|
Post by EspadaIII on Jun 7, 2022 12:04:14 GMT
I'll think you'll find that the income and tax paid by businesses pandering to the desires of overseas nationals for news about the Royal Family (especially from the US), far outwieghs the cost to the country of running them.
In a country like ours any person wanting to be President is exactly the sort of person you don't want as President.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,732
Member is Online
|
Platinum
Jun 7, 2022 12:41:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by bpg on Jun 7, 2022 12:41:32 GMT
The UK exports the Windsor's for consumption and imports the Kardashian's. Hmmm, who's getting the better deal ?
Given the choice between the UK setup and a Republic I'm inclined to go with the UK. I'm not a full on, flag waving, royalist but I'm no republican. The civil list went in 2012 however there does appear to be a large number of hangers on. Charles has getting on for half a dozen grandchildren. Maybe in days of yore a large succession line was required, not sure how relevant that is in 2022. It's not like we're still having 15 children to survive childhood diseases and look after us in old age.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,352
|
Platinum
Jun 7, 2022 12:50:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by WDB on Jun 7, 2022 12:50:39 GMT
I'll think you'll find that the income and tax paid by businesses pandering to the desires of overseas nationals for news about the Royal Family (especially from the US), far outweighs the cost to the country of running them. Often stated, never substantiated. Citation needed. 🤓 In a country like ours any person wanting to be President is exactly the sort of person you don't want as President. What is ‘a country like ours’? This is a well-worn quip but not worth anything more than a passing chuckle.
|
|
|
Post by bromptonaut on Jun 7, 2022 12:57:24 GMT
Starting with a blank page I'd not have a Monarchy or an appointed Upper House. If. however, we have those things and they're broadly working then best not to mess; if it's not broken etc.
IMHO it's perfectly possible to be a Monarchist but express a belief that Charles should abdicate in favour of his elder son. Whether he would or whether the example of Great Uncle David still stains after two generations is another question.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jun 7, 2022 13:03:57 GMT
I'll think you'll find that the income and tax paid by businesses pandering to the desires of overseas nationals for news about the Royal Family (especially from the US), far outwieghs the cost to the country of running them. In a country like ours any person wanting to be President is exactly the sort of person you don't want as President. Even if that first line were true (you'll have no trouble providing the links?), it's hardly sound basis for the selection of our national Head of State. You'll probably find Adele makes us more than the Royal Family. Is that reason enough to stick her on the throne? The amount of money we can or cannot extract from foreigners through our Head of State should not really be the main consideration here, if a consideration at all. But if you want that argument, the figures are out there showing your argument to be a myth. Have a look on Republic's website - yes, I know, you can say that's biased, but where else ie even prepared to do a proper anlysis? Teh only efforts our Establishemnt pres has made are described here - fullfact.org/news/royal-family-are-we-getting-our-moneys-worth/ The Emporer's New Clothes effect in this country blinds people to wanting to find out the truth. The value of the Monarchy to tourism is calculated on visits to sites which would still exist even without the Queen as HoS. In fact, income would probably increase as more locations could be open more of the time for paying visitors. See Versailles. You can't bloody move in that place. Your faith in our country is evidently far weaker than mine. Dozens of other countries succeed in choosing very creditable and popular non-political Heads of State (such as those I listed earlier amongst others), why should we be any different? Are we not "The Greatest Country on Earth" as we are so earnestly told by certain wings of political opinion here? Or is it all piss and wind...it certainly can't be the case that simultaneously we are a colossus amongst nations, and yet none among us apart from one family are fit to be our figurehead? WDB is right, and his approach (Elizabeth the Last) is the line being taken by Republic. It's only a matter of time I think. Might be a long time, probably beyond my years, but they will go in the end. I fully expect every other country which maintains the Queen as HoS will go Repblic soon, and certainly once she's gone. The process is under way already.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jun 7, 2022 13:07:48 GMT
Starting with a blank page I'd not have a Monarchy or an appointed Upper House. If. however, we have those things and they're broadly working then best not to mess; if it's not broken etc. IMHO it's perfectly possible to be a Monarchist but express a belief that Charles should abdicate in favour of his elder son. Whether he would or whether the example of Great Uncle David still stains after two generations is another question. It is, self evidently, broken. A political Head of Government who lies to the Monarch to unlawfully close down Parliament, Royal secrecy embedded in law, such that we can't see what influence they actually have on public life, an endless string of Royal scandals - need I mention Andrew? It's broken. The whole bloody thing is rotten to the core. Looking forward to our self-appointed and self-declared "Activist King" in a few years.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,732
Member is Online
|
Platinum
Jun 7, 2022 13:13:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by bpg on Jun 7, 2022 13:13:17 GMT
The difference between a politician and a statesman is that a politician thinks about the next election while the statesman think about the next generation.
