I’m not sure this financial argument holds to be honest. Not getting involved with the love or hate back and forth, but I will point out here that financially, it wouldn’t surprise me if the monarchy had a net positive contribution financially because, for one, it drives a significant amount of tourism (surprisingly).
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
I take it Sinclair is an evening drinker.
Also, people are forgetting the amount of jerseys they sell. The queen alone probably sold loads of them with her name on the back and #1, that would more then make up for her costs.
Certainly she was liked by some. But I imagine there are many who have formed no opinions of her. Do you have an opinion on the Swedish monarchy?
What do you mean by wonder if theyll recover from their loss?
It feels like these questions are rhetorical in nature. If you have something to say then spit it out. Obviously you are trying to entice me into a reaction. So let's save the mental gymnastics and get to the point.
Lizz Truss flip flops on her opinions like nothing else. Remain? Brexit? Who cares, as-long as it helps her career.
I have an opinion on Princess Madeleine oh my days
Hopefully Charles takes a strong line with Andrew. "From here on in, we will absolutely not be funding your noncing."
I’m not sure why you mention the North of England - Thatcher might be hated there but it’s no more or less royalist than the rest of the country. As for the British Empire and English/British policy in Ireland, it’s not like Elizabeth II as a constitutional monarch had much of a say in any of that. Her main role in the Empire was ceremonial visits to attend independence ceremonies, and, as for Ireland, I think she handled the state visit there with a level of tact sorely missing in people like Boris Johnson. I’m not a royalist and would prefer to modernise the country but she played her role well.
I thought that was the World Economic Forum?
You're just jealous.
Other than that, it's sad for the family, and I hope Canada uses this occasion to reevaluate things.
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.
we also kept paying compensation to former slave owners and their descendants until 2015 which is also something people should know
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.
Always. Ravenous green eye.
Last time we had a king...WW2 and the Korean war....so maybe we will be lucky and a mild scuffle on redcafe will be enough this time.
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’m not a royalist or someone who even believes that strongly in the idea of monarchy, but I can’t help feeling a little bit sad this evening.
Trevor ‘convicted of racial abuse’ Sinclair taking the moral high ground
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's land and properties I struggle to take "they're a net contributor because of tourism" seriously. If I steal everyone's food and charge them money so I can sit on my arse all day I don't get to sell them back the food and say "I'm actually a net contributor because I'm giving you something to eat".
Edit: that sounded harsher than I meant. I'm going to go and lie in my nest for a bit.
You love stirring up trouble don't you?
Being bad is a lot more fun.Doesn't mean she's a good one though
Couldn't be announced until the NYSE was opened.
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.
yeah its bollocks
they have a solid PR team behind them I'll give them that, the cnuts
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.
Trevor Sinclair being Trevor Sinclair
this is mental if true
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...
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.
It is, incredibly, true. But it omits one thing. The doctor gave him morphine and cocaine, enough to kill him twice over.
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.
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.