The Royal Wedding 2018

[Up_Tilt_390]

In the Netherlands, it appears that on King's Day and any major royal ceremony they come out en masse, party, paint the town orange and don't seem to have these arguments as to whether it's worth it, uniting the Kingdom, cost etc etc.

I could be wrong there could be a huge anti-royalist sentiment there that I'm unaware of. However, if I'm right, is it because their royalty is smaller, more attached to the people, more pragmatic? I've seen the King of the Netherlands at a football game (and only just missed him at the hockey last year). The only time I see our monarch is when I'm paying for something.

Discuss??

If I'm honest I think most people just aren't bothered by the Royal Family. There are much bigger problems facing the country that the people care more about at the minute, and even as a British Republican, getting rid of them or bringing a debate about their role in British society is a low priority. This couldn't be more true than now with leaving the European Union, which will ultimately change this country more than anything that involves the Royal Family at the present time. All the Queen really does now is dissolve Parliament and appoint the Prime Minister. She doesn't exercise he powers a great deal, leading some to falsely believe she has no power at all.

By contrast we have serious issues with our elected officials at the moment in time, and given they're the people actively making laws and running the country on a day-to-day basis, we care more about what they do than we do about what the Queen is doing. We couldn't care less if the royals took a break in times of crisis, but we do expect our elected leaders to be there dealing with the issue on our behalf, which is why it annoys people more. To use a business analogy, the Monarch serves as the non-executive Chairman who has no regular day-to-day roles, and the Prime Minister serves as the CEO who runs everything on a day-to-day basis.

EDIT: Only just understand the meaning of the actual statement that I quoted. Forgive me if this post has no relevance to it whatsoever, it's just a result of me being a bit of a dope (nothing out of the ordinary there really).

 

[Warwick]

Cost. cost?
The royal family are cheaper than the defence budget and cheaper than the overseas aid budget. They contribute more to the economy than any of the rag-tag mob of idealistic lefties who want to abolish them. If people feel so strongly about the money then start pressurising M.P.s to make a start on multinationals to pay their tax bills and London residing Russian zillionaires to do the same.

 

[radamfi]

Cost. cost?
The royal family are cheaper than the defence budget and cheaper than the overseas aid budget. They contribute more to the economy than any of the rag-tag mob of idealistic lefties who want to abolish them. If people feel so strongly about the money then start pressurising M.P.s to make a start on multinationals to pay their tax bills and London residing Russian zillionaires to do the same.

But why can't they pay it all themselves? They can afford it. What's the downside?

 

[Dave1987]

Cost. cost?
The royal family are cheaper than the defence budget and cheaper than the overseas aid budget. They contribute more to the economy than any of the rag-tag mob of idealistic lefties who want to abolish them. If people feel so strongly about the money then start pressurising M.P.s to make a start on multinationals to pay their tax bills and London residing Russian zillionaires to do the same.

Are they? The costs of protection for the Royal family round the clock is astronomical. That’s before the private helicopter flights etc. I severely doubt the Royals bring in more money than they cost. Somebody climbs the gates of Buck House they are arrested immediately. Someone breaks in my home I’m given a crime reference number and told to claim on the insurance.

 

[Bromley boy]

it's just a result of me being a bit of a dope (nothing out of the ordinary there really).

Not at all - your contributions are always well thought out and interesting.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Not at all - your contributions are always well thought out and interesting.

Oh well thanks, Bromley. Always nice to know I'm not always wrong.

 

[Dave1987]

Will it?

The monarchy is as popular now as ever, if not more so - even Australia voted to retain the queen as head of state.

The future is assured through the young royals. William and Harry both seem like very decent blokes. Born into privilege, yes, but both take their positions seriously. Harry in particular flew an Apache helicopter on the front line in Afghanistan. I have an immense amount of respect for anyone who does that, regardless of their background.

He was in the safest part of Afghanistan in a helicopter that was feared by the enemy. He was reportedly in a heavily guarded bunker, guarded by a section of the SAS while he was in Afghanistan. He was never in any danger whatsoever.

 

[Bromley boy]

He was in the safest part of Afghanistan in a helicopter that was feared by the enemy. He was reportedly in a heavily guarded bunker, guarded by a section of the SAS while he was in Afghanistan. He was never in any danger whatsoever.

A quick google search reveals he was in Helmand province, and indeed served in front line roles. It was hushed up at the time lest he become a target.

