Prince Harry and Meghan tell tabloids: No more co-operation

[Chippy_Tea]

She really does come across as a self serving ******...

Don't pull any punches VW.

 

[VW911]

Tell it like it is!!!

 

[An Ankoù]

Not that I exactly advocate we should guillotine the lot of em,

Not exactly. What do you advocate then? A partial guillotining perhaps like Nearly Headless Nick. Nah, go the whole hog, I say.

Great post, i am not a flag waving royalist but i do think having a Queen is a good thing, i would hate having a president look at how that has worked out in othher maj er countries. (Trump being the perfect example)

It would be a good argument if the monarch had any executive power, but having a Queen or a King means diddly squat. If "the people" voted for a PM as barmy as Trump, the monarch would not be able to do anything about it.

 

[Chippy_Tea]

It would be a good argument if the monarch had any executive power, but having a Queen or a King means diddly squat. If "the people" voted for a PM as barmy as Trump, the monarch would not be able to do anything about it.

What i meant by good thing is what she does for the county (tourism etc)


Do our royals cost far too much, or are they worth every penny?

Whenever people disagree about our monarch and wider family, one side tries to point out how much money they bring into the British economy through tourism and the like.

For the opposite camp, they take too many fancy holidays, all first-class travel, and are much too comfortable spending vast amount of taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

The truth, it would seem, is that they do cost significantly more than other royal families, but bring in far, far in excess of that amount.

The royals, in fact, brought in £430 million more than they cost us last year, leaving other royals such as the Spanish or Belgian ones lagging far behind.

This is the main finding of new research looking into royal expenditure, what they cost us and the UK’s financial benefits.

Overall, in 2018, the British royals contributed £595m via tourism, merchandise and the arts, while costing £165m.

This, apparently, makes them 18 times more profitable than Belgium’s royals, and an amazing 29 times more than the Spanish monarchy.

In the past five years, in fact, they have contributed £2.8 billion to the UK economy.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/

 

[MyQul]

What i meant by good thing is what she does for the county (tourism etc)


Do our royals cost far too much, or are they worth every penny?

Whenever people disagree about our monarch and wider family, one side tries to point out how much money they bring into the British economy through tourism and the like.

For the opposite camp, they take too many fancy holidays, all first-class travel, and are much too comfortable spending vast amount of taxpayers’ hard-earned money.

The truth, it would seem, is that they do cost significantly more than other royal families, but bring in far, far in excess of that amount.

The royals, in fact, brought in £430 million more than they cost us last year, leaving other royals such as the Spanish or Belgian ones lagging far behind.

This is the main finding of new research looking into royal expenditure, what they cost us and the UK’s financial benefits.

Overall, in 2018, the British royals contributed £595m via tourism, merchandise and the arts, while costing £165m.

This, apparently, makes them 18 times more profitable than Belgium’s royals, and an amazing 29 times more than the Spanish monarchy.

In the past five years, in fact, they have contributed £2.8 billion to the UK economy.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/

This is the argument that Royalist always use to justify them but everything doesnt always come down to money and the bottom line. That's just for bean counters. I say is inherited privalidge morally right? Why does this particular family get to 'live it large' when they haven't earned any of it on merit? Why is their family 'more important' than mine or anyone elses

 

[Chippy_Tea]

This is the argument that Royalist always use to justify them but everything doesnt always come down to money and the bottom line. That's just for bean counters. I say is inherited privalidge morally right? Why does this particular family get to 'live it large' when they haven't earned any of it on merit? Why is their family 'more important' than mine or anyone elses

I like having a royal family but can see why others would prefer them not to exist as for the money side of things its usually the first thing the anti lot use as a reason why they should go, the fact is they do not cost the country an obscene amount of money they actually make more.

 

[MyQul]

I like having a royal family but can see why others would prefer them not to exist as for the money side of things its usually the first thing the anti lot use as a reason why they should go, the fact is they do not cost the country an obscene amount of money they actually make more.

Its not just justifying the monarchy (or not). People are obsessed by money. Money always seems to be the reason to do or not do something

 

[marshbrewer]

Money always seems to be the reason to do or not do something

Lol, you say that, but then scroll back a few posts and you are suggesting we grab hold of their possessions.

When I'm dictator, I shall insist on consistency in political debate, or you will be banished to the salt mines. Or Milton Keynes.

 

[An Ankoù]

Fair points in #25 and #26 above, but I thought the point earlier posters were making was that having a monarchy somehow shielded us from getting a lunatic leader like Trump. My position is that is doesn't.

 

[An Ankoù]

Lol, you say that, but then scroll back a few posts and you are suggesting we grab hold of their possessions.

When I'm dictator, I shall insist on consistency in political debate, or you will be banished to the salt mines. Or Milton Keynes.

Not Milton Keynes!
Where's the "report" button.

 

[MyQul]

Lol, you say that, but then scroll back a few posts and you are suggesting we grab hold of their possessions.

When I'm dictator, I shall insist on consistency in political debate, or you will be banished to the salt mines. Or Milton Keynes.

Im talking about resources rather than money. To distribute back to the nation so we can ALL enjoy them. E.g Over the past couple of weeks we've had royals talking about the nation pulling together to get over the C-19 pandemic - from large palaces (like windsor) with acres of grounds. Tell that to someone Locked down in a pokey inner city flat with several kids running about

 

[BeerCat]

I am really upset by all of this, i wont be able to leave the house tomorrow because of all the stress.

 

[marshbrewer]

Im talking about resources rather than money.

