To find the Queen's new coach utterly ridiculous

[MonterayJack]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/04/queen-travel-state-opening-parliament-new-coach

Not to mention archaic, disturbing (has fragments of the Mary Rose and Sir Issac Newton's apple tree built into it?!) and a giant waste of money. I looked at it and just thought "Why?"

Anyone else feel slightly annoyed and disturbed at the thought of an adult thinking it's a good idea to ride around in such a contraption?

"The tourism argument really annoys me. The most visited countries in the world are France and the US. They got rid of their expensive, useless monarchies a long time ago."

The US never had a monarchy, and it's 50x larger than the UK.

France is 2.5x larger, and its top tourist origins are:

1. UK
2. Germany
3. Belgium
4. Netherlands
5. Spain
6. Switzerland

I.e. each of its direct neighbours

Our top markets are

1. France
2. Germany
3. USA
4. Ireland
5. Netherlands
6. Spain

IOW, France massive tourist numbers are entirely attributable to the fact that for Germans, Belgians etc. it's the equivalent of driving to Brighton.

To be entirely fair, tourism is driven by a huge variety of factors that go way beyond this discussion, but France has clearly got a lot more going for it than simply proximity. Otherwise the countries of central Europe would be a lot more popular than they are currently.

US did have a monarchy - ours!

If the primary aim is to drive tourists, then I think the French model has been pretty successful. Disband the monarchy (preferably also the aristocracy) and open up the pretty palaces and chateaux for paying guests. Versailles gets more tourists per year than any of the UK royal residences.

I think it's fair enough to mark a diamond jubilee.

I agree that if you're going to have a royal family then you might as well have a bit of pomp and circumstance - and celebration of the family's and nation's significant occasions.

I feel their celebrations are an important marker in our own lives.
When a member of the royal family dies it gives an opportunity through the holding of a beautiful funeral for others to remember their own loved ones who they see no more.
Similarly a royal wedding can be an opportunity for national celebration and commitment to our own relationships. And I love seeing the royal babies growing up, alongside my own family (obviously my own family is much more important to me, but it's nice to have a shared interest in someone else's)

I'm a republican through and through. I think this coach is a remarkable piece of craftsmanship and it is wonderful that such a thing is still made. Forget the monarchy debate - it is irrelevant as the coach has not been paid for from public funds - it showcases some of the most significant events in the UK's history and some of the UK and Commonwealth's finest craftsmen. It is a stunning object.

I rather like the idea that there are craftsmen and women who have been able to use their skills, get paid and have created something beautiful and interesting between them.

Paris Hilton, by accident of birth, was born into an immensely rich family with all the bells and whistles that go with that. We are not expected to fawn over her, contribute to her lifestyle financially or listen to her make speeches. We don't put her on a pedestal and hold her up to be special or deserving of the finest food/clothing/palaces etc, possible. She isn't 'reigning' over anybody and we aren't expected to sing anthems about her. Super rich is one thing, royalty is another.

Yanbu
I think it's great.

Oops!
I meant ... yAbvu

Tourism myth amongst other things

What a very silly article. They argue about how many millions the royal family cost (not very many, considering our total £700+ billion public spending), and they attribute things like the 'Master of the Household's Department' to the Queen, which includes spending on things like state banquets for visting Presidents and stuff which we'd have anyway regardless of the monarchy.

And then they claim that the sum total of tourism output is ticket sales to Buckingham Palace? What about Windsor Castle, the Tower of London, Kensington Palace, etc. What about the tourists who come here (partly) to stand outside Buckingham Palace and watch Changing of the Guard.

According to this article

dailycaller.com/2012/09/26/taxpayers-spent-1-4-billion-on-obama-family-last-year-perks-questioned-in-new-book/

"Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family."

Obviously numbers are exaggerated, but we still have to spend money on state boozing and dining.

I think it looks fantastic and I am with those people who are delighted that such skill still exist. I have always been facinated by stagecoaches. I cannot for the life of me see what is "disturbing" about having recycled buts of other noteworthy vehicles etc. in it. Sounds a lovely idea.

caruthers said Love the monarchy and wish they could build her a barge in the same fashion too.

Ooh do you mean like a narrowboat barge? Funnily enough I saw one on the back of a lorry today - well the shell of one - I guess it was going somewhere to be fitted out. Perhaps someone has already had that idea?

I suppose they would have to get someone else to open the locks for her though since she is getting on a bit

Songlark - the profits from the Crown estates DO go straight to "the people", as they are paid directly to the Exchequer, not to the monarchy. In return the monarch receives payment under the Civil List.

The Crown estates could not "revert" to the people. They never belonged to "the people". They were mainly owned by Anglo-Saxon kings, and then taken over by William the Conquerer in 1066. They have then been inherited by successive monarchs.

Unfortunately we do spend money on state boozing and dining. That's what parliament does.

Ooh I love a bit of history. Thanks Shil.

And I think the queen deserves a new coach. Hope I'm not still working at nearly 90

The Crown estates could not "revert" to the people. They never belonged to "the people". They were mainly owned by Anglo-Saxon kings, and then taken over by William the Conquerer in 1066. They have then been inherited by successive monarchs.

The current royal family have no strong personal or familial connection with them either. Tracing Elizabeth II's connection back to the Anglo-Saxon kings would be a long and messy job. It would be quite interesting to investigate who has the best claim to them, based on being the most direct descendants of the Anglo-Saxon monarchs.

Basically the Crown estates are a gift that the parliament allowed the monarchy to have, until they changed the arrangement so that the gift took the form of the civil list.

If the Windsor family were not also our monarchs, they would have no claim on these lands whatsoever.

Unfortunately we do spend money on state boozing and dining. That's what parliament does.
^^

But we'd still be paying for state boozing and dining, even if we didn't have a monarchy. Or did I miss your point?