicly is politically and the monarchy is apolitical; personified greatly by the late Queen.
The Windsor family is mostly a mess and not a family that I particularly rate collectively. But Elizabeth was one of them whom, in my opinion, conducted herself beyond reproach and had a net contribution to our country and the world which was immensely positive. I am generally a competency based judge when it comes to people in positions of power & influence, hence why I don’t particularly rate most of that family. But I do think that too many people espouse slogans that they’ve heard and treat as gospel and that too many also disproportionately detest the monarchy overall and specifically criticise our late queen who was far, far away from being a net negative force in the world during her long service.
Even on here, only a very small minority have been how I would characterise as unfairly critical or downright offensive towards Elizabeth. Such is the case with most matters when a large amount of people are involved (I mean there are some people on this planet that think the world is flat ffs). But I do think that there are quite a few whom are respectfully critical but still from a fairly uninformed position.
I now ask myself how I will feel and if my opinions will change with Charles, William and so on going forward. Elizabeth was my Queen for my entire life until her passing, Charles I think is a moron, typical upper-class twit without the morals that I expect/require from someone that I should respect & honour and the rest of them are barely worth talking about. Perhaps over the next 10-40 years of my life, should I be lucky enough to have them, I may move towards the opinion that quite a few of you already have?
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaborate oh mighty one
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair that has been United's problem lately, blokes getting roles/power not based on skill but on being part of Fergie's dynasty
"but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it."
It would probably increase as all palaces and royal residences could be opened up fully to tourists all year round.
Questions of affordability, or their money-making potential shouldn't be a reason for retaining this archaic institution, after all slavery was very profitable and no one misses that.
"Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely"
There was a report published a couple of years ago that concluded that there was no benefit to charities in having a royal patron.
You may want to look into how much time they actually spend each month 'not working' on our behalf (data publicly available).
When they count each phonecall, attendance at a sporting or social event, cutting a ribbon, or simply receiving someone for 20min as 'official engagements', and with more days off than on each month it's astonishing how little work they actually do, all for which they are well rewarded.
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaborate oh mighty one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To elaborate myself.
Like I said some very jealous people on this board and I suspect in the country, on the planet etc of the royal family.
The cost of the general population to the royal family is basically nothing per year, less than £2 per person, per year.
They generate far more income from everything else that surrounds them that they're actually a benefit to our economy.
I suggest you do some research on the whole subject.
You should be more bitter towards how much politicians cost the tax payer, because they do feck all for our economy.
Didnt trump's journey here cost around 14 million, all paid for by the tax payer I believe.
Forgot to also add that the queen paid income tax and capital gains tax, just the same as everyone else.
Voluntarily.
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaborate oh mighty one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To elaborate myself.
Like I said some very jealous people on this board and I suspect in the country, on the planet etc of the royal family.
The cost of the general population to the royal family is basically nothing per year, less than £2 per person, per year.
They generate far more income from everything else that surrounds them that they're actually a benefit to our economy.
I suggest you do some research on the whole subject.
You should be more bitter towards how much politicians cost the tax payer, because they do feck all for our economy.
Didnt trump's journey here cost around 14 million, all paid for by the tax payer I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance#:~:text=The%20Crown%20Estate,-The%20Crown%20Estate&text=The%20profit%20of%20The%20Crown,Sovereign%20Grant%20to%20the%20Monarch.
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
"but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it."
It would probably increase as all palaces and royal residences could be opened up fully to tourists all year round.
Questions of affordability, or their money-making potential shouldn't be a reason for retaining this archaic institution, after all slavery was very profitable and no one misses that.
"Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely"
There was a report published a couple of years ago that concluded that there was no benefit to charities in having a royal patron.
You may want to look into how much time they actually spend each month 'not working' on our behalf (data publicly available).
When they count each phonecall, attendance at a sporting or social event, cutting a ribbon, or simply receiving someone for 20min as 'official engagements', and with more days off than on each month it's astonishing how little work they actually do, all for which they are well rewarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 20 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So?
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 20 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work it out. The palace of Versailles for instance is a massive cash cow, the UK could follow suit.
