Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace

[RoadTrip]

There's actually zero evidence that this is true, let alone "significant" amounts. It's reported as fact by places like the Daily Mail but never with actual evidence. If you look at the statistics for the most visited places in London over the last three years the top three are the Botanical Gardens and two museums. People travel to see palaces in the same way they travel to see museums, nothing concrete to suggest it's because of the monarchy. The pomp and performance of the changing of the guards. They're not coming to see a member of the royal family wave at them.

I do however have numbers that the Royal family cost the UK taxpayer over £100 million last year. Couple that with the extensive and gross amount of money they earn from their ownership of swathes of the country I struggle to take "they're a net contributor because of tourism" seriously.

You’re right. I can’t prove it. And I won’t be able to find you a number of what financial impact they have in terms of contribution.

But I never said it was based on evidence. And let’s not pretend that a number that obviously cannot be disaggregated by definition must be less than a number that is a fact. Not evidential, sure. Doesn’t mean it’s less though, because of purely a lack of evidence.

You may well be right anyway. But I’d be surprised, personally. Not fussed either way.

 

[hobbers]

'Kin 'ell!

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Nice input from the convicted racist.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Trevor Sinclair being Trevor Sinclair

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Tarrou]

this is mental if true

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Frosty]

we also kept paying compensation to former slave owners and their descendants until 2015 which is also something people should know

And prior to deploying the West Africa Squadron (made up of old ships of the line and chronically underfunded) we kidnapped 3 million people and transported them across the Middle Passage.

And English courts upheld the principle of owning slaves up until the 1860s.

So, you know...

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mr Pigeon]

You’re right. I can’t prove it. And I won’t be able to find you a number of what financial impact they have in terms of contribution.

But I never said it was based on evidence. And let’s not pretend that a number that obviously cannot be disaggregated by definition must be less than a number that is a fact. Not evidential, sure. Doesn’t mean it’s less though, because of purely a lack of evidence.

You may well be right anyway. But I’d be surprised, personally. Not fussed either way.

If you make a statement and treat it as fact then it needs facts to back it up. There's no doublespeak available to refute this. Saying it can't be proven wrong because there's no evidence that it's true in the first place isn't a discussion that I'm - oh feck it, I'm doing it again aren't I? This is all @esmufc07's fault anyway, the cnut that he is.

 

[Frosty]

this is mental if true

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It is, incredibly, true. But it omits one thing. The doctor gave him morphine and cocaine, enough to kill him twice over.

 

[BeltUp]

this is mental if true

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

That's the way to go - high as a kite!

 

[Tarrou]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Red the Bear]

Whether their influence is political in nature or not is irrelevant. What the royal family have overseen, had a hand in or even been directly responsible for is rephrensible to many, understandably often worse than anything any given politician has done.

That's just not true , even if you ascribe everything that has happened under the royal family to her it'll still be untrue, they just haven't had any effective power to justify such feelings and to compare them to a politician like say pol pot is extreme.

It's not that daft. Before people take things too seriously, it's a silly example but if I have the influence of preventing a mugging and you are mugged in my presence will you ignore the fact that I could have stopped it but chose to do nothing? Surely you will have grievances against me and also against your aggressor?

I understand what you're saying but they've lost any effective political power they might have had in 1910 and beforehand any meddling in politics would have caused the outright end of the system.

Most of Britain's imperial adventures had decent public support so they'd have directly acted against their subjects interest, to hold those grudges against say the British parliament makes more sense to me.


Anyway I have no horse in this race just find the public reaction on here befuddling that's all.

 

[JPRouve]

You’re right. I can’t prove it. And I won’t be able to find you a number of what financial impact they have in terms of contribution.

But I never said it was based on evidence. And let’s not pretend that a number that obviously cannot be disaggregated by definition must be less than a number that is a fact. Not evidential, sure. Doesn’t mean it’s less though, because of purely a lack of evidence.

You may well be right anyway. But I’d be surprised, personally. Not fussed either way.

A quick look gives weight to @Mr Pigeon point. Versailles is supposed to have 10m visitors per year while Buckingham is supposed to have 550k. French royal buildings brings way more visitors despite a lack of royals. I'm almost tempted to think that there would be more visitors and more money created without the royals.

 

[RoadTrip]

If you make a statement and treat it as fact then it needs facts to back it up. There's no doublespeak available to refute this. Saying it can't be proven wrong because there's no evidence that it's true in the first place isn't a discussion that I'm - oh feck it, I'm doing it again aren't I? This is all @esmufc07's fault anyway, the cnut that he is.

