The Royal Family

[Spudulike]

 

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

 

To think it was only in the 80s with the emergence of 24hr channels that the practise of playing it stopped before the channel went onto the test card.

 

 

Not Johnny's version obviously

[Finnaldo]

26 minutes ago, BKLFox said:

To think it was only in the 80s with the emergence of 24hr channels that the practise of playing it stopped before the channel went onto the test card.

 

 

Not Johnny's version obviously

That’s partially the point I guess, without the end of programming for the day you’re just shoehorning it. The previous need for it is extinct. 

[FoxesDeb]

Don't the Royal family bring hundreds of millions of pounds into the UK economy? It certainly used to be the case that they brought in much more than they cost, in which case it would seem daft to get rid of them, at least from an economical point of view 

[Scotch]

20 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Don't the Royal family bring hundreds of millions of pounds into the UK economy? It certainly used to be the case that they brought in much more than they cost, in which case it would seem daft to get rid of them, at least from an economical point of view 

I mean, tourist destinations like Buckingham Palace certainly bring in millions from tourists but so does Chester zoo and the Queen likely doesn't have to be at either for Tourists to still visit...

[FoxesDeb]

Just now, Scotch said:

I mean, tourist destinations like Buckingham Palace certainly bring in millions from tourists but so does Chester zoo and the Queen likely doesn't have to be at either for Tourists to still visit...

That may well be true, but the point is more about the net cost of the Royal family to the taxpayers and the UK economy as a whole 

[Scotch]

36 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

That may well be true, but the point is more about the net cost of the Royal family to the taxpayers and the UK economy as a whole 

But that's what I'm saying, there is no way of knowing that. How much tourism is brought in by the actual Royal family compared to the residences of them. If Buckingham was opened up for tours or as a luxury hotel... would it bring in just as much as it does now with no royals? 

[FoxesDeb]

5 minutes ago, Scotch said:

But that's what I'm saying, there is no way of knowing that. How much tourism is brought in by the actual Royal family compared to the residences of them. If Buckingham was opened up for tours or as a luxury hotel... would it bring in just as much as it does now with no royals? 

It's not just about the tourism though, is it? 

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/

Edited 7 January 2022 by FoxesDeb

[LiberalFox]

18 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

Anyone that thinks our version of democracy actually functions properly is (imo) sadly mistaken.

Well it depends what that function is supposed to be.

[HighPeakFox]

Just now, LiberalFox said:

Well it depends what that function is supposed to be.

Well, ours is to make sure nothing can ever really improve and quite clearly allows the ruling classes to break the law unpunished and smash everything up so any future change of government will be entirely hamstrung. 

 

That is NOT a functioning democracy. 

[Scotch]

7 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

It's not just about the tourism though, is it? 

 

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/

Again though.... how much of that listed there are the Royals themselves ACTUALLY needed? Tourism, property, merchandise, TV shows like the Crown.... They're not actually physically needed for any of it. Theoretically, all of that could STILL be done without them. 

[FoxesDeb]

3 minutes ago, Scotch said:

Again though.... how much of that listed there are the Royals themselves ACTUALLY needed? Tourism, property, merchandise, TV shows like the Crown.... They're not actually physically needed for any of it. Theoretically, all of that could STILL be done without them. 

I'm not sure that's a serious question?  You are asking if the Royal Family are needed to bring in the money brought in by the Royal family I think.. 

[Scotch]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I'm not sure that's a serious question?  You are asking if the Royal Family are needed to bring in the money brought in by the Royal family I think.. 

No, the question is, how much are the royal family PHYSICALLY required to do to bring in the money which that site listed? 

 

Tourists would still visit BP without a royal family. 

 

Viewers would still watch The Crown without a Royal family. 

 

People would still spend millions of pounds in tat with Royal crap on it...

 

The Royal family are essentially a brand. No work is actually required of them and its a brand that Britain own  not them so they are not actually needed to promote or sell that brand (providing you don't use their likeness)

[Corky]

BBC going 24 hours just so they don't have to play the national anthem because they HATE HER MAJ 

[FoxesDeb]

46 minutes ago, Scotch said:

No, the question is, how much are the royal family PHYSICALLY required to do to bring in the money which that site listed? 

 

Tourists would still visit BP without a royal family. 

 

Viewers would still watch The Crown without a Royal family. 

 

People would still spend millions of pounds in tat with Royal crap on it...

 

The Royal family are essentially a brand. No work is actually required of them and its a brand that Britain own  not them so they are not actually needed to promote or sell that brand (providing you don't use their likeness)

If the Royal family didn't exist there is no Royal family to market though. 

 

The royal weddings bring in a massive amount of money to the UK economy, and aound £150m every year is supposedly generated from trade agreements alone, with no Royals doing the trading this money wouldn't exist. 

 

It's very clear that the UK economy benefits greatly from the existence of the Royal family, so I'm really not sure why anyone would want to get rid of it, at least without a clear plan to replace the approx £400m net that they generate? 

 

Edited to add the massive amount of money generated by the royal patrons of charities. 

 

Edited 7 January 2022 by FoxesDeb

[Jimothy]

54 minutes ago, Scotch said:

No, the question is, how much are the royal family PHYSICALLY required to do to bring in the money which that site listed? 