Tourism has always been a nonsense reason to keep our shambolic royal system in place
My main issue with the Royals is the perception that somehow they're 'better' than us plebs just becauae of the family they're born into.
Our children have an opportunity (albeit small)to become leading sports starts, rock stars, scientists, etc but we'll never ever be a head of state under the current system.
In 2022 when equality is rightly an important topic the idea we should fawn a defer to any single family is wrong IMO.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
My main issue with the Royals is the perception that somehow they're 'better' than us plebs just becauae of the family they're born into.
Our children have an opportunity (albeit small)to become leading sports starts, rock stars, scientists, etc but we'll never ever be a head of state under the current system.
In 2022 when equality is rightly an important topic the idea we should fawn a defer to any single family is wrong IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to fawn Diafol, and I don't suppose you have.
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 20 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work it out. The palace of Versailles for instance is a massive cash cow, the UK could follow suit.
Tourism has always been a nonsense reason to keep our shambolic royal system in place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They're not shambolic, they're successful, read the papers today
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People come to France for the weather, coast, scenery, food, Paris. While there they swing by Versailles
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
RB&W's point "oh you don't want a willy in your bum? Maybe you should have suggested putting it in your mouth instead then? That's your only other option if you don't want it thrust up your arrse. But you have the cheek to say that you don't want the willy in any orifice."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow. you are so clever.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People come to France for the weather, coast, scenery, food, Paris. While there they swing by Versailles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are dozens of reasons France is the most visited country on the planet and it's not because they got rid of their monarchy hundreds of years ago.
Likewise, I've never met a toursit that visited the UK simply because of the Monarchy.
according to Google, France is the most popular tourists destination in Europe, because.....
'France entices people of all ages with some of the world's most iconic landmarks, world-class art and architecture, sensational food, stunning beaches, glitzy ski resorts, beautiful countryside and a staggering amount of history.”
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 3 minutes ago
Likewise, I've never met a toursit that visited the UK simply because of the Monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure what your point is
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People come to France for the weather, coast, scenery, food, Paris. While there they swing by Versailles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are dozens of reasons France is the most visited country on the planet and it's not because they got rid of their monarchy hundreds of years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which just proves the false equivalence that tourists visit the UK because we have a monarchy
Sign in if you want to comment
The Queen
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 6 minutes ago
Vote for a non Tory party who isn't the SNP that has candidates standing throughout the country who has a chance of winning. Like labour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SNP wins all over Scotland. It is VERY different to England you see. It's almost as if that's the point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then stop blaming the rest of the UK for subjecting you to a Tory GVT which then makes you want to leave the UK and admit that you just want to leave the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still really don't understand your point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok
posted on 10/9/22
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - Whiteside has done it again (U21434)
posted 6 minutes ago
Vote for a non Tory party who isn't the SNP that has candidates standing throughout the country who has a chance of winning. Like labour?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
SNP wins all over Scotland. It is VERY different to England you see. It's almost as if that's the point
----------------------------------------------------------------------
then stop blaming the rest of the UK for subjecting you to a Tory GVT which then makes you want to leave the UK and admit that you just want to leave the UK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Still really don't understand your point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
ok
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Care to explain?
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
posted on 10/9/22
RB&W's point "oh you don't want a willy in your bum? Maybe you should have suggested putting it in your mouth instead then? That's your only other option if you don't want it thrust up your arrse. But you have the cheek to say that you don't want the willy in any orifice."
posted on 10/9/22
I will preface this post with the caveat/acknowledgment that I’m not a professional expert on these matters and I may be factually wrong on certain items, I am just expressing my opinion and stating things that I understand to be true. Happy to be factually corrected.
So often I see tax payer’s money brought into every conversation regarding the monarchy and whilst arguably the country (I.e. the tax payer) does contribute/pay money for the royals, their net contribution is undoubtedly positive. Now you might say that is irrelevant and that no money should go to them but they are a part of our country, a big part whether you like it / them or not.
