Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Queen Elizabeth II dies

14950525455108

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,468 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    You always hear this. The RF costs a certain amount yearly. Many millions. All they generate pretty much goes to the treasury.

    They generate many millions for the British/economy/treasury. I’m not an economist, but there are those saying that RF pays for itself, and some, and those saying it’s not a good deal.

    bottom line: it has existed for a long time in unison with “regular” Britain. It’s part of the same country/state as all Britons. It contributes. That for sure.

    Scrapping RF won’t at all dent/eliminate poverty.



  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 21,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    It must be a lot of pressure for the drivers and the police being filmed all along the route.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,101 ✭✭✭Montage of Feck


    Show some stiff upper lip man, never let those paddies get the idea they are getting you ruffled!

    🙈🙉🙊



  • Posts: 756 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    And Brit opinion is not the tone policed monolithic groupthink enforced spiel of msm: to use a word /dog whistle beloved by some there is nuance.




  • Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Correct me,if I'm wrong,but aren't they the largest landowners in the UK


    You can't honestly think it's ok,to have people in dire poverty struggling to feed emselves and simultaneously have same country supporting a royal family.....there no better than the poorest down & out or people on welfare whom demonized over there,and there's no justification for the money poured into propping em up,


    It's literally institutionalised inequality



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,468 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    But it’s the big question : if monarchy/RF disappeared, would Britain be financially wealthier or not?

    a lot of their presence and work/benefit is also not measurable in money terms.

    Two sides: pro and anti monarchy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,051 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    I feel I respect most cultures and traditions around the world. Quite sad that you can’t see past your bitterness and bigotry to try and understand why the majority of British people want the monarchy to continue and indeed the majority of Irish people found our monarch to be their most popular leader on these islands



  • Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    It would not have to prop them up,and all monies received for rent etc go straight into tax take



    Their is no benefit that justifies the wealth inequality they cause....no country that has removed royalty has ever returned to it,it's about 200 years out of date



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,395 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    I think you might be stretching it there! I'm sure there are plenty of people employed but these could just as easily be public servants rather in the employ of the monarchy. If they wanted to reform the monarchy in the UK, one way would to rejig the financial underpinning of same. Keep the royal family succession but simply fund it straight from parliament.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,468 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Just watching Edinburgh here. Very beautifully scenic place. Queen arriving there.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,051 ✭✭✭✭downcow


    I never doubted the bitterness of some nationalists in my community but my WhatsApp is filling up now with videos from local rural pubs of mass singing of “lizzy’s in a box” etc. I am shocked at the extent of it. It will be very important that nationalist leaders speak out clearly about these hate crimes in the same way as they rightly spoke out about the songs about the young woman from Tyrone. Employers also need to follow suit on that case and dismiss those identified.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,468 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The money they generate (huge amounts) goes to treasurey . Goes to the people. Any wealth inequality needs to be addressed by elected officials here.

    With or without a RF, there will always be wealth/inequality. It’s part of life/society.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,534 ✭✭✭Suckler


    It's quite crass that you feign mourning to point score with strangers on the internet.



  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    that's some crowd in Edinburgh. Nice to see



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,395 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    As I pointed out above, I'd reckon as a people, we might have a soft spot for a dynastic family that would provide a succession of heads of state. Look at how we fawn over Grace O'Malley (Gráinne Mhaoil), Brian Boru, Queen Maedbh, even McMurrough Kavanagh and so on. We love a tribe - see the success of the Healy Raes and that many other politicians have family dynasties. We'd love it and lap it up.



  • Posts: 6,246 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    TBF it's bloody weird when people here, fawn over someone over who their family is


    I'm always reminded of the quip,by a FG TD to marc mcsharry,in that he's a great example of how greatness skips a generation


    People should stand on their own merit imo



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,395 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Someone pointed out on RTE news earlier that we have our elected president and have sort of managed so far to avoid disasters. If the Brits had an elected head of state they could equally be open to all sorts - Boris, Branson, Nigel Farage, Mary Berry, Attenborough etc. Whoever has enough popularity and/or money. Monarchy serves well in that regard, boring but safe and predictable on the whole.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Were they? I'm sure the denizens of the diseased slums of the East End of London were delighted with their lot. High infant mortality rates, rampant prostitution, venereal disease alcoholism etc.

