[Politics] Royal Family: In or Out?

[Raleigh Chopper]

Whilst I understand your sentiment, "Hello Elizabeth" would be rather impolite to anyone you'd not already met - "Hello Mrs Windsor" would have been better.

Better than Mrs Saxe-Coburg.
She is famous so I knew who she was so I called her by her name.
I was always bumping into famous people when I lived in Ascot in shops and restaurants and if we spoke I called them by their name.
If Australians can get away with it, so can I.

 

[bhafc99]

The Royal Family generate hundreds of millions in tourism for the Exchequer and they have a truly global reach.

But isn’t that mostly from sales of Duchy Original Shortbread Biscuits?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Deleted member 2719]

I don't have anger issues, how would you know if I have or have not.
Just because I consider you and a few others on here as utter w@nkers due to your views on a few subjects does not mean that I am angry.
I just struggle to tolerate ignorant people that's all.

Maybe the clue was the repetitive name-calling, all because I have a different opinion to yours, blimey I must be so ignorant.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Even school governors are elected to their roles. I don't get why we have a body holding any sort of power that isn't elected or couldn't be removed by the people? It's madness.

Given the Lords don't represent constituents, you could run it like a governing body where elections to the Lords occurs as an when an individual's time is up or wishes to step down from the role rather than specific elections. A term could be be 10 years. Elections could be made by Parliament rather than the people given they are our representatives.

Could still retain your long term view, but also merge that with some resemblance of democracy.

I really do understand the imperative to have everything elected. I fought this in my own research society where, once, to get on the executive required a member to be invited to 'stand' then there would be one candidate per post....

But on the other hand, the ultimate form of democracy is to have the public vote on everything. Referenda....like we had on Brexit....

Not for me. I prefer a middle way, with parties elling their platform then governing for a limited time when they have to go back to the people, and that includes an unelected second chamber (moderating, but with limited powers, as now).

All the best

 

[peterward]

The money side of the story is being overplayed IMHO. The Royal Family generate hundreds of millions in tourism for the Exchequer and they have a truly global reach, so the bigger question is about brand impairment and fragmentation.

I think it was a huge error of judgement from Harry and Meghan trademarking their Foundation, having a separate non '.gov' website run from North America, commissioning their own logo and their own mission statement without getting agreement from the Queen and Charles. There is no perfect solution to this crisis, it is a PR disaster.

there are many reasons of why the royal family is of benefit to the nation. Its often written they bring a net financial benefit in tourism. Our political system of parliamentary democracy benefits from it.

Most of all they are one of the UK's best forms of soft power. I cant stand trump or President Xi but they loved being entertained by the Queen, as do many global leaders. The royal families service at events around the world is the kind of easy (non political) soft power that leads to trade deals and an extension of UK interests.

Besides which why wipe out centuries of history?

 

[Blue shirt and passport]

Keep the senior royals.

Retire the rest.

 

[Pavilionaire]

There isn't a bean of evidence to suggest they do. It's a very odd proposition that we don't apply to ourselves.

Can you think of any other country in the world that people visit because of a Royal Family ?

Oh come on! London is filled with tourists and what are the top attractions? The Tower of London, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben and The Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's Cathedral, Tower Bridge are all up there - all with royal connections, pageantry etc.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Oh come on! London is filled with tourists and what are the top attractions? The Tower of London, Buckingham Palace, Westminster Abbey, Big Ben and The Houses of Parliament, St. Paul's Cathedral, Tower Bridge are all up there - all with royal connections, pageantry etc.

That wouldn't change with or without an active Royal family. History will remain history. Top attractions will remain top attractions.

Visitors that actually pay to go to see Buckingham Palace per year approx. 700k. Palace of Versailles 7m.

 

[Pavilionaire]

They don't make anything like millions for this country through tourism.

The crown estate generates a fortune of which a percentage of the profit is given the the Queen. This was set up to legitimise the funding of the family, basically given Oxford Street. This portfolio would generate profits for the country with or without the royal family. Difference is that 15-20% of the profits wouldn't be given to those that won the biological lottery.

