To think there are higher priorities than Buckingham Palace.

[lazylab]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-elizabeth-pay-rise-royal-public-funds-buckingham-palace-sovereign-grant-royal-family-crown-a7809716.html

Whether or not we agree with the monachy i don't think now is the time to throw millions of taxpayers money at one huge old palace. There are far far more important things that need our money. Anyone agree?

Pr1ncessPeach
we are so completely diluted with multiculturalism that we don't actually have our own identity any more.

oh here it comes. people like you think that it's the 1950s or something. BRITAIN ISN'T GREAT. It's a crummy expensive hellhole and making nigel farage head of state isn't going to make it any better.

user1497480444

Thank you! Britain made most of its money through massive exploitation and destabilization of half the world. It currently participates in and benefits from huge global inequality and exploitation. Happily selling weapons to the Saudis and collapsing half of the middle east. Our elected govt is killing people due to austerity and anti-poor policy but of course the real issue is the royals

How disgusting, to be quite prepared to kill our people through austerity but bend over backwards to give one family more money. But who said the real issue amongst our problems were the royals, my thread wasn't about that

why does it matter how much she donates charity? That's great if she does, but that certainly doesn't qualify her for head of state. Many people donate to charity in large sums and aren't head of state. Nobody is proposing Bill Gates automatically become president.

Incidentally, there is a difference between people like Gates and the queen. He donated money that he earned. She donates money we give her.

lazylab

Oh what beautiful selective outrage! Nice how you skipped over the racism and xenophobia of the "multiculturalism is killing the UK crowd" but always have time to clutch pearls over the royal family.

do you have any real values except performative ones?

To repeat my initial point: you don't have any evidence that getting rid of the royal family won't weaken tourism. you don't have any evidence that the system that replaces it won't be 10x worse. so this is about a symbolic victory in a time of such economic instability and uncertainty that it could probably trigger the next recession.

Are you sure you're not a Brexiteer? You've got the IQ for it.

rolo i'm not being selective at all, if you want to talk about racism and xenophobia why don't you start a thread about it. It's quite clear what my thread is about, read my op again and try sticking to the point, rather than twist it into something that gives you an opportunity to rant about something you think you're right about but is actually a load of BS. Btw fuck of with your Brexit comparisons, and talking of IQ it's usually people like you , the kind that line the streets in the pouring rain to get a glimpse of the royals who have a low one.

you don't have any evidence that getting rid of the royal family won't weaken tourism.

that is absolutely not the standard for any other government outlay. the NHS, schools, universities all have to answer to watchdogs and or face the consequences if they don't meet the standards of peers.

It's the queen who should have to show that she is worth the money, not the other way around.

Well said mellast and the irony of her talking of low IQs.

you don't have any evidence that the system that replaces it won't be 10x worse

Or in the words of Hillaire Belloc: "And always keep a-hold of Nurse; For fear of finding something worse"

Personally I'd have hoped that we're all more mature than that and more capable of running things without needing some unelected, accident-of-birth figurehead to cringe to - but hey, we're all different I guess

lazylab

lol, what a hypocrite. You're not even on topic for your original post. I guess when you have no decent arguments, you change topics to hide it but no one else is allowed to. Don't worry: I promise not to bring up colonialism or inequality in a discussion about the royal family. I wouldn't want to expose you any more.

And I've never lined up for anything royal in my life but I guess you have to make up some fantasy that I'm rabidly pro royal since you don't have any real arguments.

mellast
that is absolutely not the standard for any other government outlay. the NHS, schools, universities all have to answer to watchdogs and or face the consequences if they don't meet the standards of peers.

yes it is! jesus christ, i thought you guys were meant to be smart. That's exactly the system that is used to evaluate any system change. Currently we have royals and we have tourism. We don't know how much of tourism is down to the royals. Before making a change, the standard would absolutely be what impact that change would have on tourism. You'd want evidence to show that it wouldn't weaken tourism.

That's why people would keep doing the studies on it and why if these proposals were ever brought to parliament, the first question would be to determine the impact on tourism and british diplomacy around the world.

Are you guys really this ignorant? If tomorrow we switch to a new NHS system, do you honestly believe that no one is going to evaluate the costs and benefits of the change? That's literally how all govt policy is made.

Have any of you ever held a real job?

I honestly don't get it. Why start a thread if you're not even going to bother to bring good arguments to it? Like, you actually took the time out to start this thread to say things like "you probably love standing in the street kissing royal arse" in a response to a question about economic impact. Why bother? Don't you have TV to watch?

There are plenty of great arguments for republicanism. Why no one on this thread seems capable of making any is another issue entirely.

rolo the thread was more or less finished with till you decided to resurrect it. I've brought loads of good argument into it, the purpose of a thread isn't necessarily about the op bringing "loads of good arguments" into it anyway. I'd given my view, as have many others, many agreeing with me. "There are plenty of good arguments for republicism", the thread wasn't about that, it was about my perfectly reasonable argument that there are more important things to spend our money on than the palace. You lowered the tone by mentioning my IQ, hence my mentioning your lining the streets. If you can't take it don't give it out.

Getting back to my Op i take it that you think the queen is more in need of extra money in these times of extreme cut backs and austerity than anyone else?

You'd want evidence to show that it wouldn't weaken tourism

I am pretty certain that the official reason for having a Monarchy is not tourism.

It may well weaken tourism. It may not. That's an irrelevant fact TBH.

What it will do is ensure we have a democratically elected Head of State. I think that should be the compelling and overwhelming reason for getting rid of the Monarchy.

