It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)i gotta ask(48 posts)(48 posts)
(48 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted April 22, 2011
I have to google all these things, Princess Eugenie, wedding, UK... :-/
Posted April 22, 2011
avatar
Bodkin: I have to google all these things, Princess Eugenie, wedding, UK... :-/
Eugenie actually has really nothing to do with the wedding, I just think shes hot.
Posted April 22, 2011
avatar
HoneyBakedHam: Hey....

Since we are on the topic... A few months back, angry Brit students stormed London to protest the three fold increase in University tuition.

So I'm curious, how are the useless Imperial figureheads funded? Do your tax dollars keep an archaic relic of the Middle Ages living in the lap of luxury? Or does some private funding keep the upper lip stiff?

I mean, if England is suffering some budget shortfalls, wouldn't it be prudent to stop having a royal family?
avatar
wpegg: What a fun debate you've just jumped into the middle of. The Monarchy receives a certain amount of money every year from the civil list, which is about £8m. This is intended to "offset" some of the costs associated with being the monarch. Really we just give them a chunk of money every year. It's actually been revised recently so that as of 2013 instead of the civil list we'll be giving them a Sovreign Support Grant. So essentially the Queen will be on benefits.

Pro-monarchists would argue that this expenditure is more than offset by the tourism and other income (the queen pays taxes on income generated from her not inconsiderable wealth). So on balance we simply gain a certain amount of national pride, tradition, and a bank holiday when one of them gets married.

Pro-reformists would argue that it is an archaic system that shouldn't be given any money at all, and that the Royal family should just support themselves like everyone else.

I probably lean apathetically towards the pro-monarchists, just as long as I don't have to watch the thing. If it makes some people happy and proud of our country, then there are much bigger costs I'd like to see cut before this. Either way, the amount of money spent is small fry in the light of the billions we've paid out to bail out the banking system. To put it in perspective, to try to pay for the gap in university funding for even just a year would probably completely bankrupt the entire Royal family of all the wealth they've accumulated over their entire time with the throne.

EDIT: PS. We don't pay tax in dollars ;)
Haha! I didn't even realize I wrote "dollars" :-) I guess we are a little naturally ethnocentric :-)

Anyway, thanks for a thoughtful take. If having a royal family actually translates into greater income vs. the cost, then there is an argument for keeping up the institution.

I read comments in forums all the time that say "throw out the inbred royals" and all that jazz, so it is really nice to have someone from the country give a nice appraisal of both sides of the issue.
Posted April 22, 2011
avatar
Bodkin: I have to google all these things, Princess Eugenie, wedding, UK... :-/
avatar
Wraith: Eugenie actually has really nothing to do with the wedding, I just think shes hot.
And I may have made up the part about her and Harry. (Though it wouldnt suprize me)
Posted April 22, 2011
Man, am I glad I don't watch TV any more. I remember back in the mid 2000's my most frequent thought when trying to watch the news was something along the lines of "if I have to hear about Princess Fucking Diana one more time, I'm going to fly to the UK just to exhume her corpse and take a shit in her eye sockets".

In short, the internet has many sources of your favourite TV shows on demand and ad-free (assuming you have ad blocker). In my view, TV is obsolete.
Posted April 23, 2011
I don't care about the wedding, I don't care about the lifestyle choices of the Royal Family. but I do care about the Royal Family's existence.

£8m a year is significantly less than I realised, and when, as an expenditure, it's compared to other uses of money, for example the NHS or the 'defence' Budget it's pretty obvious which ones earning us the most money for how much is spent.

The royal Family give us a sense of nationalism and identity that a lot of other countries find outstanding for some reason.

And above all else, in my very limited and common understanding of History and Politics I think back to King Charles the mrphhph who decided to replace the government because he thought they were being arses, he ended up dead as I recall, but I like the idea of a back up government should our government decay to the point where action is to be taken against Parliament as a whole. Nothing more british than thinking 'well this isn't gonna work out so we better have something we can replace them with'
Posted April 23, 2011
They pay a lot in taxes? Hell, i'd read about people who do that. Beats the crap out of reading about the Popes and merry man in black, who do not necessarily pay for stuff.
Soo, child molesting tax evaders, or some square jawed people with funny accents getting married. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side and we appreciate what we had only after we lose it.
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
Arteveld: They pay a lot in taxes? Hell, i'd read about people who do that. Beats the crap out of reading about the Popes and merry man in black, who do not necessarily pay for stuff.
Soo, child molesting tax evaders, or some square jawed people with funny accents getting married. I guess the grass is always greener on the other side and we appreciate what we had only after we lose it.
You lost your child molesting tax evaders? We're sending you Simon Cowell immediately.

