I love our royals
Dithering rich prat in a 4x4 causes car crash and almost kills a baby
- Thread starter Mr Pigeon
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
You'd live to 97 too if you never had to work a day in your life.
You are a fan of royalty? Do you like the monarch system of government or just like the pageantry of royal weddings as a hobby or what's your reasoning here?
I don't know anything about them but what is it you love about them?
Just to be clear I don't wish any ill on them. I just don't think some people should still get born into special privilege based on surviving traditions of old feudal governments.
I just respect them, (a tough word for a lot of people nowadays I know) , and I think they do a good job for the country, that is all.
It is not my hobby, that would be pretty weird.
I love our royals
What good do they do for your country?
I can respect them as a person but not respect their title or position.
I would say the reverse, I'm sure they're not, but they might be absolute arses to know, but the fact they serve the country so well, imo offering a genuine focul point, & sense of pride to the country, which is pretty much respected worldwide (other than the usual loud mouths), this bringing in untold riches in tourism, etc, in my eyes needs respecting, but a lot of people just want hammer them at any opportunity.
You do realise that the Tribunal mentioned in the article is just a blog owned by an Dabid Ike level nutter. Abuse and even disappearences may well have occured at the school but I'm fairly sure the Queen and Prince Phillip didn't visit for a picnic and take 10 children with them when they left.
I wouldn’t be so confident making that statement. Outside of the UK you’d be hard pressed to get the majority of people to actually identify the royal family, let alone having an opinion about them.
They'd identify the most famous royals sure enough, opinion doesn't really matter, most people are too wound up with their own agenda, or posting their every movement on social media, to care, or have time for most stuff nowadays anyway.
The fact remains the royals offer a meaningful identity, and do a lot more good than harm for the country, which was the original point.
This.
What good is the royal family doing in this very moment when your country is torn apart with Brexit? Great job Lizzy did in front of that golden grand piano.
Respect them for what?
Not going into it again, I have my views, it seems many others have different ones.
Find the whole thread a bit sad tbh, but it's a changing world, so I'm fighting a losing battle.
Fair enough.
I think the Queen works hard in terms of diplomatic and charitable engagements, she went to 385 engagements in 2016 and she's 92.
There's a financial benefit to the royal family also, I don't know how accurate they are but Brand Finance estimated in 2017 that the royal family's contribution to the economy is £1.8bn a year. There's plenty of disputes about that but in my completely unqualified opinion I imagine that the royal family make more than they take, you also have the lands that the crown loaned to the government, which if Brand Finance didn't include in their estimation makes £280 million a year in taxes.
Having said all that, I don't really care about them, I don't like them but I don't hate them. Take my figures with a grain of salt as well, I haven't spent much time researching this, just putting forward an argument as to what they might do for the country.
Last edited:
There is no need for them. "Ordained by God"...give me a break.
Iirc doesnt the royal family do more good for England than harm?
Also, they own expensice estates. Cant just take it from them and theyre taxed more so than the average citizen as is?
Also, they own expensice estates. Cant just take it from them and theyre taxed more so than the average citizen as is?
I have no evidence but I doubt countries will behave differently towards the UK when the Royals are gone. There'll be a president or whatever. And trade deals and all that will continue to happen. And I doubt tourism would be hurt in the long run.
Yes you can. How do you think other countries got rid of their monarchies?
His argument about the Crown's estates doesn't really make much sense to me. It boils down to the money the Crown generates from their estates doesn't count because they shouldn't have that land. I mean I agree, but that doesn't really hold weight in an argument about whether the royal family makes sense financially. They do own the land, so when weighing up the pros and cons in a strictly financial sense you have to take that into account.
They own the land by divine right.
The land and castles would still exist if they were removed from their posts, and they would still be tourist attractions (like in France which is the example he cites).
Unfair.
A lot of rich people here in America living rich because their anccestors used slaves. What should we do. Cant just take property?
I don't think his France example holds up, they were removed from their posts in a bloody revolution in the 18th century, I'm not sure if that's really applicable to today. The example he should have used was how the land in Ireland was handed over to the Irish government. I'm not under the illusion that the land and castles would disappear if the royal family was removed, but that's a hypothetical. If the argument is does the royal family make sense financially, I don't think the revenue from the crown estates can be ignored because the royal family shouldn't 'own' them (I know technically they don't own them). I agree that if the royal family was removed or killed then the lands and buildings would still be profitable
Last edited:
Every privilege lost feels unfair to those who were the privileged.
