Royals

[Frideswide]

Providing employment is one of the good things about them.

 

[Floyd]

Providing employment is one of the good things about them.

They certainly do that, that's for sure!

 

[Yithian]

What gets me is the amount of money that must be spent on Security, cars & drivers, chefs, doctors, waiting staff, cleaners, shoppers, helicopters/planes, gardeners, organisers, butlers..... And of course, even when they're not, say at Balmoral, or any other number of residences, someone still has to be there 24/7 looking after the place, keeping the heating on, tending the gardens etc etc. It surely runs into £ Billions not just Millions?

Fortunately, the Crown Estate is worth over fourteen billion quid and pulls in over three hundred million per annum in income.

75% goes to HMG, 25% to the Monarchy (the Sovereign Grant).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

And the Duchy of Lancaster's estate brings in nearly twenty million per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

The Duchy of Cornwall earns another twenty-ish million per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

To save everybody on the maths, that's One Imperial Fuckton of income with which to offset expenses.

 

[Floyd]

Fortunately, the Crown Estate is worth over fourteen billion quid and pulls in over three hundred million per annum in income.

75% goes to HMG, 25% to the Monarchy (the Sovereign Grant).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

And the Duchy of Lancaster's estate brings in nearly twenty million per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

The Duchy of Cornwall earns another twenty-ish million per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

To save everybody on the maths, that's One Imperial Fuckton of income with which to offset expenses.

Just done my 'fuckton times tables'- it IS indeed a lot of cash.

 

[Frideswide]

They certainly do that, that's for sure!

and I say that as a republican

 

[Mikefule]

Fortunately, the Crown Estate is worth over fourteen billion quid and pulls in over three hundred million per annum in income.

75% goes to HMG, 25% to the Monarchy (the Sovereign Grant).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

And the Duchy of Lancaster's estate brings in nearly twenty million per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

The Duchy of Cornwall earns another twenty-ish million per year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall

To save everybody on the maths, that's One Imperial Fuckton of income with which to offset expenses.

Philosophically, I ought to think that there is no place for hereditary power in the modern world. However, I'm not anti royal. I admire our present Queen and am quite fond of several of the senior royals.

Indeed, when I see what democracy has produced over recent years in the UK and the US (not to mention Italy), the hereditary system that produced our present Queen seems pretty successful.

With the caveat that I am not arguing strongly for or against the monarchy...

The Crown Estate would presumably produce roughly the same amount of revenue for the "greater good of the state" if it were in public ownership.

If someone inherits a massive estate as a going concern, then justifies their privileges and their cost to the tax payer on the basis of how much their inherited estate pays in tax, it sounds a bit weak to me.

However, our Heath Robinson constitution, with all its wrinkles and vagaries, and things that shouldn't work but do, is a remarkable achievement.

Part of my tax may go towards funding the monarchy. So, part of my TV licence goes to paying millionaires who do little but talk to other millionaires who are promoting their latest films, records or books. Every time I buy a music track, part of what I pay is going to millionaires who did not make the music, but without whom the recordings would not be available. If I buy a MacBook, I don't grumble about the lifestyles of the directors of Apple.

As the song says, "Haters Gonna Hate," but if the monarchy costs me 69p a year, that's the least of my worries. I'd rather have this particular Queen as Head of State than any of the likely candidates to be the next PM, from any of the parties!

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Philosophically, I ought to think that there is no place for hereditary power in the modern world. However, I'm not anti royal. I admire our present Queen and am quite fond of several of the senior royals.

Indeed, when I see what democracy has produced over recent years in the UK and the US (not to mention Italy), the hereditary system that produced our present Queen seems pretty successful.

With the caveat that I am not arguing strongly for or against the monarchy...

The Crown Estate would presumably produce roughly the same amount of revenue for the "greater good of the state" if it were in public ownership.

If someone inherits a massive estate as a going concern, then justifies their privileges and their cost to the tax payer on the basis of how much their inherited estate pays in tax, it sounds a bit weak to me.

However, our Heath Robinson constitution, with all its wrinkles and vagaries, and things that shouldn't work but do, is a remarkable achievement.

Part of my tax may go towards funding the monarchy. So, part of my TV licence goes to paying millionaires who do little but talk to other millionaires who are promoting their latest films, records or books. Every time I buy a music track, part of what I pay is going to millionaires who did not make the music, but without whom the recordings would not be available. If I buy a MacBook, I don't grumble about the lifestyles of the directors of Apple.