A study was done in 2017 by Brand Finance who concluded the Royal Family's annual contribution to the economy was £1.766 billion per annum, and they estimated the capital value of the UK Monarchy as a business at £67.5 billion. And this doesn't include the personal assets of the Royal Family, like Balmoral and the Sandringham estates.

According to that study, the annual cost per head to UK citizens of the monarchy is £4.50 a year.

 

[pastafarian]

There isn't a bean of evidence to suggest they do. It's a very odd proposition that we don't apply to ourselves.

Can you think of any other country in the world that people visit because of a Royal Family ?

What i find really odd is how some people think tourist related revenues are generated solely from international sources and completely ignore domestic based tourism.

 

[Raleigh Chopper]

Maybe the clue was the repetitive name-calling, all because I have a different opinion to yours, blimey I must be so ignorant.

I'm pleased for you that the fog is clearing and the penny has finally dropped.
Now go and get some help.

 

[clapham_gull]

A study was done in 2017 by Brand Finance who concluded the Royal Family's annual contribution to the economy was £1.766 billion per annum, and they estimated the capital value of the UK Monarchy as a business at £67.5 billion. And this doesn't include the personal assets of the Royal Family, like Balmoral and the Sandringham estates.

According to that study, the annual cost per head to UK citizens of the monarchy is £4.50 a year.

Well done for googling the only "study" that has been done. It's a sycophantic report by a private business consultancy and includes all sort of things that are effectively owned by the state anyway.

The headline 1.8 billion figures is gross and doesn't includes costs.

All you need to know about that report is that concludes the the Royal Family "contributes" £50 million to the Media Industry every year through "inspiration".

Defend the Royal Family, but you are scraping the barrel with that. It's nonsense.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

This is getting all very Brexit, innit?

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Well done for googling the only "study" that has been done. It's a sycophantic report by a private business consultancy and includes all sort of things that are effectively owned by the state anyway.

Stuff like the Jubilee brings in the revenue though. There were an estimated 1.2 million people watching the floatila and similar numbers in the Mall. Domestic or otherwise it is generating sales of tat, coffee, sandwiches or whatever.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/06/queen-s-diamond-jubilee-in-numbers

 

[Pavilionaire]

Well done for googling the only "study" that has been done. It's a sycophantic report by a private business consultancy and includes all sort of things that are effectively owned by the state anyway.

All you need to know about that report is that concludes the the Royal Family "contributes" £50 million to the Media Industry every year through "inspiration".

Even allowing for a large margin of error, that's still a lot of money and a lot of brand.

 

[Saunders]

Get rid of the royals and what is the alternative. President Blair, President Maggie, President Boris or Farage.

 

[clapham_gull]

Even allowing for a large margin of error, that's still a lot of money and a lot of brand.

The report is quite infamous I'm afraid and comes to some hugely subjective conclusions.

https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/

 

[clapham_gull]

Get rid of the royals and what is the alternative. President Blair, President Maggie, President Boris or Farage.

The old "President Blair" cliche.

 

[Simster]

Get rid of the royals and what is the alternative. President Blair, President Maggie, President Boris or Farage.

This is another tiresome conclusion (along with that crap report Clapham is correctly debunking). How on earth can it be concluded that an accident of birth is better than the will of the people? You would think people would open their eyes to the fact that one senior royal is a nonce who has undertaken several illegal business dealings and frequently used the RAF as his own personal taxi service. He should be in prison. Then you've got the racist bell end who mows people down in his Kensington tractor owing to his age, only to get straight back behind the wheel a few days later just because he wants to. And now we've got another sponger having his cake and eating it. Funny how he hasn't abdicated eh? I am convinced the people let this injustice continue simply because actual facts are not disclosed and because of the huge publicity machine that works on their behalf. Sadly though, all the while the people are happy with the royals, nothing will ever change.


Oh and the people didn't have a problem electing any of those people you mention to run the country did they? At least they're accountable.

 

[Saunders]

The old "President Blair" cliche.

It will happen "cliche" or not.