The Royals

Shandashey

Any interest? Have to say, I do love following the British Royal Family. Andy and his under ages, Fergie and her toe sucking, Charles and his cheating ass, William and his large face. All in all, very interesting. And a sprog due soon, how EXCITING :P

893bet

Nope! No!

falan

How original:rolleyes:

alchemist33

Shandashey wrote: »

Any interest? Have to say, I do love following the British Royal Family. Andy and his under ages, Fergie and her toe sucking, Charles and his cheating ass, William and his large face. All in all, very interesting. And a sprog due soon, how EXCITING :P

Jesus! Some of us are eating, y'know

dxhound2005

What member of the Royle family scored in a FA Cup Final?

Joe Royle.

That only works in speech.

Shandashey

falan wrote: »

How original:rolleyes:

Love the rolly eyes! You are so CUTTING!

kneemos

What was Charles ass up to?

Junkyard Tom

I have zero interest in celebrities, royals or anything like that. I've always found the stories of regular Joe/Jane Soaps far more interesting than those of celebs, royals, former presidents etc.

Harry Palmr

They cannot hold a candle to the Grimaldi family

Canis Lupus

It's all a bit weird... Saw on the news a mother and teenage daughter who travelled 5 hours a day when Kate went into hospital in order to be there when the baby arrived. They apparently cried when the baby was announced and they were already doing the same thing as of a week ago for the latest addition...

What the **** is wrong with people....

Kristopherus

The Royal Family = the most dysfunctional family in the U.K.:mad:

brummytom

Bunch of unelected, benefit-scrounging, inbred fúckwits.

People who fawn over them, or give a shit about them at all just baffle me.

Junkyard Tom

Canis Lupus wrote: »

What the **** is wrong with people....

There's nowt so queer as folk.

Cold War Kid

Canis Lupus wrote: »

It's all a bit weird... Saw on the news a mother and teenage daughter who travelled 5 hours a day when Kate went into hospital in order to be there when the baby arrived. They apparently cried when the baby was announced and they were already doing the same thing as of a week ago for the latest addition...

What the **** is wrong with people....

Yeah I heard about them, if it's the same people - they're staying near the hospital a while now, to be there for the birth. They travelled from the north-east.

A modern-day Three Wise Men.

kneemos

Probably shouldn't be critical but does anybody else think kates kid looks about forty?

anncoates

I do like the way a lot of the male kids start out looking quite handsome and normal before the merciless time bomb of the Windsor genes turns them into rubicund, balding, horse-human hybrids by their late 20s.

johnny osbourne

good *** LUCJ TO CHEATS

Some people are bonkers about the Royals, it's bizarre. As a Brit, I think there's far too much money spent in perpetuating that privilege, but I have some vague fondness for the pomp and ceremony and ritual of the institution, in the abstract. It's a nice focal point for tourists in London if nothing else.

anncoates

anncoates wrote: »

I do like the way a lot of the male kids start out looking quite handsome and normal before the merciless time bomb of the Windsor genes turns them into rubicund, balding, horse-human hybrids by their late 20s.

Not just the male kids, Anne is the most equine looking of the lot.

anncoates

Candie wrote: »

Not just the male kids, Anne is the most equine looking of the lot.

Exhibit A:

http://static.indianexpress.com/pic/uploadedImages/bigImages/B_Id_402516_Prince_William.jpg

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/prince_william-444684.jpg

The Diabolical Monocle

Oh they're interesting alright.

Interesting from the point of view of a great lesson on how to pull up the metaphorical drawbridge once you've got the goods.

Not that I dislike them individually, on a personal level.

They've got a 24 hour 7 days a week job in one sense. And they should be rewarded for carrying that heavy responsibility.

That said, they seem more than just a wee bit overpaid, by all means, have a castle or two, but what they have in terms of land alone is unreal.

They know how to play it, and with that much cash, marketing experts and influence you know they're going to come off as saints.

This year a marriage, that year a kid, this year a visit, that year a ceremony, next year another kid, year after that a marriage. Photo ops in between. Target the female demographic with princes and horses and babies they love that sht.

Heir and a spare, keep out of politics directly. All the while keep your ass sat on the mountain of wealth. If you don't screw up the masses won't realize you're just another human getting away with it.

anncoates

anncoates wrote: »

Exhibit A:

http://static.indianexpress.com/pic/uploadedImages/bigImages/B_Id_402516_Prince_William.jpg

http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/prince_william-444684.jpg

He actually became Tim-Nice-But-Dim.