As the song says, "Haters Gonna Hate," but if the monarchy costs me 69p a year, that's the least of my worries. I'd rather have this particular Queen as Head of State than any of the likely candidates to be the next PM, from any of the parties!

I'm sure they are fond of you too.


Yes but we enjoy films, records and books - what do the Royals produce?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Yes but we enjoy films, records and books - what do the Royals produce?

Tourism / Souvenirs.
Diplomacy with other countries that also have royalty. Greases the wheels of industry when we want to sell stuff.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Tourism / Souvenirs.
Diplomacy with other countries that also have royalty. Greases the wheels of industry when we want to sell stuff.

This old chestnut. Countries that don't have a weird-looking family in residence, scalping off millions, seem to do alright.

I don't buy Royals souvenirs and nobody I know does - the country is hardly on its knees because of it.

 

[Mikefule]

Yes but we enjoy films, records and books - what do the Royals produce?

If "enjoyment" is a valid thing to produce, and I believe that in most cases it is, then the Royals provide plenty of that. Witness the thousands who turn up to cheer every Royal event, or the way that newspaper and magazine sales increase when there is a picture of certain Royals on the front. Indeed, witness the great enjoyment that some people derive from having a royal family to rail against.

What does a DJ produce? They play someone else's recordings, but they help people to enjoy themselves. What does a ceilidh caller produce? They give people enjoyment. In each case, there is no tangible product, nothing new, just the enjoyment of the moment.

That said, the senior royals do a lot of work supporting charities and the like. The senior royals performed 3,793 formal engagements last year. The Queen herself is 93. If I were to suggest that any other 93 year old should work harder, I would be rightly criticised.

 

[Mythopoeika]

I don't buy Royals souvenirs and nobody I know does - the country is hardly on its knees because of it.

Plenty of little old ladies do. And foreign tourists.

 

[Yithian]

This old chestnut. Countries that don't have a weird-looking family in residence, scalping off millions, seem to do alright.

I don't buy Royals souvenirs and nobody I know does - the country is hardly on its knees because of it.

Mental note to send him a tea-towel at Christmas.

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Plenty of little old ladies do. And foreign tourists.

Thank god for the little old lady factor! Otherwise, Britain's finances would be dead.

If "enjoyment" is a valid thing to produce, and I believe that in most cases it is, then the Royals provide plenty of that. Witness the thousands who turn up to cheer every Royal event, or the way that newspaper and magazine sales increase when there is a picture of certain Royals on the front. Indeed, witness the great enjoyment that some people derive from having a royal family to rail against.

What does a DJ produce? They play someone else's recordings, but they help people to enjoy themselves. What does a ceilidh caller produce? They give people enjoyment. In each case, there is no tangible product, nothing new, just the enjoyment of the moment.

That said, the senior royals do a lot of work supporting charities and the like. The senior royals performed 3,793 formal engagements last year. The Queen herself is 93. If I were to suggest that any other 93 year old should work harder, I would be rightly criticised.

She knows as soon as she takes the foot off the pedal the family is doomed as we all realise what a colossal waste of money they are.

Sorry, but she turns up, people bow to her and then she fucks off - yes it's impressive but then my 96 old relative who died recently did a lot visiting other old people and organising groups, etc, without billions of pounds being given to her for free.

Your whole DJ thing is a silly point as a decent DJ remakes sounds. If Princess Eugine, (is this a real person? I've no idea), could do the same than fair play. Most DJ's work really hard for their money.

I reckon you could put any random family on the map, give them lots of well-managed media people and the tourists who are stupid enough to fall for that lark would come and pay for it. Kardashians ring a bell?

 

[Naughty_Felid]

If "enjoyment" is a valid thing to produce, and I believe that in most cases it is, then the Royals provide plenty of that. Witness the thousands who turn up to cheer every Royal event, or the way that newspaper and magazine sales increase when there is a picture of certain Royals on the front. Indeed, witness the great enjoyment that some people derive from having a royal family to rail against.

What does a DJ produce? They play someone else's recordings, but they help people to enjoy themselves. What does a ceilidh caller produce? They give people enjoyment. In each case, there is no tangible product, nothing new, just the enjoyment of the moment.