Can pro Monarchists provide any evidence that having a Monarchy is good for democracy, equality and meritocracy?

Lazylab, your still missing the point.

The queens money isn't our money....
The Crown Estates is a company running to look after property that belongs to our king or queen...
We get 75 or 85% of this money GIVEN to us the public to run the country, she keeps the rest to fund engagements and repair the royal palaces...
So in reality, why should the queen give up so much to us.
Also she goes around thank people in this country for being there, and it does make one hell of a lot of difference to people that she cares enought to show this, after all have you seen the crowds this lady draws...

yes it is! jesus christ, i thought you guys were meant to be smart. That's exactly the system that is used to evaluate any system change. Currently we have royals and we have tourism. We don't know how much of tourism is down to the royals. Before making a change, the standard would absolutely be what impact that change would have on tourism. You'd want evidence to show that it wouldn't weaken tourism.

that would be relevant if there was any notion that the current funding formula is based on some cost benefit analysis of any kind (forget anything related to tourism) at all. it's not. there was no analysis of X pounds input will produce Y pounds in tourism (or anything else), and reducing X would reduce tourism by so much. that suggestion is entirely laughable.

it's based on politics and how much the monarchy thinks they can squeeze out of us. we have no idea how much bang we get for our buck from the monarchy and that's why it's an institution of it's own kind: it lacks transparency, accountability and legitimacy.

We get 75 or 85% of this money GIVEN to us the public to run the country, she keeps the rest to fund engagements and repair the royal palaces..

why should she give us any? perhaps she doesn't really have full rights to it?

I'm not missing any point, and it's not just me so why are you singling me out. If it was all the queens money why is it a government decision when she gets a pay rise. She gets 15% of the entire profits of the crown estates (a massive amount) instead of the civil list payment she used to get. She certainly wouldn't be allowed to keep the whole lot, what a crazy idea. If the royal family were to cease tomorrow the entire profit of the crown estates would immediately revert back to the UK.

she goes around thank people,in this country for being there
Sorry not quite sure what this means but whatever it is i'm sure it's ridiculous. Cant believe you've come on a dying thread to come out with such nonsensical garbage.

Why do you think the queen visits a hospital, or a school?

Why do you think she visits the charity's she lets use her name?

Or visits another country. If not to promote the UK. you always seem to put ideas down, but offer no concrete reasons. You keep saying no one answers your OP.

It is Crown money, and was agreed several hundred years ago to use the sysytem of we have the use of the profits and then some is given back, as the King who agreed just couldn't manage it all and there was too much admin...

I wonder why you don't all rant at the Govenment for not charging the big money earning companies the TAX they should pay us, as it would amount to 100x plus what the Queen has use of, but after all the Queen is such an easy target as the companies don't have a person you can have a poke at...

not worthy of an answer.

The sulking on this thread about other people having more is embarrassing.

Engagements are work - of course they are! I have worked on several royal engagements (not for the royal family but in public sector) and they are LONG days, they meet hundreds of people who come from far and wide and so inevitably put money into local economy for a day or two, it's a great morale booster for the people they visit, the royals I have met are patient and friendly and very professional. Imagine your 95yo nan on her feet all day meeting people on a hot day and making conversation.

The younger royals are doing a lot to raise awareness for MH. Like it or not, they have a following and people listen to them.

A great deal of charity work is also done on behalf of the royals.

They are a British institution the envy of the world over and I'm proud of that, I can't believe people want to sell off Buckingham Palace for a quick buck that would in reality to very little for the taxpayer and tear down our heritage (which of course generates revenue) because "it's not fair".

And massive LOL at expecting the queen to return land that was taken a millennium ago. Who's she gonna give it back to? Grow up

I'm sure no one objects to other monuments/historical buildings being looked after, so not sure why everyone gets uppity about Buckingham Palace?

And to whoever said Edward's wife never worked a day in her life, she actually worked at a radio station and then ran a pretty successful PR company. But let's just jump to conclusions ey 🙄

Oh yes Edwards wife the one used her royal connections to boost her own company, or shall we conveniently forget about that. but who said that none of them had never worked anyway

And massive LOL at expecting the queen to return land that was taken a millennium ago. Who's she gonna give it back to? Grow up

That was stolen...HTH.

The Government of this country. Unless you really think the Queen is entitled to own the seashore?

You do know how much land William stole when he conquered this country?

And then gave some back to his cronies?

You do know how much land is still owned by the ancestors of those people?

I have no doubt the Royal Family know the history of revolutions in other countries - Russia, France spring to mind. As well as what happens if you have an unfair amount of land - Zimbabwe (former Rhodesia) spring to mind.

I would love to see people like you defending Charles right to own massive amount of land when the revolution comes and the Monarchy are overthrown. A lot of history will be discussed.

They are a British institution the envy of the world over and I'm proud of that

You don't believe an democracy then? You don't believe that the Head of State should be elected?

The younger royals are doing a lot to raise awareness for MH. Like it or not, they have a following and people listen to them

Duuuuh. Why do you think that?

Because of a sycophantic media and people who lap up every word they say?

I'm glad they're doing what they do. Of course they have a position and a voice in society.

Some people might argue that the ONLY reason they have a voice and can influence policy is because they are Royal. Other people who don't have a voice but want to change things are ignored because they are not Royal. Is that fair? People are only listened to because they are deemed important enough.

Still, it's the way it's always been. People who only get heard and listened to are the people who are privileged. The Royal Family reek of privilege and send a clear signal that there is no such thing as meritocracy in this country.