But hold on - when did I make any statement as a fact? In fact I said it wouldn’t surprise me. It couldn’t be any clearer that it was an opinion rather than fact. I could go into why I hold that opinion, but would it make any difference? At the end of the day I can’t point to a number, which is the bar you set.

 

[Abizzz]

this is mental if true

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Pretty sure it's an established fact that that took place. (At least I've heard it so often that I thought it was).

 

[Frosty]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Massive Spanner]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Deery]

Pretty sure it's an established fact that that took place. (At least I've heard it so often that I thought it was).

Yeah I was of the illusion this took place a lot, certainly did with my grandmother.

 

[One Night Only]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I know I shouldn't but

 

[RoadTrip]

A quick look gives weight to @Mr Pigeon point. Versailles is supposed to have 10m visitors per year while Buckingham is supposed to have 550k. French royal buildings brings way more visitors despite a lack of royals. I'm almost tempted to think that there would be more visitors and more money created without the royals.

Yeah maybe I’m wrong. I could well be. Not sure about this statistic though. What does visiting mean? Taking a picture outside or actually buying a ticket to go in? How many tickets do that have to sell?

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[2 man midfield]

we also kept paying compensation to former slave owners and their descendants until 2015 which is also something people should know

Woah what?

 

[Sparky_Hughes]

You love stirring up trouble don't you?

Being bad is a lot more fun.

Why is santa so jolly? He knows where all the bad girls live.

 

[JPRouve]

Yeah maybe I’m wrong. I could well be. Not sure about this statistic though. What does visiting mean? Taking a picture outside or actually buying a ticket to go in? How many tickets do that have to sell?

I'm not sure but here you have an example of an article about palaces and castles visits.

 

[Tarrou]

Woah what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave...issioners,amount of 3.5% government annuities.

The Slave Compensation Act 1837 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 3) was the world's first major act of compensated emancipation and an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, signed into law on 23 December 1837. It authorised the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt to compensate slave owners in the British colonies of the Caribbean, Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope in the amount of approximately £20 million for freed slaves. Based on a government census of 1 August 1834, over 40,000 awards to slave owners were issued. Since some of the payments were converted into 3.5% government annuities, they lasted until 2015.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

this is mental if true

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Wasn’t it just to ease the pain and length of suffering? (I.e. instead of him lying there in pain for hours, doctor did it to FF the end?)

 

[Zarlak]

That's just not true , even if you ascribe everything that has happened under the royal family to her it'll still be untrue, they just haven't had any effective power to justify such feelings and to compare them to a politician like say pol pot is extreme.

The fact that you think a person needs political power in order for people to find actions they may take rephrensible is strange.

 

[2 man midfield]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Compensation_Act_1837#:~:text=The Act empowered the Commissioners,amount of 3.5% government annuities.

Holy shit. I could maybe see why it was a thing back then, but the fact it lasted until 2015 is genuinely shocking.

Yet reparations are seen as some offensive suggestion. While the whole time...

 

[Mr Pigeon]

But hold on - when did I make any statement as a fact? In fact I said it wouldn’t surprise me. It couldn’t be any clearer that it was an opinion rather than fact. I could go into why I hold that opinion, but would it make any difference? At the end of the day I can’t point to a number, which is the bar you set.

Argh I'm being a right cnut I'm going to shut up now.

 

[RoadTrip]

I'm not sure but here you have an example of an article about palaces and castles visits.

Either way, it’s not just about actual visits to places.

But anyway the general debate is pointless since Pigeon is right that I can not really ever prove my theory, which I know myself has a good chance of being false.

 

[JPRouve]

Either way, it’s not just about actual visits to places.

But anyway the general debate is pointless since Pigeon is right that I can not really ever prove my theory, which I know myself has a good chance of being false.

Surely tourism is about actual visits to places?

 

[Frosty]

Holy shit. I could maybe see why it was a thing back then, but the fact it lasted until 2015 is genuinely shocking.

Yet reparations are seen as some offensive suggestion. While the whole time...

Meaning the descendants of slaves paying tax were in effect paying the descendants of slave owners. Plus in 1834 we made the 'freed' slaves work for free for their former masters for another four years. We called it apprenticeship as we didn't trust them to behave responsibly after they were no longer slaves. What a history.

 

[adexkola]

That's just not true , even if you ascribe everything that has happened under the royal family to her it'll still be untrue, they just haven't had any effective power to justify such feelings and to compare them to a politician like say pol pot is extreme.