    In your mind's eye I can tell you're thinking of whistling jolly chimney sweeps like Oliver etc etc.

    It's this type of mawkish regard for a golden era of settled British life that never existed that gave us Brexit.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,731 ✭✭✭Schwiiing


    Set the cruise control for 30mph and keep an eye on Google Maps. Easy-peasy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,309 ✭✭✭Pwindedd


    It’s quite the question indeed. The crown estate is worth approximately £35 Billion. For context the UK yearly pension bill is over £100B.

    Even if you could liquidise the assets overnight it’s drop in the ocean and would be a one off benefit. Then it’s gone. No more yearly revenue to the Treasury.

    And who do you sell it to ? You’d be making a lot of people homeless and jobless if you did. Shopkeepers, farmers, staff etc. The entirety of regents st is owned by the Crown estate.

    You could keep the assets and repurpose the palaces. Manage them more efficiently etc. The current yearly profit on the estate is around £300m. (That’s just under a fiver a year for every man woman and child in the UK - meh)

    I do agree the optics of it all don’t look great though. There’s no denying It is extreme opulence and luxury for a privileged few. I don’t think abolishing the monarchy and selling off the assets is the poverty busting solution to the current crisis, but a scaling back and trimming-the-fat approach would at least make it more palatable.

    The monarchy is by no means useless. We’d still need a head of state. This wouldn’t come cheap either.

    No overnight solutions here. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t consider the options.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,468 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    I listened to that. Brings lot more stability.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,395 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    Yep, that's where the reforms will have to come. What do they call it these days, downsizing :)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 59,468 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Exactly. Two sides, and no actual right/wrong answer. To date the RF and Britain side by side have been doing ok. Of course, you will hear two sides arguing. There are pros and cons to having the monarchy. For British people it is about finding a balance. And of course, their decision to have it or not.



  • Posts: 5,121 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Indeed. Look at the visit to Ireland and the impact that it had (squandered of course by the current crop of Brexit politicians). And compare to a scenario in which the state visit had been carried out by a UK president - probably some washed up and partisan politician or celebrity nominated by their party. Or a business person doing it just for the celebrity factor. The scenarios don't compare. The monarchy has, and will retain for many years, a huge level of soft power and diplomatic influence

    I do not for one second believe that the British public could elect a head of state who is not overtly political. And should the monarchy be abolished I would be very surprised if Boris Johnson doesn't make it into the hot seat at some stage. The monarchy is a stabilising influence that is to the benefit of the UK, and by extension the UK's partners.

    I don't disagree with the wealth criticisms, and I think that King Charles will slim things down, and William will inherit a much smaller monarchy. What it costs the country on a day to day basis is not material, but the stores of land and wealth (mostly land and property) could certainly be put to better public use.

    From a constitutional perspective, a much bigger issue is the composition of the house of lords, which absolutely should be an elected chamber



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,551 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    She is nowhere near as important as any of the Prime Minister's during her reign. You can add to that the leader of any major country.

    You are really not hurting me with the "revelation" I am a nobody. I didn't work my way up out of the slums to a position of importance like Liz did.



  • Posts: 24,207 ✭✭✭✭ Derrick Rotten Wharf


    Imagine if the satnav had issues and lead vehicle took the wrong direction and they all ended up in sone estate… and not of the grandiose type 😁



  • Posts: 710 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    So they should replace them with a president, who lives in a big house, earns a few hundred grand a year and has his own private plane, drivers, cooks….,



  • Posts: 24,207 ✭✭✭✭ Derrick Rotten Wharf


    I think Charles may have different ideas on reforming the finances of the House of Windsor and have a different type of legacy altogether to his mother.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,551 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    We haven't avoided disaster we have elected the right people by voting with maturity. Not sure we ever came close to any sort of extremist President.

    If the UK had a President Boris would have been a likely winner before his PM days. Farage failed multiple times to be an MP so I doubt he could ever take a national majority. President Attenborough would be amazing.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 21,859 Mod ✭✭✭✭Leg End Reject


    They had plenty of police there, and possibly an empty coffin. 😄

    Post edited by Boards.ie: Paul on


Advertisement