Fair enough to criticise the royals - but this deserves respect. He had the option to simply live a life of luxury, but is clearly made of stronger stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/28/military.afghanistan

Prince Harry has been secretly serving on the front line in Afghanistan with British troops since December, it emerged today.

The 23-year-old, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the past 10 weeks as a forward air controller (FAC) in the dangerous southern province of Helmand, guiding fighter jets towards suspected Taliban targets.

The army – which decided last year it was too dangerous for Harry to serve in Iraq – deployed him to Afghanistan on condition that his whereabouts remained a secret, in case he became a Taliban target.

The news of the operational posting leaked out following the breakdown of a blackout agreement with the media, when the story was posted this afternoon on the US-based Drudge Report website.

 

[Dave1987]

A quick google search reveals he was in Helmand province, and indeed served in front line roles. It was hushed up at the time lest he become a target.

Fair enough to criticise the royals - but this deserves respect. He had the option to simply live a life of luxury, but is clearly made of stronger stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/28/military.afghanistan

Prince Harry has been secretly serving on the front line in Afghanistan with British troops since December, it emerged today.

The 23-year-old, who is third in line to the throne, has spent the past 10 weeks as a forward air controller (FAC) in the dangerous southern province of Helmand, guiding fighter jets towards suspected Taliban targets.

The army – which decided last year it was too dangerous for Harry to serve in Iraq – deployed him to Afghanistan on condition that his whereabouts remained a secret, in case he became a Taliban target.

The news of the operational posting leaked out following the breakdown of a blackout agreement with the media, when the story was posted this afternoon on the US-based Drudge Report website.

While he was in Afghanistan the base he was at came under fire by the enemy. From what I have read the whole time he was in an underground bunker with personal protection from the SAS. In that attack some other soldiers were killed. He was never in any danger at all whilst in Afghanistan, the military wouldn’t let anything happen to him. Simply because they were born into that family their lives are considered more important than everyone else’s.

 

[birchesgreen]

Isn’t that a contradiction in terms? How does an elected head of state remain non-political?!

Quite a few countries have such, why don't you ask them? If they are performing a ceremonial role then its quite easy.

 

[bramling]

If I'm honest I think most people just aren't bothered by the Royal Family. There are much bigger problems facing the country that the people care more about at the minute, and even as a British Republican, getting rid of them or bringing a debate about their role in British society is a low priority. This couldn't be more true than now with leaving the European Union, which will ultimately change this country more than anything that involves the Royal Family at the present time. All the Queen really does now is dissolve Parliament and appoint the Prime Minister. She doesn't exercise he powers a great deal, leading some to falsely believe she has no power at all.

By contrast we have serious issues with our elected officials at the moment in time, and given they're the people actively making laws and running the country on a day-to-day basis, we care more about what they do than we do about what the Queen is doing. We couldn't care less if the royals took a break in times of crisis, but we do expect our elected leaders to be there dealing with the issue on our behalf, which is why it annoys people more. To use a business analogy, the Monarch serves as the non-executive Chairman who has no regular day-to-day roles, and the Prime Minister serves as the CEO who runs everything on a day-to-day basis.

EDIT: Only just understand the meaning of the actual statement that I quoted. Forgive me if this post has no relevance to it whatsoever, it's just a result of me being a bit of a dope (nothing out of the ordinary there really).

Agree with much of the above. There are elements of the royal family I like and elements I dislike, however the issue simply doesn’t hold massive salience for me. My main wishes are a reduction in taxation, reduced immigration, less housebuilding, sorting out the current lack of political leadership talent, and getting as harder and cleaner break from the EU as possible as soon as possible. Apart from a very small relevance in the form of taxpayer subsidy the monarchy has little impact on these issues.

I do feel for some members of the royal family however - whilst the birthright brings many privileges, it also denies a normal life. I wouldn’t want to live like that.

 

[xc170]

Shame Dianna wasn't there.

Someone had to say it

 

[MotCO]

I don't think that a presidency would bring in so much tourism as a monarchy. The number of people who visited Windsor in recent days or weeks (general public, television and media crews) would have brought millions to the local economy and for years to come e.g. Americans who want to go to see where Meghan got married. A president's grandchild getting married would stir little interest.