I understand what you're saying but they've lost any effective political power they might have had in 1910 and beforehand any meddling in politics would have caused the outright end of the system.

Most of Britain's imperial adventures had decent public support so they'd have directly acted against their subjects interest, to hold those grudges against say the British parliament makes more sense to me.


Anyway I have no horse in this race just find the public reaction on here befuddling that's all.

This is where I am with it.

If anything, the monarchy have been a wonderful lightning rod, attracting flack for stuff that elected representatives, soldiers, civil servants and a large amount of the populace supported and were complicit to, and immensely profited from.

 

[fishfingers15]

That's just not true , even if you ascribe everything that has happened under the royal family to her it'll still be untrue, they just haven't had any effective power to justify such feelings and to compare them to a politician like say pol pot is extreme.

I understand what you're saying but they've lost any effective political power they might have had in 1910 and beforehand any meddling in politics would have caused the outright end of the system.

Most of Britain's imperial adventures had decent public support so they'd have directly acted against their subjects interest, to hold those grudges against say the British parliament makes more sense to me.


Anyway I have no horse in this race just find the public reaction on here befuddling that's all.

Hold on, many people all over the world are mourning the Queen's death. I find it bizzare that my cousin who has never gone more than 100 miles her entire life is mourning the Queen's death, all the way from India. Since she's a close relative, I know that she gained nothing from England. You can't expect everyone to mourn the Queen, which is fairly a simple truth to digest.

 

[2 man midfield]

Meaning the descendants of slaves paying tax were in effect paying the descendants of slave owners. Plus in 1834 we made the 'freed' slaves work for free for their former masters for another four years. We called it apprenticeship as we didn't trust them to behave responsibly after they were no longer slaves. What a history.

feck me, yeah that’s true. What a shitshow. This part was telling as well.

Since 2018, numerous Freedom of Information Act requests have been sent to the British government and Bank of England for the names of those who were paid with the bonds, of which all were denied.

 

[2cents]

RIP Queen Elizabeth II.

Kind of surreal. She's the only monarch most of us Brits have ever known. Is Charles going to be on pound notes eventually?

The fundamental question is, will he be as effective as a monarch like his mother was? And he will be, even more so. But until he is, it's going to be hard to verify that he thinks he’ll be more effective.

 

[RoadTrip]

Surely tourism is about actual visits to places?

Tourism was probably the wrong word to describe it. But even in the case of tourism, it’s still more intricate than how many people visit X site.

 

[Eboue]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[ThehatchetMan]

No I wasn't actually, I don't believe in monarchies either. Was genuinely asking if the British people will support the monarchy without her ruling.

The right wing tend to be fairly supportive of the monarchy. The left wing is mixed.

I'm not pro monarchy myself but at the same time it's not an issue which I particularly care much for either and there are more pressing issues affecting the country which need to be tackled first.

Charles will still have enough support for the monarchy to carry on I imagine. Maybe though we'll see a bit more modernisation and I'm sure some changes will be invoked too, of some sort.

But whether I agree with the monarchy or not. Universally she's always been recognised by her peers as being a warm and kind lady. No doubt there probably are bad things she's done too.

My opinions and views aside though, I know she was held dearly by many of my neighbours and thus feel her death should be respected, for those who loved her, if not for ourselves.


Side note - I had an argument with my gf over it because I said I wasn't particularly bothered by the death and don't agree with monarchies. And most importantly I was worried football would be cancelled and that an upcoming trip to London may also end up clashing with some royalty shite which I cba with it.
She holds the Queen a bit more dearly than me though and don't think she likes that it's like water of a ducks back for me.
So again I respect that she's dead and send my condolences as she was quite endearing. But as someone who's not invested in the monarchy, I'm not particularly bothered.

 

[2mufc0]

Rip.

Please don't cancel the football over this.

 

[Kopral Jono]

I'm just stating the facts, holding colonial rule against them when they had minimal political impact for most of it is bizarre to me, if anything most of the empire building happened after their diminished role with overwhelming public support , hell some of the more egregiously acts happened under governments which by today's standards will be considered relatively liberal.

Anyway them being apolitical has probably led to them lasting so long, making enemies out of half your population without any effective executive powers is daft, still I think if any criticism was to be leveled against them it has to be about them benefiting from public funds and such.

Both ends of the spectrum have completely lost their minds and their collective heads need a good fecking wobble. The world isn't black and white -- it never has been and never will be.