 

Tourists would still visit BP without a royal family. 

 

Viewers would still watch The Crown without a Royal family. 

 

People would still spend millions of pounds in tat with Royal crap on it...

 

The Royal family are essentially a brand. No work is actually required of them and its a brand that Britain own  not them so they are not actually needed to promote or sell that brand (providing you don't use their likeness)

I don't think you've thought that through  If theres no Royal Family, there's no Royal Family brand.

 

Bit like saying Leicester City don't have to play games to make money, it's just a brand. People will still visit the stadium, people will still buy tat with Leicester crap on it. But that's blatantly not true is it.

 

I get that if you pulled the plug today there would be period of time where you could still sell Royal tat, there would still be a few more series of the crown, but interest would quickly go. Once the Queen (or former Queen in your world) dies, I don't think there's much of a call for selling tat with people like Charles or William on when they'd essentially be just normal people. I mean when the Queen does die that's gonna be economic windfall for all the crap they'll sell about her and about the incoming King Charles. If you get rid, that doesn't happen.

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Not sure why anyone would want to get rid of the royal family? Can't think of anything springing to mind. 

[Scotch]

2 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I don't think you've thought that through  If theres no Royal Family, there's no Royal Family brand.

 

Bit like saying Leicester City don't have to play games to make money, it's just a brand. People will still visit the stadium, people will still buy tat with Leicester crap on it. But that's blatantly not true is it.

 

I get that if you pulled the plug today there would be period of time where you could still sell Royal tat, there would still be a few more series of the crown, but interest would quickly go. Once the Queen (or former Queen in your world) dies, I don't think there's much of a call for selling tat with people like Charles or William on when they'd essentially be just normal people. I mean when the Queen does die that's gonna be economic windfall for all the crap they'll sell about her and about the incoming King Charles. If you get rid, that doesn't happen.

Tbf, I probably didn't think it further than the tourist industry and £18b worth of property still being a tourist attraction that folk would visit. 

 

Looking further, there probably (ok, undoubtedly) is a longer financial benefit to having them around but one thing has dawned on me after what you've said about what they bring to the table... They are essentially a high class, UK version of the Kardashians. After the Queen goes we should go the whole hog and get reality shows from them, Osborne style. 

[murphy]

Depressing thread.  Does it really come down to pounds, shillings and pence?  

 

What about the prestige that the royal family brings to the nation?  The gravitas of the queen?    A conveniently overheard conversation at COP26 carried more weight across the world than any of Boris' blusterings imo.

 

I have a lot of affection for the queen and for the institution and I don't care how much I might get mocked for it.  Becoming a republic would make us just a little bit more of a grey and joyless nation.

[Livid]

Generally I don’t really mind them but the way the media fawns over them is nauseating.

 

Oh look Kate’s 40 and she’s had some photos done, doesn’t she look stunning…..well she should do…..

[fox_up_north]

For me, I've always seen the Queen as that kind of diplomatic "ace in the hole" you can use. As others have pointed out - they're not political, officially, but her voice carries a lot of weight.

 

Plus, to be quite frank, she's got more in common with me and my family than most politicians. They've mostly all had normal jobs in the military and she's still working well past pension age.

 

I'd want to see it massively stripped back, though. Chin off the likes of Eugenie and such. They should be the people's representatives. If you leave - that's it, off you go. But they should have to slum it with the rest of us and then use their position to be a voice. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

What I'd like to know from a pro royal on here or anywhere for that matter is how you can justify a high ranking royal allegedly raping kids and say actually I don't fancy facing any consequences for that and the country and all its institutions being all 'ah well he's a royal'. It baffles me. 

[FoxyPV]

Abolish the monarchy.

 

A relic of the past. Tourism arguments etc don't stand up and they're a drain on society

[murphy]

I've heard the argument regarding the cost of the monarchy, even though it can be demonstrated that it brings in much more than it costs.

 

I've heard the argument that it is undemocratic, although I have yet to hear a single example of the queen ever using any technical powers to undermine government legislation.

 

I've heard the argument of obscene and unearned privilege, but what about the sacrifices?  would any of you swap places?  I wouldn't.  What use is wealth without freedom?

 

I've heard the argument that our historical buildings would somehow still attract the same tourists without a sitting monarch.  Somehow that proposition forgets to mention all of the attendant pageantry that goes with having a living king or queen.  It is not the same.

 

What I never hear, is all of the intangible benefits of have a royal family.  The prestige we gain throughout the world.  The tradition.  The unique advantage we have that some would see thrown away, all for some leftist class prejudice.

 

What about the deep affection that the queen holds in many people's hearts?  Some might scoff at that but the queen can reach people that no politician can.  For example, her address to the nation during the covid lockdown.  It actually meant something to a lot of people. Can you imagine the nasal drone of President Starmer (perish the thought) carrying the same weight or garnering the same affection?  Or President Boris' buffoonery?

 

The royal family can unite people, precisely because they are not political and there is none of the tribalism that comes with that.

 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Not having that for one second. If he was a normal citizen that wasn't a royal, he'd be almost certainly facing charges if not being investigated. Not sure how anyone can say his royal privelidge has nothing to do with it. Bit weird.