It is the nations money. Regain the billions and maybe we would pay less tax or propetly fund the NHS. And the money aside a hereditary monarchy is fundamentallly unethical with added reinforcing of class and social/economic ineqality.
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
The British people.
Don't try to be patronising - you aren't very good at it. I'm perfectly calm and have zero expectation of things changing. And what has lunch money got to do with anything? You are not making any sense.
Why not just say that you like having a constitutional monarch and leave it at that rather than getting all defensive?
I hope her dogs are ok and don’t miss her too much. I don’t know how many of them are running around these days
I'd say I was one but none of that makes me hard. I just think it is ludicrous that we have a hereditary monarchy. Doubly so in Australia, where I now live.
I forget that republican is a thing outside of the US. In the US Republicans will vote in anyone that'll do exactly that, it's their wet dream.
Well, the Duchy predates Britain, and the Earldom of Cornwall that it was formed from predates the Norman Conquest, so I’m still saying you’ll have a hard time paying back whoever is actually due anything.
It wouldn't be very hard to give all the stuff we stole back from other countries that we're proudly displaying in glass cases. That's something the monarchy could very easily do but actively choose not to. They could also stop having their private artifacts be exempted from the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act.
The Queen, and now the King own 50,000 acres at Balmoral, another 20,000 acres at Sandringham, numerous palaces and grace & favour mansions, homes and apartments let alone the duchys etc (Duchies I guess). All passed on endlessly.
In 2004 the Queen asked the govt. to grant her money from the then Poverty Fund, intended for the poorer families, struggling businesses and charities so that she could heat the palaces and her homes. This was the richest woman in the World I assume because no one truly knows where all of the money is.
Okay… but what’s that got to do with their land holdings?
Ahhh. Gotcha. I wasn't thinking US type Republicans in this context.
is the problem not that monarchy implies some people are born better than other people? born to be better. and for no reason except historical "might is right" when their family members killed loads of people to get to where they are.
it's a mad institution. time to wrap it up now that the queen has died.
Which is irrelevant as the stolen/looted wealth and privilege has continued to be passed down and built upon. They should be nationalised, retired politically and out on wages for their tourist attraction value. Of course they would still likely have billions squirreled away in tax havens.
We're talking about them fleecing people, those are people who have been fleeced, and that could be rectified but they actively choose not to. So it's not difficult in that sense to assign blame.
yep.
the only reason republican sentiment has been kept so low is that people liked the queen even if they didn't like the monarchy. don't see charles continuing that and his children can get fecked.
Exactly this. We should stop admiring a family made up of some very, very questionable people who are supposedly better than us from birth for no real reason, but yet are as fallible as the rest of us and in some special cases far more abhorrent but yet we elevate them and pay for their entire life. As a concept it's very, very strange. There are arguments against them and very few arguments for them besides 'they make lots of tourist money' which there is no evidence for.
As a bonus, the valid winner of a free and fair democratic election process would no longer have to go ask their permission to govern, which in itself is incredibly stupid. 'The people have spoken, but will you let me?' it's even more dumb because she'd never say no, it's literally just all a bullshit façade for the sake of appearances and serves no purpose. We'd be better off simply by being a society that no longer conformed to a ludicrous notion.
How is the land “stolen” if it was legitimately obtained under the feudal system of the Middle Ages?
Did William steal it from Harold, too?
Isn't royal tourism far more lucrative to Britain than the cost of having and maintaining royalty ?
Okay… but I’m talking about the Duchies…
people still visit versailles despite the french revolution.
Seemingly a myth. Often said but never any evidence for it. In addition, the majority of the UKs tourism has nothing to do with the monarchy and the last time I checked we barely cracked the top 10 countries to visit by tourism numbers.
yes
Yeah but the brand value is much different when you have an actual monarch on the throne. I don't think the French are generating these kinds of numbers.
https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brand_finance_monarchy_press_release.pdf
Well said.
I found this article interesting (towards the middle) where it states that "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".
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/
Apparently the Royal Wedding a decade ago generated over £100m by itself.
Almost certainly.
And it would remain. And even if it didn't it doesn't justify having such an anachronistic and undemocratic form of government.
So Hastings wasn’t a battle, it was just a massive medieval heist.
That’s certainly a way to look at it.
they can't put a solid figure on it. it's guess work. and the tangible value is just comprised of things the country already owns like land and the crown jewels.
I wonder if she didn't die earlier and they delayed the announcement to present a fiction that she died surrounded by her family? Would be a surprise given the palace have form for bullshit when it comes to such things.
They definitely delayed the announcement but not by much since its hard to keep a lid on these things for long.
Everything and anything passed down via a hereditary monarchy no matter what the circumstances belongs (or should) to the British people.
that's literally what the feudal system was. knights maintained themselves, and sometimes small armies, lords retained retinues of knights, and the king or queen was owed the loyalty of the lords. the knights went to war for money more often than not. these were private armies.
i don't think the argument, "it was legal in feudal times" makes much sense. feudalism died in britain centuries ago. the monarchy initially died with it but was brought back via counter revolutionaries.
That report is all estimates by a group that valued the Royal brand at 20 million at the time of the Royal wedding before they went back and changed their minds to 44 billion.
There was never a battle at Hastings. The battle was held 6 miles from Hastings at a site that later became the small town of ....Battle.
I'm not thinking days but perhaps she died that morning when the medical observation announcement was made, giving the royals time to get to Balmoral to create the myth she died with her family around her. Not that it matters that much or bothers me either way but just something I wondered.
Just up the road from the suburbs or skirmish and accidental border incursion.
Exactly, tourists would hardly if ever see the Royals but instead the structures that will still be there, plus the brightly uniformed touristy soldiers.
I honestly think she died when the entire process was started yesterday afternoon. Maybe at noon. Then again with the medical attention available she may have been "kept alive" for everyone to say goodbye.