Matt Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 We didn't get a day off for the first, We won't get a day off for the 2nd...This is why i'm not interested. Give us some extra days off due to the Royals I might start taking some interest.
foxile5 Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Whilst I have no negative feelings towards the Royals I can't say I'm in the slightest bit interested in this. Russia is slowly invading Ukraine. Isis members, British ones at that, are beheading American and British journalists. North Korea continues to posture and march on towards nuclear armament. There are some matters to be concerned about, not the advent of another super-privilaged child that, in twenty years time, will have absolutely nothing to do with the general public and will only exist in rarified society.
Rincewind Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 The fact that we can only guess, speaks volumes; why is there no transparency? What is the establishment afraid of? The truth?
cambridgefox Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Middleton was a good looking lass but if she's going to keep popping out sprogs from between her legs I'll have to move on to Zara Phillips, which frankly nobody wants.Really.We do at work
Finnegan Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Can't remember, did we get a bank holiday out of the last one? If so, bring it on! If not, who gives a ****? Edit: lol should have looked at the last post before posting.
Charl91 Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 That's 9 months of non-news being the headlines again... Only 9 months? That's a conservative estimate!
Buce Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Only 9 months? That's a conservative estimate! It's labour after 9 months....
The Doctor Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 Only 9 months? That's a conservative estimate! Fairly sure it faded last time once the "Woman has baby" headlines came out and she actually gave birth.
Rincewind Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 It's labour after 9 months.... Only 9 months? That's a conservative estimate! That takes up to the election doesn't it. I bet cameron has a broad grin when heaving a sigh of relief. Are they talking about me? No the royal baby.
fox123 Posted 8 September 2014 Posted 8 September 2014 I'm more concerned about her stretch marks, as if William will willy her again!
Captain... Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 It wasn't an argument, it was a question. Regardless, it sounds like you have a chip on your shoulder and are spouting a lot of conjecture to me. I was hoping for a bit more of a look into it not just "Nah, that's wrong." First of all the figure is about 15 times what they cost. It's not like it trumps them by a few million. Even if it is inflated then it's still likely that it's above the ~£35m figure. Secondly you say that we'd generated tourism regardless. I obvioudly don't have any figures so I'll speculate wildly like you've done. I think that a lot of people that come over here from America and Asia wouldn't really be that interested in those places if it weren't for the 'celebrity' status of a lot of the royals. Again this is just opinion so not much point going on about that bit. You asked if you had overlooked something and told you what you had over looked I didn't say 'Nah your wrong' and then you accuse me of having a chip on my shoulder.I didn't say anything about the royals just that your valuation on what they bring in means nothing. The article quotes their revenue by mentioning the Tower of London and Windsor castle. I doubt that there are many tourists who come to London purely because of the current royal family, they come because London is one of the most important cities in the world. They go to the Tower of London because of the history which will always be there, rather than the current mob. I've been to the Tower of London and there is loads of history there, Henry VIII, Richard the III I don't remember much about Lizzie. If interest did wane on these royal places then tourists would spend their money elsewhere. They would still come to London. The fact is these royal tourist spots could generate Billions in tourist revenue, but that doesn't come back to the State, Man United generates lots of money from tourists going to Old Trafford, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be happy subsidising them with your taxes.
MooseBreath Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 Hard to know if the tourists would still come if the royals were disbanded. We would still have the history and the buildings yes (and would still be paying for their maintenance), but I'm sure a lot of the draw is based on an image that does rely on an existing royal family. Would Downing Street still be a draw if the PM didn't live there? The White House? I don't know the answers, and I'm indifferent to the extent that the economics do matter. I think greater transparency of royal finances is a reasonable request, but it does seem rather vindictive and almost perverse to focus on this when there are so many other much more serious problems in the world.
Webbo Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 I don't know the answers, and I'm indifferent to the extent that the economics do matter. I think greater transparency of royal finances is a reasonable request, but it does seem rather vindictive and almost perverse to focus on this when there are so many other much more serious problems in the world. They're using it to distract from real issues, like record numbers in employment and the highest growth in the Western world.
lavrentis Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 Wonder how much bedroom tax they have to pay? they probably pay more tax than anyone
Fox92 Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 You should be proud that this country has such a good and well respected monarchy, most countries would love to have our Royal family, I think we take them for granted. Just can't relate to them. I can't anyway. I personally don't feel any affection towards them and couldn't care less about them if I'm honest.
Buce Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 Hard to know if the tourists would still come if the royals were disbanded. We would still have the history and the buildings yes (and would still be paying for their maintenance), but I'm sure a lot of the draw is based on an image that does rely on an existing royal family. Would Downing Street still be a draw if the PM didn't live there? The White House? I don't know the answers, and I'm indifferent to the extent that the economics do matter. I think greater transparency of royal finances is a reasonable request, but it does seem rather vindictive and almost perverse to focus on this when there are so many other much more serious problems in the world. What is perverse, is that millions of people live in poverty while we subsidize the lavish lifestyle of one of the richest families in the world, based on nothing more than their ancestry. It is an anachronism that has no place in a modern democratic society.
The Doctor Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 Hard to know if the tourists would still come if the royals were disbanded. We would still have the history and the buildings yes (and would still be paying for their maintenance), but I'm sure a lot of the draw is based on an image that does rely on an existing royal family. Would Downing Street still be a draw if the PM didn't live there? The White House? I don't know the answers, and I'm indifferent to the extent that the economics do matter. I think greater transparency of royal finances is a reasonable request, but it does seem rather vindictive and almost perverse to focus on this when there are so many other much more serious problems in the world. Not really - versailles hasn't had royals in it for decades, it still has higher tourist visits than the likes of Buckingham palace
ADK Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 They're using it to distract from real issues, like record numbers in employment and the highest growth in the Western world. That's rubbish
Alf Bentley Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 They're using it to distract from real issues, like record numbers in employment and the highest growth in the Western world. Yep, distractions from good news stories are a shame. Thankfully, Conservative Home is here to keep us informed: http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/09/lord-ashcroft-labours-lead-climbs-to-seven-points-in-my-latest-ashcroft-national-poll.html First Kate will be in labour, then the whole country will be in Labour! Let's have a double bank holiday!
Buce Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 they probably pay more tax than anyoneThe monarch has no obligation to pay income tax, though the Queen has done so voluntarily since 1992.It's still only a tax on free money.
Guest MattP Posted 9 September 2014 Posted 9 September 2014 Great lets get it done. Well the vast majority of the British people are still firmly behind having a monarchy so until that changes you don't have a leg to stand on.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.