To be fair he seems like a nice enough chap, but Philip is where it's at for comedy value.

Harry has the potential to be the entertaining one of the current crop, if the PR folks don't ruin him first.

folamh

Monarchy might have been a good system to maintain valuable social mores and functions in the past, but that no longer applies to our modern globalized world. The Royal family generate a lot of revenue for the British economy in tourism and other sectors, though, so I guess the institution isn't completely purposeless.

Junkyard Tom

folamh wrote: »

The Royal family generate a lot of revenue for the British economy

There's no proof of this whatsoever.

Junkyard Cat

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

There's no proof of this whatsoever.

I'm surprised at that, London is chocablock with tourists who come to see BP, the changing of the guard etc.

Junkyard Tom

Candie wrote: »

I'm surprised at that, London is chocablock with tourists who come to see BP, the changing of the guard etc.

Yep, but it's impossible to prove or disprove whether, or not, the royals 'bring a lot of revenue' yet it is regularly spoken about as if it were a fact.

Newton's flaming laser sword.

K4t

They're an embarrassment.

The only logical reason given for their continued existence is the tourism revenue they generate but that has been shown to be greatly exaggerated too. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-family-value-for-money-not-worth-tuppence

Junkyard Cat

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Yep, but it's impossible to prove or disprove whether the royals 'bring a lot of revenue' yet it is regularly spoken about as if it were a fact.

Newton's flaming laser sword.

I can't imagine them not being a factor in bringing in the tourists, but whether they earn the money they've commanded is another issue. I suppose it's like the Pope - Vatican City might have plenty of tourists without him, but it's very likely he pulls in the numbers.

dxhound2005

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Yep, but it's impossible to prove or disprove whether, or not, the royals 'bring a lot of revenue' yet it is regularly spoken about as if it were a fact.

Newton's flaming laser sword.

If it is impossible to disprove it, it could be a fact.

The Diabolical Monocle

The tourists visit the buildings not the royals themselves.

Like in Paris the tourists visit the royal palaces/champs-elysses.

No majestic ones necessary for that cash.

The Diabolical Monocle

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

The tourists visit the buildings not the royals themselves.

Like in Paris the tourists visit the royal palaces/champs-elysses.

No majestic ones necessary for that cash.

They show up in vast numbers for the Queens birthday, changing of the guard and ceremonies like that. They like to witness the pomp and ceremony and the Royals are at the centre of it.

I'm not defending the institution, but there's no denying they draw in tourists. Americans in particular seem to love the concept of royalty, never having been under their thumb has rendered the thought romantic, I imagine.

4zn76tysfajdxp

brummytom wrote: »

Bunch of unelected, benefit-scrounging, inbred fúckwits.

Bit like the denizens of AH.

anncoates

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

Yep, but it's impossible to prove or disprove whether, or not, the royals 'bring a lot of revenue' yet it is regularly spoken about as if it were a fact.

Which presumably renders all opinions on the matter useless, including yours.

Junkyard Tom

K4t wrote: »

The only logical reason given for their continued existence is the tourism revenue they generate but that has been shown to be greatly exaggerated too. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-family-value-for-money-not-worth-tuppence

Which is to say it's not a reason at all:

In reality, of course, the calculation is fatuous, the true cost of running an extended royal family being multiples of £35.7m

So if we say it costs a minimum of three times the £35m figure that that adds up to roughly £100,000,000 (one hundred million GBP). Now I personally find it hard to believe that any revenue generated by people coming to see the royals is anywhere close to £100m GBP.

I'd imagine £100 million GBP would buy an awful lot of advertising to sell Britain/London as a tourist destination.

Junkyard Tom

anncoates wrote: »

Which presumably renders all opinions on the matter useless, including yours.

Not quite. I'm not claiming that the royals are a nett loss or gain to the British exchequer, rather, the claim they are are a nett gain is an opinion not a factual calculation.

Junkyard Tom

This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or, at least, neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

Guess what pinko communist liberal came up with that?

It was only the 'Father of Capitalism' Adam Smith

anncoates

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

the claim they are are a nett gain is an opinion not a factual calculation.

You also don't know if they are a net gain or not and the possibility that they might be obviously seems unpalatable to you (I personally couldn't care less if they are or not) so you're really trying to debunk same by implication but hiding behind semantics.