 

[47802]

I don't think that a presidency would bring in so much tourism as a monarchy. The number of people who visited Windsor in recent days or weeks (general public, television and media crews) would have brought millions to the local economy and for years to come e.g. Americans who want to go to see where Meghan got married. A president's grandchild getting married would stir little interest.

Indeed I have seen some reports that they could be worth up to 1.8 billion to the economy, which would be far in excess of what they cost including all the security etc. Yes you would still get some of that but, your not telling me that they don't come to see Buckingham palace because its where the Monarchy live, do you think it would have the same effect if it was where the Monarchy used to live before we got rid of them, and then of course there are the events like today the royal Weddings etc, and we certainly shouldn't get rid of them to satisfy a bunch of dogma obsessed Socialists.

Meanwhile the President of Ireland who's name escapes me, yes I'm sure they are all flocking to see him.

 

[Harbornite]

Shame Dianna wasn't there.

Someone had to say it

Hilarious.

 

[Bromley boy]

Agree with much of the above. There are elements of the royal family I like and elements I dislike, however the issue simply doesn’t hold massive salience for me. My main wishes are a reduction in taxation, reduced immigration, less housebuilding, sorting out the current lack of political leadership talent, and getting as harder and cleaner break from the EU as possible as soon as possible. Apart from a very small relevance in the form of taxpayer subsidy the monarchy has little impact on these issues.

I do feel for some members of the royal family however - whilst the birthright brings many privileges, it also denies a normal life. I wouldn’t want to live like that.

A very well written post indeed, which largely mirrors my views.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Indeed I have seen some reports that they could be worth up to 1.8 billion to the economy, which would be far in excess of what they cost including all the security etc. Yes you would still get some of that but, your not telling me that they don't come to see Buckingham palace because its where the Monarchy live, do you think it would have the same effect if it was where the Monarchy used to live before we got rid of them, and then of course there are the events like today the royal Weddings etc, and we certainly shouldn't get rid of them to satisfy a bunch of dogma obsessed Socialists.

Meanwhile the President of Ireland who's name escapes me, yes I'm sure they are all flocking to see him.

Perhaps some of these reports could be provided? Also, not everyone who wishes to end the monarchy is a dogma obsessed socialist. I despise socialism as much as the next person, but republicanism really isn't a policy of socialism, hence as someone who doesn't believe in the principle of a monarchy, I am not a socialist. I am a British liberal. Although I'll acknowledge the some prominent socialists do advocate for republicanism in Parliament.

 

[Bromley boy]

While he was in Afghanistan the base he was at came under fire by the enemy. From what I have read the whole time he was in an underground bunker with personal protection from the SAS. In that attack some other soldiers were killed. He was never in any danger at all whilst in Afghanistan, the military wouldn’t let anything happen to him. Simply because they were born into that family their lives are considered more important than everyone else’s.

He flew an apache on the front line - just him and a weapons operator.

As such he was very much on the front line. If they had crashed/had engine failure/been shot down God knows what would have happened. I’m not sure I’d have the balls to do it myself. Note also that the army prevented him from doing more due to who he is (a high value target).

It would be easy enough for him not to do anything, but he chose to put himself in harm’s way.

That’s something I have enormous respect for - irrespective of the bloke’s background and wealth.

 

[Bromley boy]

Quite a few countries have such, why don't you ask them? If they are performing a ceremonial role then its quite easy.

Which countries are those?

I’m perfectly happy with our current (unpolitical, unelected) head of state, thanks!

Along with the vast majority of the population, and most of America,
it would seem.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Why do we have to pay for these parasites? They have enough of their own private wealth- wouldn't this money be better going to the NHS ?

 

[Bromley boy]

Why do we have to pay for these parasites? They have enough of their own private wealth- wouldn't this money be better going to the NHS ?

Parasites who bring in far more than they cost.

So not really parasites at all.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Parasites who bring in far more than they cost.

So not really parasites at all.

Balls.... people visit countries for more than just a dysfunctional family - and they money they 'bring in' doesn't really benefit most of us anyway.

 

[Bromley boy]

Balls.... people visit countries for more than just a dysfunctional family - and they money they 'bring in' doesn't really benefit most of us anyway.

Balls indeed! You have your view, I have mine. You are of course free to vote accordingly, if you can find a mainstream political party in favour of republicanism.

