skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Compared to how much they cost it I’m sure it would still end up a net win.
Compared to how much they cost it I’m sure it would still end up a net win.You think unused properties will make as much money as they do now? There are far bigger parasites that sponge your taxes than the royal family.
The extremely reliable anecdote from ESBAccording to ‘Fernando’ it’s all made up
So basically you’re saying we need one senior member of the royal family to croak it once a year for them to make financial sense. I suppose that’s one way of getting rid off them.When she died I was actually unable to get back to the UK from Amsterdam. Every single flight and Eurostar was sold out for the day or two around the funeral and I needed to make an urgent trip back at short notice.
Normally you would be able to find something quite easily, even to a shitty airport (no BHX jokes), but there was genuinely nothing. I think a hell of a lot of people must have come over for the occasion.
The extremely reliable anecdote from ESB
Here he is, knew it wouldn’t take you long GIF manPeople travel to France to see palaces and châteaux and they've had no monarchy for a lil' bit now. Not convinced people travel here because they think they might see Charlie having his Coco Pops through a window at Buckingham Palace.
Nope.So if you're an immigrant, you can't be against the current mass immigration influx? Nor can you be patriotic to the country that you emigrated to? Is that what you're saying?
Sent from my SM-S711B using Tapatalk
Just show me the evidence
But again. Those figures are weighted on the suggestion that having a monarchy is the soul reason for the income. As the article you link points out this is made up on businesses that the crown own (and pay no corporation tax on) through hereditary entitlement. Where’s the proof that if the same businesses were in the public purse they wouldn’t be making the same money for the economy?Around £1.7bn a yearHow much money does the monarchy bring to the UK? Some £1.7bn a year...
The death of Queen Elizabeth II led to questions about the future of the monarchy, but the institution makes a lot of money for the UK.share.google
That wasn't the questionBut again. Those figures are weighted on the suggestion that having a monarchy is the soul reason for the income. As the article you link points out this is made up on businesses that the crown own (and pay no corporation tax on) through hereditary entitlement. Where’s the proof that if the same businesses were in the public purse they wouldn’t be making the same money for the economy?
I’d almost forgot this oneI have no regard for him but his mother’s funeral isn’t for him a public event and as I keep asking you has he been convicted of criminal actions?
I’d almost forgot this one
you’ll get a reply from fernando soon just saying ‘evidence’ like he’s a record on repeatAround £1.7bn a yearHow much money does the monarchy bring to the UK? Some £1.7bn a year...
The death of Queen Elizabeth II led to questions about the future of the monarchy, but the institution makes a lot of money for the UK.share.google
Operation Menai Bridge - Operation Menai Bridge - WikipediaIf the Queen was London Bridge, do we know what the codename for Charles is?
Trying to work out which is funnier out of making excuses for Prince Andrew, or trying to claim that the Queen’s funeral wasn’t a public event.Sorry?
I read that as not being a public even t for him as it was his mother, not that it wasnt a public event at all.Trying to work out which is funnier out of making excuses for Prince Andrew, or trying to claim that the Queen’s funeral wasn’t a public event.
Most people would of course pay over £10 million to settle legal cases where they were convinced of their innocence. His approval rating is currently so low it makes Keir Starmer look like newly elected ObamaTrying to work out which is funnier out of making excuses for Prince Andrew, or trying to claim that the Queen’s funeral wasn’t a public event.
If they wanted a private funeral they could have arranged one but they didn’t.I read that as not being a public even t for him as it was his mother, not that it wasnt a public event at all.
They could, but that wasn't the question. I was merely musing on my interpretation of the quote. I think you misinterpreted it, but only G knows and will confirm either way.If they wanted a private funeral they could have arranged one but they didn’t.
Then why not let the revenue from that fund them?It isnt just the Royal Family that draws crowds/tourism, but its the pomp and ceremony and traditions that only survive because of the royal family. The guards at the palace and the tower draw huge numbers of attraction. The Edinburgh Military Tattoo draws around £77m a year for the local economy and growing bigger and bigger year on year. Traditions set as standard from following the royal family and the traditions that includes.
Yes, tourist might still go to Buckingham Palace, even if it wasnt lived in by a serving King or Queen. Yes, theyd still come to London. But there are a LOT of people from outside the UK that are fascinated by the Royal family and what it is and stands for. Like Shakespeare is a huge draw for crowds to visit Stratford, the Royal family is a huge draw to London/The UK aswell. Would people still visit Stratford? Probably. Would there be nearly as many? Definitely not!
Hundreds of people line the streets every day to watch the changing of the guard. All tourists, all feeding the local economy. The changing of the guard only happens because of the Royal family and the traditions around it.
To people outside of the UK, the UK is black cabs, red phone boxes, soldiers in red tunics and bear skins, and the Royal family.
Even in Australia, when a Royal household member tours, people line the streets 5 or 6 deep, just to say the seen William and Kate, or The Queen etc.
Sent from my SM-S711B using Tapatalk
I think Grendel was for some inexplicable reason trying to defend the reputation of dear Prince Andrew.They could, but that wasn't the question. I was merely musing on my interpretation of the quote. I think you misinterpreted it, but only G knows and will confirm either way.
Trying to work out which is funnier out of making excuses for Prince Andrew, or trying to claim that the Queen’s funeral wasn’t a public event.
I think Grendel was for some inexplicable reason trying to defend the reputation of dear Prince Andrew.
If you know you know.If the Queen was London Bridge, do we know what the codename for Charles is?
*edit - ignore, I've just looked it up and apparrently Menai Bridge
What point were you trying to make by asking if he’d been convicted of a crime?Where?
What point were you trying to make by asking if he’d been convicted of a crime?
Where was I making excuses for Prince Andrew?
Well because he hadn’t? And I assume you believe in innocent until proven guilty?
That's better than Andrew'sIf the Queen was London Bridge, do we know what the codename for Charles is?
*edit - ignore, I've just looked it up and apparrently Menai Bridge
Well no actually, that’s quite a silly comeback really.So you believe in guilty by the court of public opinion? How interesting,
Well no actually, that’s quite a silly comeback really.
Invoking ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in the case of your dear Prince Andrew - who paid millions of pounds and leaned on his immense privilege to ever even go to trial for the sexual assault of a girl who later committed suicide - seems less like a commitment to legal principles, and more like some weird deferential contrarianism. Like most people I find him completely odious and undeserving of sympathy but clearly he appeals to you somehow.
And if any were to refuse?I do like the idea of children having to stand and sing the national anthem each morning at school,
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?