Junkyard Tom

anncoates wrote: »

You also don't know if they are a net gain or not

Yes, but I'm not the one claiming they are/aren't.

and the possibility that they are obviously seems unpalatable to you

I'm not British so it's doesn't leave either a sweet or sour taste in my mouth.

Actually I think the British royals act as a kinda cultural anchor point for many British people so in that sense you can't really put a monetary value on them.

What I'm highlighting is that the idea they fund themselves, by way of tourism, is an unproven claim.

B.A._Baracus

Honestly, I don't think I can ever understand how any english person can like the Royal Family.
Because they are a family appointed to have power and money. What makes them different than everyone else?

crockholm

I keep an Eye on what the Scandanavian Royal families get up to,particularly the Swedish ones (who are actually descended from a Napoleonic French general,Bernadotte)
The king seems like a humble enough fellah,constant rumours of a penchant for strippers and has palled around with notorious Serbian mafia figures in the past.
The Queen is a German who is botoxed up to fuuck-and had nazi supporting parents iirc.
Their 3 kids are married to, a personal trainer,a model,some wall street dude called O'Neill.

They're all right.

folamh

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

the British royals act as a kinda cultural anchor point for many British people

Where's yo proof?

folamh

"The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace"

"What's more, a British firm called Brand Finance, which evaluates "intangible assets," said the royal wedding alone boosted London's economy by 107 million pounds ($165 million) through "accommodation, travel, and nightlife," even while factoring in the economic drag of time off work."

"Judging solely from those statistics (which obviously vary in their methodology), it does seem like the monarchy pays for itself, at least in the years that feature familial mega-events."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

Not technically proof, but ought we discount strong evidence?

folamh

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think I can ever understand how any english person can like the Royal Family.
Because they are a family appointed to have power and money. What makes them different than everyone else?

Any worse than thousands of other British families who are filthy rich because of inheritance and nepotism, but without benefiting the community/country in any way?

DEFTLEFTHAND

Harry by all accounts is a good decent bloke, he likes his pint of Carling, PDC Darts and a Benson & Hedges cigarette.

Alexis Sanchez

anncoates wrote: »

I do like the way a lot of the male kids start out looking quite handsome and normal before the merciless time bomb of the Windsor genes turns them into rubicund, balding, horse-human hybrids by their late 20s.

He really has aged horrifically.

tomwaterford

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Honestly, I don't think I can ever understand how any english person can like the Royal Family.
Because they are a family appointed to have power and money. What makes them different than everyone else?

It is the greatest example of inequality anywhere in the world

tomwaterford

tomwaterford wrote: »

It is the greatest example of inequality anywhere in the world

Very wrong.

The King of Thailand is worth about 30 billion.

The average wage there is far lower than the UK.

There are many other examples of royal families in developing countries whose wealth vastly exceeds that of their subjects.

Happy to help.

Dirty Dingus McGee

folamh wrote: »

"The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace"

"What's more, a British firm called Brand Finance, which evaluates "intangible assets," said the royal wedding alone boosted London's economy by 107 million pounds ($165 million) through "accommodation, travel, and nightlife," even while factoring in the economic drag of time off work."

"Judging solely from those statistics (which obviously vary in their methodology), it does seem like the monarchy pays for itself, at least in the years that feature familial mega-events."

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

Not technically proof, but ought we discount strong evidence?

But how many people go to those places because of the current Royal family.

Versaille is the third most popular French Tourist destination and they haven't had a Royal Family in over 200 years.

I suspect people would go to those places whether or not they had a Royal Family anymore in the UK.

Optimalprimerib

Shandashey wrote: »

Any interest? Have to say, I do love following the British Royal Family. Andy and his under ages, Fergie and her toe sucking, Charles and his cheating ass, William and his large face. All in all, very interesting. And a sprog due soon, how EXCITING :P

Im a royal but I think our time is up. We were huge in the 80's and 90's but since the drug tests came in around 2001, boylan's "herbs" could no longer sustain our energy.

DEFTLEFTHAND

I was sired by an O'Connor and bore by an O'Neill. Irish Royalty on both sides, One day we'll take Ulster and the seat of the High King at Tara back.

folamh

tomwaterford wrote: »

It is the greatest example of inequality anywhere in the world

The president of Turkey lives in a 1,000-room palace which is 30 times the size of the White House and contains a special lab where experts analyze his food before he eats it.