- James Freeman Clarke
Not often I quote an American, this chap appears to have an understanding of how things work. It appears we've run out of statesmen, stateswomen, or anyone who can see, or cares, beyond the next GE. An MPs pension should not be granted based on a single term in office.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jun 7, 2022 13:28:50 GMT
If you are a monarchist, then you have to accept that you have no say in who takes the throne. That’s not quite true. The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 abolished the primacy of a male heir, and that was parliament’s doing, not the queen’s. Parliament could similarly, and quite reasonably, introduce a retirement age of, say, 75 for the serving monarch. That would spare us the absurdity of another 96-year-old head of state and (by simple generational arithmetic) a succession of aged, erm, successors. Hmmmm. Not really seeing any real world possibilty in that of having a say as to who ascends the throne when the current seat warmer keels over.
|
|
|
Platinum
Jun 7, 2022 13:41:00 GMT
via mobile
Post by Humph on Jun 7, 2022 13:41:00 GMT
Gosh, I simply don’t care. No really, it’s about as interesting to me as watching paint dry. Whether we continue have a Royal Family or not is irrelevant to me.
I suppose they are quite nice to look at from time to time, a bit like other quaint and ancient things, but if they stick around or if they don’t, it’d not matter a jot to me.
Maybe I should have an opinion, but frankly, it all just seems so unimportant. If it gives some people pleasure, be they British citizens or overseas visitors, then I guess that’s fine, and they don’t seem to have done me any harm so far, so I mean them no ill.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jun 7, 2022 13:57:50 GMT
I don't mean anyone any ill either Humph, I don't think many people do. I object to the institution, and how it infantilises us - IMHO.
Respect your position absolutely, but it's a bit odd to imply that anyone means any ill? I think the institution does harm to the country, I think it does harm to the individuals in the Royal Family too. I saw the coverage of them parading their cute wee children in front of the cameras for days this last weekend gone by, and wondered where they'll be in 15, 20 years time, subject to salacious scrutiny and gold digging from the media and others. The circus goes round and round, this latest crop of weans won't be exempt and it won't be too long before they're splashed all over the papers whatever they choose to do in their lives, for good or ill. Doesn't sit right with me, that.
You're free to differ of course, no argument there. It's just a discussion.
|
|
|
Platinum
Jun 7, 2022 14:16:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by Humph on Jun 7, 2022 14:16:30 GMT
Hadn’t particularly intended to imply anything really. Just comments on my own views or lack of them mainly. They are about as important to me as the contestants on a game show I don’t watch. I have no measurable opinions on them at all.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,732
Member is Online
|
Post by bpg on Jun 7, 2022 14:48:05 GMT
I saw the coverage of them parading their cute wee children in front of the cameras for days this last weekend gone by, and wondered where they'll be in 15, 20 years time, subject to salacious scrutiny and gold digging from the media and others. The circus goes round and round, this latest crop of weans won't be exempt and it won't be too long before they're splashed all over the papers whatever they choose to do in their lives, for good or ill. Doesn't sit right with me, that. Is that any different to the Beckham's offspring or Michael Jackson's or anyone who has a big chunk of 15 minutes fame. The media will do that to anyone and reflects more on the population they serve than anything else which is where I think EspIII was coming from when he commented earlier about "this country". He can of course speak for himself. That is how I interpreted what he meant.
|
|
WDB
Full Member
Posts: 7,352
|
Platinum
Jun 7, 2022 15:18:57 GMT
via mobile
Post by WDB on Jun 7, 2022 15:18:57 GMT
Is that any different to the Beckham's offspring or Michael Jackson's … ? At least the royal tots got to remain entirely on the balcony.
|
|
|
Post by Alanović on Jun 8, 2022 9:17:33 GMT
I saw the coverage of them parading their cute wee children in front of the cameras for days this last weekend gone by, and wondered where they'll be in 15, 20 years time, subject to salacious scrutiny and gold digging from the media and others. The circus goes round and round, this latest crop of weans won't be exempt and it won't be too long before they're splashed all over the papers whatever they choose to do in their lives, for good or ill. Doesn't sit right with me, that. Is that any different to the Beckham's offspring or Michael Jackson's or anyone who has a big chunk of 15 minutes fame. The media will do that to anyone and reflects more on the population they serve than anything else which is where I think EspIII was coming from when he commented earlier about "this country". He can of course speak for himself. That is how I interpreted what he meant. These people are supposed to be serious, dignified representatives and leaders of our nation, not tuppeny ha'penny slebs, grasping for attention and riches (the latter of which they have plenty, thanks to our largesse, ignorance and compliance rather than any actual skill or hard work). You're right, there should be no comparison. But there is, which is not to anyone's credit.
|
|
bpg
Full Member
Posts: 2,732
Member is Online
|
Platinum
Jun 8, 2022 11:02:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by bpg on Jun 8, 2022 11:02:49 GMT
I used to think that about politicians holding heads of department positions.
Now we have members of the cabinet who think they are on a catwalk and a PM who looks like he sleeps in a skip, hangs his suits on a hedge and brushes his hair with a balloon. I have not seen his shoes close up, I wouldn't be surprised if they had George written on them somewhere.
He thinks that projects global Britain.
|
|