The Royals

4zn76tysfajdxp · 25-04-2015 12:07AM

brummytom wrote: »

Bunch of unelected, benefit-scrounging, inbred fúckwits.

Bit like the denizens of AH.

anncoates · 25-04-2015 12:07AM

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 · 25-04-2015 12:14AM

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 · 25-04-2015 12:19AM

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 · 25-04-2015 12:42AM

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 · 25-04-2015 12:46AM

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 · 25-04-2015 12:52AM

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 · 25-04-2015 01:01AM

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 · 25-04-2015 01:03AM

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 · 25-04-2015 05:53AM

Junkyard Cat wrote: »

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

Where's yo proof?

folamh · 25-04-2015 06:01AM

"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 · 25-04-2015 06:12AM

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 · 25-04-2015 06:56AM

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

Alexis Sanchez · 25-04-2015 07:10AM

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 · 25-04-2015 07:23AM

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

25-04-2015 07:38AM

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 · 25-04-2015 07:40AM

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 · 25-04-2015 07:42AM

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 · 25-04-2015 08:03AM

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 · 25-04-2015 12:46PM

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.

folamh · 25-04-2015 12:50PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

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.

People would probably visit the buildings if the Royal family ceased to exist, but there also exists a huge Royal family fandom (obsessives) worldwide.

Tarzana2 · 25-04-2015 03:16PM

kneemos wrote: »

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

Nope, she looks about her age. William, on the other hand, looks dreadful. He looks late 40s at least.

Tarzana2 · 25-04-2015 03:20PM

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.

Harry seems to be escaping that. Interesting.

padd b1975 · 25-04-2015 03:46PM

"You are a woman.....aren't you??"

Prince Philip.

The world will be a darker place when he goes.

Zebra3 · 25-04-2015 04:12PM

Who could forget about the queen's husband, Britain's beloved racist?

And Uncle Mounty the peado?

Wonderful people.

Quick change of name, cover up that their Germans and the dumb British taxpayer is back fawning over them.

fleet_admiral · 25-04-2015 04:21PM

I have no interest in them or any other foreign monarchs

Saralee4 · 25-04-2015 04:43PM

I really do not have any respect for them at all. I don't think they have earned it.

I don't get the fuss about them. I hate the way Harry is portrayed as the likeable cheeky chappy (I reckon if you had a 5 min chat with him, you'd find he's probably an entitled little brat). The whole media circus with Kate and "wills" the love story kind of makes me feel sick also. It just seems like branding. And it was very sad how Diana died but the ridiculousness of how people went on when she died was crazy. I remember my religion teacher spent a whole class talking about how great she was and at the time mother Theresa had died but she didn't even mention her. This was in Ireland and an irish teacher.

I don't get what a monarchy bring to a country. People should not have to pay a tax to go to some family that are already loaded and have been given enough from the country. I think it's backwards.

Tarzana2 · 25-04-2015 04:48PM

Saralee4 wrote: »

I really do not have any respect for them at all. I don't think they have earned it.

I don't get the fuss about them. I hate the way Harry is portrayed as the likeable cheeky chappy (I reckon if you had a 5 min chat with him, you'd find he's probably an entitled little brat). The whole media circus with Kate and "wills" the love story kind of makes me feel sick also. It just seems like branding. And it was very sad how Diana died but the ridiculousness of how people went on when she died was crazy. I remember my religion teacher spent a whole class talking about how great she was and at the time mother Theresa had died but she didn't even mention her. This was in Ireland and an irish teacher.

I don't get what a monarchy bring to a country. People should not have to pay a tax to go to some family that are already loaded and have been given enough from the country. I think it's backwards.

Give me Princess Diana over that witch Mother Theresa any day, though I agree that the fuss was ridiculous.

folamh · 25-04-2015 04:51PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Give me Princess Diana over that witch Mother Theresa any day, though I agree that the fuss was ridiculous.

You watch that Hitchens documentary too?

Saralee4 · 25-04-2015 04:54PM

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Give me Princess Diana over that witch Mother Theresa any day, though I agree that the fuss was ridiculous.

Haha yes i don't know much about her or what she did. I heard she wasn't great but at the time people didn't know that so i always thought it was funny that my teacher never mentioned her and went on about Diana!

The Royals

Comments