Mark my words. The royal family (or their descendants) will be around long after you and I are both dead and buried, given their enormous domestic and international support.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps some of these reports could be provided? Also, not everyone who wishes to end the monarchy is a dogma obsessed socialist. I despise socialism as much as the next person, but republicanism really isn't a policy of socialism, hence as someone who doesn't believe in the principle of a monarchy, I am not a socialist. I am a British liberal. Although I'll acknowledge the some prominent socialists do advocate for republicanism in Parliament.

Whereas some of us are socialists who would rather everything in the Country wasn't up for sale to every Tom, Dick and Harry, but have a soft spot for the Windsors.

Give me Clem Attlee over Blair's "everything must go" philosophy so beloved by the free market clowns.

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Balls indeed! You have your view, I have mine. You are of course free to vote accordingly, if you can find a mainstream political party in favour of republicanism.

Mark my words. The royal family (or their descendants) will be around long after you and I are both dead and buried, given their enormous domestic and international support.

They were almost dead and buried in the early 70's but the powers that be built them up over the decades to cult status and yes with the backing of the media and their owners they probably will be around for some time - it's still ridiculous and there are still substantial sections of English people who want to see an end to monarchy. Was in Cardiff earlier - big thing was the monster truck thing... wedding what wedding ?... in Newport it was heartening to see a father encourage his children to boo god save the queen before the FA cup started... so maybe not in our lifetime but this backward anachronism will be banished from this glorious country of ours by the time our grandchildren perish.

 

[jon0844]

I watched it and found it very entertaining. I think the Royals are worth every penny as they bring a lot to the economy through tourism.

A lot of people were entertained. The nice weather meant people were out having fun, having a drink and taking part (even if they didn't care about the royals, it was a good excuse, right)?

To sit back and moan about the cost suggests people don't want to have fun. Just like anti-HS2 people think there's a pot of cash that could be better spent elsewhere, I don't think the money for the royals would suddenly get diverted to the NHS.

The feel-good factor (God we need it during Brexit) is worth money. People out spending and helping the economy. Tourism. Our 'reputation' on the world stage (again, nice for people abroad not to just talk about us when it comes to Brexit).

It all seems like money well spent IMHO.

I was in London today, on my way to Brighton, and was surprised how many people dressed up - including large groups of tourists (a lot of Chinese and Japanese). I assume they weren't doing this for the FA Cup!

 

[Bromley boy]

They were almost dead and buried in the early 70's but the powers that be built them up over the decades to cult status and yes with the backing of the media and their owners they probably will be around for some time - it's still ridiculous and there are still substantial sections of English people who want to see an end to monarchy. Was in Cardiff earlier - big thing was the monster truck thing... wedding what wedding ?... in Newport it was heartening to see a father encourage his children to boo god save the queen before the FA cup started... so maybe not in our lifetime but this backward anachronism will be banished from this glorious country of ours by the time our grandchildren perish.

The first part of the above posting smacks of the tin-foil-hat nonsense that unfortunately infests these forums.

The second part reminds me why I’ve never visited Newport, and hopefully never will.

 

[Bromley boy]

The feel-good factor (God we need it during Brexit) is worth money. People out spending and helping the economy. Tourism. Our 'reputation' on the world stage (again, nice for people abroad not to just talk about us when it comes to Brexit).

It all seems like money well spent IMHO.

Very well said (apart from the anti brexit bits ). I agree with the sentiment.

 

[jon0844]

Very well said (apart from the anti brexit bits ). I agree with the sentiment.

It wasn't anti or pro-Brexit, rather a comment that we need people to think of something else other than what is going on with Brexit - and foreign media and the like all seem to talk about Brexit when they talk of the UK.

What happened today was what you'd have to call good PR for the UK. I bet it was more effective than any advertising campaign by 'Visit Britain' for similar money!

 

[Bromley boy]

It wasn't anti or pro-Brexit, rather a comment that we need people to think of something else other than what is going on with Brexit - and foreign media and the like all seem to talk about Brexit when they talk of the UK.

Fair point.

What happened today was what you'd have to call good PR for the UK. I bet it was more effective than any advertising campaign by 'Visit Britain' for similar money!

I completely agree.

I didn’t watch the wedding myself (or the football, better things to do), but it’s an excellent advert for the monarchy and the U.K. generally.

Let’s face it Meghan Markle is very easy on the eye and almost (but not quite) made watching “Suits” worth it....

Well done Prince Harry. When it comes to his new, gorgeous, wife, I reckon we all would.