• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
The royal family earn more for the country than they cost.
Click to expand...

That old chestnut?

The Crown estates contribute more than the civil list takes but how much money do the individual members of the Royal family make for the UK and where?

Not how much does the inherited institutional clout (tourism to palaces that they 'own', revenues from seabeds that they 'own', rents from massive tenant farming on land that they 'own'?) pull in? Significant amounts of the money that come from the Crown estates would still come in if it wasn't royal land. Significant numbers of tourists would still visit Windsor, Edinburgh, London etc etc if we didn't have an active Royal family.

What does having a Royal family actually contribute?
 
Lost Mango said:
That old chestnut?

The Crown estates contribute more than the civil list takes but how much money do the individual members of the Royal family make for the UK and where?

Not how much does the inherited institutional clout (tourism to palaces that they 'own', revenues from seabeds that they 'own', rents from massive tenant farming on land that they 'own'?) pull in? Significant amounts of the money that come from the Crown estates would still come in if it wasn't royal land. Significant numbers of tourists would still visit Windsor, Edinburgh, London etc etc if we didn't have an active Royal family.

What does having a Royal family actually contribute?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't you include the Crown Estates? It's their land.
 
scaramanga said:
Yes it is.

And you shouldn't quote Tony Benn, it will make you sound almost as departed as him.
Click to expand...

It is land of the Crown, not land belonging to Elizabeth Windsor. Charlie boy won't inherit it, it comes with the so-called job.

Therefore it isn't theirs, it is the country's. If there were no royals now the land would still exist, it would still be functional, it would still be of the same economic value. A Sovereign Wealth Fund, for example, could be created to harness revenue from the seabed. You don't need granny Lilbet to realise that value.

So yeah, you can ignore the Estates as they are different to the Windsor themselves. So asking the question again, what do the Royal family bring to the table? What would we lose economically, culturally, politically, if we got rid?
 
Lost Mango said:
It is land of the Crown, not land belonging to Elizabeth Windsor. Charlie boy won't inherit it, it comes with the so-called job.

Therefore it isn't theirs, it is the country's. If there were no royals now the land would still exist, it would still be functional, it would still be of the same economic value. A Sovereign Wealth Fund, for example, could be created to harness revenue from the seabed. You don't need granny Lilbet to realise that value.

So yeah, you can ignore the Estates as they are different to the Windsor themselves. So asking the question again, what do the Royal family bring to the table? What would we lose economically, culturally, politically, if we got rid?
Click to expand...
The crown estates are owned by the reigning monarch. Sure, we could just take it - on that basis why don't we just take everything you own? We could sell your children to some middle Eastern billionaire - they'd probably raise a few quid for council house people to spend on scratch cards.

Here's one of your lot on the benefit of having the Queen in place:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/05/31/britain-better-country-thanks-queen/
 
Im no royalist, far from it but seeing as we don't make anything anymore and the tourism sector and cash exchange sector relies on them, and considering those sectors combined are up in the top 5 of England income I am willing to suffer them
 
I reckon when the queen dies we should replace it with a lottery, where the entrants consistent of where people have nominated their grandmothers. Then, every year, there's a draw and someone gets to move into the palace and become queen for a year. Sort of the 'nation's nanna' kind of a role. But they also get to be notionally superior to the PM. That would be cool (and a bit of continuity with the best parts of the current incumbent).
 
Gutter Boy said:
I reckon when the queen dies we should replace it with a lottery, where the entrants consistent of where people have nominated their grandmothers. Then, every year, there's a draw and someone gets to move into the palace and become queen for a year. Sort of the 'nation's nanna' kind of a role. But they also get to be notionally superior to the PM. That would be cool (and a bit of continuity with the best parts of the current incumbent).
Click to expand...
It really doesn't work without the class structure underpinning it.
 
FolkestoneSpur said:
You're a smart bloke Scara, I don't think you believe 90% of what you write on here, it's just WUM stuff and an attempt at edge.
Click to expand...
Benn's political outlook was last relevant in the 1940s.

He helped fudge our country up in the 70s and became completely irrelevant from 1979 and has stayed that way.

Nothing WUM about that whatsoever. He was a treasonous clam and the world would have been far better off if he'd been an abortion.
 
No particular fan of Stansgate, but he was quite an effective postmaster general and made a success out of ICL, which only went to brick under Fujitsu.

Re Lilibet, time for a Romanov solution probably. Shoot them all in a cellar and then find a mechanism for choosing a president which combines democratic selection with some qualifying barriers to entry that would stop Stephen Fry or Joanna Lumley or Zoella getting the gig. I didn’t really care who was head of state until the Boris Johnson disaster proved we need someone with the legitimacy to slap down a rogue PM.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
No particular fan of Stansgate, but he was quite an effective postmaster general and made a success out of ICL, which only went to brick under Fujitsu.

Re Lilibet, time for a Romanov solution probably. Shoot them all in a cellar and then find a mechanism for choosing a president which combines democratic selection with some qualifying barriers to entry that would stop Stephen Fry or Joanna Lumley or Zoella getting the gig. I didn’t really care who was head of state until the Boris Johnson disaster proved we need someone with the legitimacy to slap down a rogue PM.
Click to expand...

If we didn't have a monarchy, the likelihood is either Blair or Cameron would be president at the moment. Be very careful what you wish for. The main qualifying barrier for such a system would need to be - has never been a politician.

I would quite seriously back a lottery (back to the original principle of Greek democracy), perhaps with a barrier of a degree and 10 years work experience. You should never give power to people who seek power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back