Are you gonna trace the roots of every privilege and try to make it equal then? The lifestyle most of us have in the west compared to certain parts of the world can be considered more of a privilege than royal families in comparison to us. Not to mention what western countries did to get in this position of power is likely worse than the Royal families divine claim to fame.
It's a complex subject. Royalty bad, remove all assets doesn't really make a lot of sense to me anyway.
I think there's nothing to be gained from smashing down the "monarchy" at this stage and they seem to do more good for England than harm from my admittedly limited knowledge.
Yeah it is unfair. The west has a lot to answer for. But still, the idea of monarchy and the accompanying aristocracy is extremely archaic . Yet the British society decided to keep that permanent class division
Yeah you forgot put them in prison.
The bad thing about royals has nothing to do with whether they make a profit or not, or whether they are decent individuals or not. It's just what they represent, the principle underneath their existence.
Agreed.
But there is a (flimsy) counter-argument that they are a profitable resource of the country and thus should be kept.
I think there should be an effective way of limiting inheritances in the first place, since they destroy any pretence of a merit-based society. I think some of these taxed inheritances should be used as a form of reparations.
But none of that is relevant to this case, where you have literally a sovereign who gains her authority -today- from her lineage.
To step back - this is a response video The original argument was "royals suck taxpayer money" and hence should be removed. CGP grey responded with "they put back more from their estates and tourism to these estates." To which the video I linked responded saying that the income from tourism etc will come in regardless of whether there is a living royal family or not, as we can see by the number of visitors to Versailles etc.
So this whole discussion is in the context - are the royal family responsible for tourism revenue, which is why your last line is the relevant line.
To the bolded part - you have to compare the situation + and - royals. If the income (tourism) is constant in both cases, and the expenditure (on the family) is present in the + case only, then there is a financial case against the family.
It really is an anacronysm but then Brits seem to love being told what to do by posh people, even when they demonstrably don't have their best interests at heart.
Agreed.
I don't think Versailles is a perfect comparison, France gets a lot more tourism and Buckingham palace is a shithole in comparison to Versailles. I have no idea on this but do a lot of people visit Versailles due to it's connection to the old French monarchy? Whereas I think a lot of the people who do visit Buckingham palace etc due so because of the Royal family fame. The British monarchy is a lot more famous worldwide than the monarchy of 18th century France.
Regarding what I've bolded (and what you bolded), I'm trying to say that when weighing up the financial benefits of the royal family, I'm not discounting the crown estates, because it does belong to the monarchy, I don't really disagree with anything you're saying. If the monarchy is abolished and the crown estates are handed over to the government, then you're right and there's a financial argument that the monarchy should be abolished.
Last edited:
What about political families? Families with high influence? Families who are 4th, 5th generation IVY league because their ancestors were royal? Where do you draw the line.
Money. As I said, inheritances should be limited, and by inheritance I mean money or other material, quantifiable things.
Privilege in the form of contacts and influence will be passed on, I don't know how the government can stop that. But the govt can intervene at the level of money.
I’m a fan as well strange as it sounds yet also against it in equal measure.
Arguments for - it prevents a huge range of money rich idiots from thinking they are royalty or divine just because they’ve conquered the world in a material sense. So having just one family which is say afforded this prestige is better than an entire class of people lording it over the rest of us.
I love the historical aspect, they’re essentially powerless now but they’re like a walking talking museum and window into the past of how things were. I also believe they represent a huge part of British culture. Is it irrational of course but sometimes it’s fun to indulge in a bit of irrationality.
You touched on the pageantry etc and yes I quite like it - it’s all absolute nonsense when you look at it logically and a total waste of tax payers money but so many people do derive pleasure from it and it makes for great tv and spectacle.
Seeing how America has become an embarrassment to democracy and seeing how democracy in its purest form has absolutely taken United Kingdom to the cleaners not to mention how conniving and illiterate our politicians are - I quite enjoy the fact they have to curtesy and humble themselves in front of the royals. In truth the royals hold no real power over them but symbolically its a nice way of reminding MPs they’re not kings or queens - not that Theresa May pays heed to this mind.