That said, the senior royals do a lot of work supporting charities and the like. The senior royals performed 3,793 formal engagements last year. The Queen herself is 93. If I were to suggest that any other 93 year old should work harder, I would be rightly criticised.

Just an add to my above post. As I've said my relative who was 96 took care of her elderly community by visiting them and organising groups. My mum who is close to 80 does the same thing. She looks after the isolated elderly folk around her community. She shouldn't as her health isn't great.

None of my family gets to live in rent-free palaces or gets given a huge wage. None of my family gets top medical help. My mum worked hard all of her life and she was given nothing as she earned it.

This is what appals me about the Royal family and blinkered view a lot of us have about them. That they work hard - so do a lot of other people

 

[Mikefule]

This is what appals me about the Royal family and blinkered view a lot of us have about them. That they work hard - so do a lot of other people

Well, you seem to have gone from asking what they produce to tacitly acknowledging that they work hard.

Yes, of course, a lot of other people work hard too. Also, a lot of other people do little or nothing to contribute to society — and some are a net burden on us all.

Strange thing in this country. Criticise someone for being born gay, black, Asian, transsexual, disabled, or born into a particular religious or cultural background and you are rightly met with opprobrium. Criticise someone for being born either a "toff" or ginger and it's seen as fair game. (I write as one who was once ginger, and still is in the bits the sun doesn't reach.)

Either way, one of the great things about our country, our legal system, and our culture, is the freedom to disagree with, criticise, and even campaign against, any aspect of our constitution, including the Head of State.

It's neither my place nor my intention to persuade you to change your opinion about the royals, and I doubt I could achieve it if I set out to do so. Cherish our right to disagree publicly about it without fear of prosecution, threats or violence. There are many around the world who were not born into that particular privilege.

 

[Floyd]

Just an add to my above post. As I've said my relative who was 96 took care of her elderly community by visiting them and organising groups. My mum who is close to 80 does the same thing. She looks after the isolated elderly folk around her community. She shouldn't as her health isn't great.

None of my family gets to live in rent-free palaces or gets given a huge wage. None of my family gets top medical help. My mum worked hard all of her life and she was given nothing as she earned it.

This is what appals me about the Royal family and blinkered view a lot of us have about them. That they work hard - so do a lot of other people

It's a difficult one. I find myself sometimes thinking the same, then other times thinking they're ok. I do, however, for some reason, have a strange habit of say, on a Saturday evening for eg, wondering what old Charlie, and the rest, are up to at this moment. I mean, is he sat at Highgrove watching tv? Sat in the garden? What if he wants a sandwich? Does someone just bring him one? Or a drink. Is a bodyguard just outside the living room door? And how come Royals (and very wealthy people in general), don't ever seem to think that the servants (if they have them) haven't spat (or worse) in their food?

 

[Naughty_Felid]

Well, you seem to have gone from asking what they produce to tacitly acknowledging that they work hard.

Yes, of course, a lot of other people work hard too. Also, a lot of other people do little or nothing to contribute to society — and some are a net burden on us all.

Strange thing in this country. Criticise someone for being born gay, black, Asian, transsexual, disabled, or born into a particular religious or cultural background and you are rightly met with opprobrium. Criticise someone for being born either a "toff" or ginger and it's seen as fair game. (I write as one who was once ginger, and still is in the bits the sun doesn't reach.)

Either way, one of the great things about our country, our legal system, and our culture, is the freedom to disagree with, criticise, and even campaign against, any aspect of our constitution, including the Head of State.

It's neither my place nor my intention to persuade you to change your opinion about the royals, and I doubt I could achieve it if I set out to do so. Cherish our right to disagree publicly about it without fear of prosecution, threats or violence. There are many around the world who were not born into that particular privilege.[/QUOTE]

No, the Queen her husband and possibly Anne actually work, (is this hard work? - nope) The rest are hangers-on.

The bit I've highlighted, in your post, has nothing to do with the Royal family. What have they given to us compared to what they have taken? Tea-towels and mugs?

Also being "born gay, black, Asian," as being the same as being rich or ginger - if you believe that is on the same level then you need to get out more - what planet do you live on? Where do you live Sloane Square?

I'm a cyclist and regularly get verbal abuse but wouldn't put myself up there with the abuse I'd get if I was black.

Just a point. There are a few Royals who are ginger who seem to be doing alright.