The counter argument to the monarchy’s income generation is often that the major sites (Buckingham Palace) will still draw huge amounts of tourism revenue whether there is a monarchy or not (often citing France as an example) but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it. People also often neglect to mention that in the early 90s taxes began being voluntarily paid. I believe that the sovereign grant, the often labelled ‘us paying for the royals’ comes from a percentage of profit made from the crown estate revenue which is not part of the government nor the monarch’s private estate. It’s part of our history and the grant is about 15-25% of the CE’s surplus revenue. So whilst we could theoretically keep all of that money for the public, it’s not really the same as ‘us tax payers paying for them’. For context, it’s about £1.30 per person for the year. The vast majority of this money is property maintenance which would be similar with or without a monarchy (should we decide to keep the properties to use as tourist attractions for example). We could perhaps sell Buckingham Palace for a couple of billion say but that’s a drop in the ocean so obviously wouldn’t happen.
Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely on a global scale.
Pro or anti monarchy - just as much of a divide publicly is politically and the monarchy is apolitical; personified greatly by the late Queen.
The Windsor family is mostly a mess and not a family that I particularly rate collectively. But Elizabeth was one of them whom, in my opinion, conducted herself beyond reproach and had a net contribution to our country and the world which was immensely positive. I am generally a competency based judge when it comes to people in positions of power & influence, hence why I don’t particularly rate most of that family. But I do think that too many people espouse slogans that they’ve heard and treat as gospel and that too many also disproportionately detest the monarchy overall and specifically criticise our late queen who was far, far away from being a net negative force in the world during her long service.
Even on here, only a very small minority have been how I would characterise as unfairly critical or downright offensive towards Elizabeth. Such is the case with most matters when a large amount of people are involved (I mean there are some people on this planet that think the world is flat ffs). But I do think that there are quite a few whom are respectfully critical but still from a fairly uninformed position.
I now ask myself how I will feel and if my opinions will change with Charles, William and so on going forward. Elizabeth was my Queen for my entire life until her passing, Charles I think is a moron, typical upper-class twit without the morals that I expect/require from someone that I should respect & honour and the rest of them are barely worth talking about. Perhaps over the next 10-40 years of my life, should I be lucky enough to have them, I may move towards the opinion that quite a few of you already have?
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaborate oh mighty one
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair that has been United's problem lately, blokes getting roles/power not based on skill but on being part of Fergie's dynasty
posted on 10/9/22
"but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it."
It would probably increase as all palaces and royal residences could be opened up fully to tourists all year round.
Questions of affordability, or their money-making potential shouldn't be a reason for retaining this archaic institution, after all slavery was very profitable and no one misses that.
"Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely"
There was a report published a couple of years ago that concluded that there was no benefit to charities in having a royal patron.
You may want to look into how much time they actually spend each month 'not working' on our behalf (data publicly available).
When they count each phonecall, attendance at a sporting or social event, cutting a ribbon, or simply receiving someone for 20min as 'official engagements', and with more days off than on each month it's astonishing how little work they actually do, all for which they are well rewarded.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaborate oh mighty one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To elaborate myself.
Like I said some very jealous people on this board and I suspect in the country, on the planet etc of the royal family.
The cost of the general population to the royal family is basically nothing per year, less than £2 per person, per year.
They generate far more income from everything else that surrounds them that they're actually a benefit to our economy.
I suggest you do some research on the whole subject.
You should be more bitter towards how much politicians cost the tax payer, because they do feck all for our economy.
Didnt trump's journey here cost around 14 million, all paid for by the tax payer I believe.
posted on 10/9/22
Forgot to also add that the queen paid income tax and capital gains tax, just the same as everyone else.
Voluntarily.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Marcus The Triumvir Antony (U10026)
posted 2 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 9 minutes ago
Brooklyn Beckham is not like Prince William. For one thing I don't have to pay for Brooklyn's upkeep. Brooklyn is where he is because his Dad was bloody good at football. A proper Beckham comparison would be if Brooklyn had taken over playing right wing for United after Becks left.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s such a ridiculous comparison.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Elaborate oh mighty one
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To elaborate myself.
Like I said some very jealous people on this board and I suspect in the country, on the planet etc of the royal family.
The cost of the general population to the royal family is basically nothing per year, less than £2 per person, per year.
They generate far more income from everything else that surrounds them that they're actually a benefit to our economy.
I suggest you do some research on the whole subject.