Ok, but as money is simply how we quantify resources, it's banishment to the salt mines for you. I've had a couple of home brews, so am feeling generous - you therefore avoid the horror of Milton Keynes.

 

[MyQul]

Ok, but as money is simply how we quantify resources, it's banishment to the salt mines for you. I've had a couple of home brews, so am feeling generous - you therefore avoid the horror of Milton Keynes.

Thank you your most munificentness

But it's how they got their resources and what they do with them that I dislike. As I say is their inheritage privilidge morally right when it depends on US all working to support them and how they hoard resources which they didn't earn but were earned by use

I have a similar problem with billionaires. Nothing wrong with someone making something of themselves in the world but why hoard all the resources when so many have little to nothing. It's morally wrong. How many houses can you live in at one time? how many cars can you drive? how much can you eat? How much can you spend in a lifetime?

 

[marshbrewer]

But it's how they got their resources and what they do with them that I dislike.

Sure, but as in my nurse example, that was the law at the time, and retrospective justice is just morally wrong, so we have to live with what we have now.

As I say is their inheritage privilidge morally right when it depends on US all working to support them and how they hoard resources which they didn't earn but were earned by use

But if the alternatives are just as , if not more, expensive (i.e. we would all have to work just as hard to provide them) then getting rid of them would make no difference to the common man. As for the hoarding - again, look at the Blair / Kennedy / Bush etc etc dynasties. Nothing would change.

How many houses can you live in at one time? how many cars can you drive? how much can you eat? How much can you spend in a lifetime?

Although I know in my heart, like all lefties, you make that statement with good intentions, and I genuinely mean that, it's actually an incredibly authoritarian statement. It is to suggest there is a *correct* level of desire for any one thing or an amount of something, and that those who's desires are outside of that are morally wrong. It is to deny the fact that all humans are individuals with different needs and desires, and is the first step towards tyranny. Of course, when faced with this accusation, many say something along the lines of 'oh yea, but I'm only talking about excessive consumption', which of course is really an admission of the above, as one man's excess is another's famine.

Enough philosophy me thinks. I'll shut up now.

 

[Rodcx500z]

How does it stop us getting a nutter like Trumpet, we got Blair and Maggie

 

[Rodcx500z]

Time for a beer :tinhat:

 

[MyQul]

Sure, but as in my nurse example, that was the law at the time, and retrospective justice is just morally wrong, so we have to live with what we have now.

I agree. We cant go back in time and I dont have to like how they got the resources, but it's what they do with those resoures NOW. E.g. The queen owns the largest art collection in the world. It was amassed by her ancestors. But there's nothing to stop her giving it to the nation NOW

But if the alternatives are just as , if not more, expensive (i.e. we would all have to work just as hard to provide them) then getting rid of them would make no difference to the common man. As for the hoarding - again, look at the Blair / Kennedy / Bush etc etc dynasties. Nothing would change.

This depends on what the alternatives are. This is one of those occasions whereby the cost is irrelevant. If we get a 'better' alternative its worth it. Eg. Sunak has spent billion propping up the econony and trying to make sure everyone doesnt become unemployed. That's going cost all of us a lot in increased taxes (if that's the route the government go down to pay for it) but I dont think anyone would say it was a waste of money and isnt going to make a difference to the common man. Hoarding - your right, as I've already said, we have to be very careful about any alternative

Although I know in my heart, like all lefties, you make that statement with good intentions, and I genuinely mean that, it's actually an incredibly authoritarian statement. It is to suggest there is a *correct* level of desire for any one thing or an amount of something, and that those who's desires are outside of that are morally wrong. It is to deny the fact that all humans are individuals with different needs and desires, and is the first step towards tyranny. Of course, when faced with this accusation, many say something along the lines of 'oh yea, but I'm only talking about excessive consumption', which of course is really an admission of the above, as one man's excess is another's famine.

I've never like that term lefty/righty. I certainly dont think of myself as a "lefty". I dont even know what it means. It's too "blanket coverage" for my liking. Its doesnt allow for any subtlty or nuance.

It's not that those who desire more than others are inherently morally wrong, people can desire as much as they like. I dont care how much someone else has. That's just jealousy. What's morally wrong is if their desire for more means others have less (or even nothing at all). A fair share of resources, a fair crack of the whip.

There's no denying human nature. Some people are made that way, to want to hoard more than they need. It's the system that enables them to hoard that much though. It's the current system that's also morally wrong . The system that enables someone to amass billions of pound/dollar/whatever currency needs to be change so a "greedy" person is unable to amass so much. E.g. If tax loopholes are their certain people will exploit them. The answer isnt to punish the person for exploiting the loophole. The answer is to close the loophole.

I certainly dont think billions of dollars/pounds in the bank constitutes a famine for anyone. Even someone with the most extravagant tastes

[/QUOTE]

Enough philosophy me thinks. I'll shut up now.

Me too

 

[An Ankoù]

I just wish the tabloids would leave them alone and stop persecuting them. They've broken free from the Firm and put the finger up to the Establishment. Good on them. I don't think anyone need be in any doubt about my attitude to Maj's lot, but nobody's beyond redemption and these two seem to be giving it a good go. Give them a chance. Somebody send them a homebrew kit.

Yeah, yeah, yeah and yeah. Public funding, tax-payers' money, security. I know. But what else can they do?

 

[Chippy_Tea]

I just wish the tabloids would leave them alone and stop persecuting them.

I rarely read the tabloids and do not keep up with these two (i do keep a close eye on the news especially the BBC) so my view is if they stropped feeding the Trolls (tabloids) they would lose interest and leave them alone, it would seem they cannot do it then moan when it backfires.