(I don't have any proof Simon Cowell is either of those things, I just hate him)
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
wpegg: You lost your child molesting tax evaders? We're sending you Simon Cowell immediately.

(I don't have any proof Simon Cowell is either of those things, I just hate him)
Oh, no we didn't, nor did You lose the royal ppl. But i bet that if we did we'd go with the "ohg, at least we had more variety in jokes when they were around" etc.

Anyhow, we appreciate Your Simon Cowell gift, though there has been an accident in transport, and the unit arrived faulty. He knows only one language, a couple of crappy songs. Our dragon says he was fine, though a bit raw.
As an exchange, we're sending You 4 battalions of out elite marketing and management graduates, and 20 squadrons of ace European studies grads. Hope You can put them to good use, we've got none.;)
Post edited April 23, 2011 by Arteveld
Posted April 23, 2011
Not British, so I don't care much, but out of curiousity:

avatar
Delixe: Actually pro-monarchists are those who understand the Royal Family actually do a job more than waving and putting Liz's face on the bank notes. It's part of the history and culture of the country whether you like it or not and it does bring in a shitload of tourism. I guess you actually have to live in London to appreciate that.
People visit London to see the royal family? Also, what "job" do they do?

avatar
Delixe: They also do pay a load of taxes on their properties and ancillary businesses.
Wouldn't they be doing that anyway? What's that got to do with giving them public money?

avatar
Delixe: £8 Million of the Civil List is a pittance to be honest for how much they directly and indirectly put back into the country. The government can waste twice that with another happiness study.
Don't know much about your currency, but eight million units of our basic currency (the dollar) is a lot of money. Might be a small amount in comparison to overall government spending, but that doesn't justify anything.

avatar
Delixe: Anti-monarchists want them gone not because of who they are but what they represent. Most of the vocal anti-royals are also anti-globalisationists and anarchists.
Globalization (with a "z" you European bastard... jk) isn't necessarily a good thing. And that sounds a bit biased anyway.

avatar
Delixe: There are also the self-apologists who believe the English should be asking forgiveness for everything their ancestors have done over the history of the world, every day for as long as they live.
Empathize there. There are African-Americans who believe "the white man" should be paying reparations over here.

avatar
Delixe: At the end of the day the Royals cost fuck all compared to what they bring in so it makes no sense to get rid of them. If you want to persue people who are stealing from the country then go after companies like Vodafone and Top Shop who don't pay a penny in tax.
Sounds like GE here.

Anyways, not attacking your viewpoint. As said, don't care much, just curious about it.
Post edited April 23, 2011 by ddmuse
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Globalization (with a "z" you European bastard... jk) isn't necessarily a good thing. And that sounds a bit biased anyway.
Firstly the English spelling is Globalisation. We use S the Yanks use Z. Second what did you do wrong with this:

Globalization

Bad spelling. If you are going to correct someones spelling at least spell it properly.
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
Delixe: Firstly the English spelling is Globalisation. We use S the Yanks use Z. Second what did you do wrong with this:

Globalization

Bad spelling. If you are going to correct someones spelling at least spell it properly.
You blind, bro? You see the "jk"? That should have clued you into the fact that I was aware of that and joking. Get a sense of humor.
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: You blind, bro? You see the "jk"? That should have clued you into the fact that I was aware of that and joking. Get a sense of humor.
You spelled it wrong.
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
Delixe: You spelled it wrong.
Spelled it wrong by English standards, yes. Spelled it correctly by American standards (if I'm not mistaken). That was the joke...
Posted April 23, 2011
avatar
ddmuse: Spelled it wrong by English standards, yes. Spelled it correctly by American standards (if I'm not mistaken). That was the joke...
So what's the point? You corrected me. Ok. Ha. Funny.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)i gotta ask(48 posts)(48 posts)
(48 posts)