You should be more bitter towards how much politicians cost the tax payer, because they do feck all for our economy.
Didnt trump's journey here cost around 14 million, all paid for by the tax payer I believe.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance#:~:text=The%20Crown%20Estate,-The%20Crown%20Estate&text=The%20profit%20of%20The%20Crown,Sovereign%20Grant%20to%20the%20Monarch.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 1 hour, 8 minutes ago
"but I would happily wager that tourism revenue would drop should we get rid of the monarchy. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it."
It would probably increase as all palaces and royal residences could be opened up fully to tourists all year round.
Questions of affordability, or their money-making potential shouldn't be a reason for retaining this archaic institution, after all slavery was very profitable and no one misses that.
"Then we have the charitable contributions both financial and influential. Charles & Elizabeth (and others) have contributed hugely"
There was a report published a couple of years ago that concluded that there was no benefit to charities in having a royal patron.
You may want to look into how much time they actually spend each month 'not working' on our behalf (data publicly available).
When they count each phonecall, attendance at a sporting or social event, cutting a ribbon, or simply receiving someone for 20min as 'official engagements', and with more days off than on each month it's astonishing how little work they actually do, all for which they are well rewarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 10/9/22
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 20 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So?
posted on 10/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 20 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work it out. The palace of Versailles for instance is a massive cash cow, the UK could follow suit.
Tourism has always been a nonsense reason to keep our shambolic royal system in place
posted on 10/9/22
My main issue with the Royals is the perception that somehow they're 'better' than us plebs just becauae of the family they're born into.
Our children have an opportunity (albeit small)to become leading sports starts, rock stars, scientists, etc but we'll never ever be a head of state under the current system.
In 2022 when equality is rightly an important topic the idea we should fawn a defer to any single family is wrong IMO.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 4 minutes ago
My main issue with the Royals is the perception that somehow they're 'better' than us plebs just becauae of the family they're born into.
Our children have an opportunity (albeit small)to become leading sports starts, rock stars, scientists, etc but we'll never ever be a head of state under the current system.
In 2022 when equality is rightly an important topic the idea we should fawn a defer to any single family is wrong IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't have to fawn Diafol, and I don't suppose you have.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 39 minutes ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 20 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Work it out. The palace of Versailles for instance is a massive cash cow, the UK could follow suit.
Tourism has always been a nonsense reason to keep our shambolic royal system in place
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They're not shambolic, they're successful, read the papers today
posted on 10/9/22
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People come to France for the weather, coast, scenery, food, Paris. While there they swing by Versailles
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Zach Robinson (U1734)
posted 9 hours, 13 minutes ago
RB&W's point "oh you don't want a willy in your bum? Maybe you should have suggested putting it in your mouth instead then? That's your only other option if you don't want it thrust up your arrse. But you have the cheek to say that you don't want the willy in any orifice."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wow. you are so clever.
posted on 10/9/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People come to France for the weather, coast, scenery, food, Paris. While there they swing by Versailles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are dozens of reasons France is the most visited country on the planet and it's not because they got rid of their monarchy hundreds of years ago.
posted on 10/9/22
Likewise, I've never met a toursit that visited the UK simply because of the Monarchy.
posted on 10/9/22
according to Google, France is the most popular tourists destination in Europe, because.....
'France entices people of all ages with some of the world's most iconic landmarks, world-class art and architecture, sensational food, stunning beaches, glitzy ski resorts, beautiful countryside and a staggering amount of history.”
posted on 10/9/22
comment by Eagle Fang (U9028)
posted 3 minutes ago
Likewise, I've never met a toursit that visited the UK simply because of the Monarchy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure what your point is
posted on 10/9/22
comment by GregUnited (U1192)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The Post Nearly Man (U1270)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
France generates the most tourism revenue in Europe and they haven't had a monarchy since 1792. There's no correlation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
People come to France for the weather, coast, scenery, food, Paris. While there they swing by Versailles
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are dozens of reasons France is the most visited country on the planet and it's not because they got rid of their monarchy hundreds of years ago.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which just proves the false equivalence that tourists visit the UK because we have a monarchy
Page 7 of 9
6 | 7 | 8 | 9