The Royal Wedding 2018

[Butts]

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.

Did you canvass the good people of Cardiff to see if they also desired an end to the monarchy or do you consider them to be English ? 10 street parties in Cardiff !!!

 

[Butts]

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.

Oi...... Casnewydd is just fine thankyou - you must be mixing us up with the Isle of Wight

 

[Butts]

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 ?

As long as you don't mind handing back the Crown Estates !!!

 

[yorksrob]

On a cheerful note, I see they've got the Dukedom (or some such like) of Sussex, which is quite lucky for them as Sussex is a beautiful county. Obviously not as beautiful as when they had CIG's running up and down it, but still pretty good.

 

[AlterEgo]

And the Business and Tourism that the Monarchy of this country generates is estimated to be far in excess of the costs of the Royal Family.

It’s absolute nonsense to suggest the Royals themselves boost tourism. Almost no tourist who comes to London will ever see or meet a member of the royal family.

The tourists come to see the built environment and customs which come with a history of monarchy, like the palaces, or the Household Division marching. Neither of these would be demolished or disbanded if the UK became a constitutional republic.

 

[AlterEgo]

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 wasn’t in a bunker the whole time. His own colleagues have attested to that.

There are no secrets in the Army like that, as they are impossible to keep.

 

[yorksrob]

There's something quite comforting about the Monarchy as a link with old Blighty, and with the world as it is, I can only see that increasing.

A guard against the onset of hideous modernity, if you will.

 

[Dave1987]

One thing I will always find disingenuous is the official stance on how much the monarchy cost to the British public. The number quoted does not include security. And security is by far the biggest cost and multiple times more than the quoted figure. People who say that they bring in more money than they cost have never provided proof of this. Privilege by birth is the biggest inequality we have. Children born into the royal family will never have to worry about money for the rest of their lives.

 

[yorksrob]

One thing I will always find disingenuous is the official stance on how much the monarchy cost to the British public. The number quoted does not include security. And security is by far the biggest cost and multiple times more than the quoted figure. People who say that they bring in more money than they cost have never provided proof of this. Privilege by birth is the biggest inequality we have. Children born into the royal family will never have to worry about money for the rest of their lives.

You could argue that we'd have to pay for security for any head of state, so it's not as if that cost would disappear without it.

 

[47802]

It’s absolute nonsense to suggest the Royals themselves boost tourism. Almost no tourist who comes to London will ever see or meet a member of the royal family.

The tourists come to see the built environment and customs which come with a history of monarchy, like the palaces, or the Household Division marching. Neither of these would be demolished or disbanded if the UK became a constitutional republic.

I think your talking nonsense the point is yes they may never see the Queen but there is possibility they might, or they might come for a specific royal event, as opposed to seeing an empty building where the Queen once lived, and why would you retain the Queens guard without the Queen you may as well just have some G4S people guarding the place. Yes it could used by an elected president of some sort instead and retain some form of presidential guard in which security costs wouldn't be a lot less and would it have the same appeal I doubt it.

Some people want to change just because of socialist dogma and the usual politics of envy, but the bottom line, one you have to propose a suitable stable alternative, secondly if you do that the country will likely take a financial hit from Tourism, and thirdly what does it actually achieve does it satisfy the socialist dogma and the politics of envy well they may think so, but the chances are that the children of the family with the successful business down the road are going to enjoy a better life than the children of the family on benefits, but that's how it is life isn't fair and never will be, but the point is you try a raise those at the bottom to a reasonable level and not try and attack everyone else just because they may be well off or have a certain amount of privilege, of course you could go to communism but generally that didn't seem to work too well and it would seem some were more equal than others which will always be the case.

Yesturday was a glorious advertisement for UK PLC, and heck it even showed that we have the occasional sunny day!.

 

[Dave1987]

When we become a Republic every child can aspire to be head of state, every child will have the opportunity to become president. At the moment we have a situation where one family is considered vastly more important than any other family. Inequality is ingrained into British society.

 

[DarloRich]

personally i have no issue with the Royal family after all they have no real impact on daily life, however I do object vehemently to paying for them.

Harry is 5th in line to the throne and most importantly it's on a saturday so the bulk of the population aren't getting a day of work especially for it!

Give me a day of work and I will pretend to be interested.

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.

Indeed and he was also a forward air controller which means getting close to the action - however I do wonder how far away the SAS rescue squad was. I may be cynical and doing him a massive disservice. He may have ( as i hope) insisted he served with his fellow officers and faced exactly the same risks that they did and if he did that fair play to him. However I doubt that risk could be taken. The army couldn't let a prince of the realm fall into the hand of the tallibunnies. The PR would be disastrous! Good on him for doing it but lets not pretend he faced the same risks as Private Nobody from Rotherham

It’s absolute nonsense to suggest the Royals themselves boost tourism. Almost no tourist who comes to London will ever see or meet a member of the royal family.

The tourists come to see the built environment and customs which come with a history of monarchy, like the palaces, or the Household Division marching. Neither of these would be demolished or disbanded if the UK became a constitutional republic.

indeed - it is the pomp and circumstance that is of interest. They want to see Buckingham Palace and see the Soldiers marching etc.

politics of envy

ah - the Tory retort to anyone daring to criticise wealth!

I am not envious of the Queen. She lives in a separate world so far detached from the real lives us mere drones lead as to be almost fairy tale. However I do I wonder when she last worried about having enough money to put the lights on which is a real concern for many people her age. I wonder when she last worried about having enough pension left to get a shop in at the end of the week or pay the gas bill. I wonder when she lasted waited 8/12 months for a hip replacement after a fall? This is the reality for many people of her age.

Why should we pay for them when we cant look after normal people first? What do we get for our money? They aren't short of cash. They can pay for themselves.

As an aside I must say I detest the Tory obsequiousness and forelock tugging that this kind of event engenders. It is sicking.

 

[Dave1987]

I think your talking nonsense the point is yes they may never see the Queen but there is possibility they might, or they might come for a specific royal event, as opposed to seeing an empty building where the Queen once lived, and why would you retain the Queens guard without the Queen you may as well just have some G4S people guarding the place. Yes it could used by an elected president of some sort instead and retain some form of presidential guard in which security costs wouldn't be a lot less and would it have the same appeal I doubt it.

Some people want to change just because of socialist dogma and the usual politics of envy, but the bottom line, one you have to propose a suitable stable alternative, secondly if you do that the country will likely take a financial hit from Tourism, and thirdly what does it actually achieve does it satisfy the socialist dogma and the politics of envy well they may think so, but the chances are that the children of the family with the successful business down the road are going to enjoy a better life than the children of the family on benefits, but that's how it is life isn't fair and never will be, but the point is you try a raise those at the bottom to a reasonable level and not try and attack everyone else just because they may be well off or have a certain amount of privilege, of course you could go to communism but generally that didn't seem to work too well and it would seem some were more equal than others which will always be the case.

Yesturday was a glorious advertisement for UK PLC, and heck it even showed that we have the occasional sunny day!.

So you are saying that Buck House has more visitors than the White House or the Elysee palace? I think that’s highly questionable. And wow what true right wing dogma.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think your talking nonsense the point is yes they may never see the Queen but there is possibility they might, or they might come for a specific royal event, as opposed to seeing an empty building where the Queen once lived, and why would you retain the Queens guard without the Queen you may as well just have some G4S people guarding the place. Yes it could used by an elected president of some sort instead and retain some form of presidential guard in which security costs wouldn't be a lot less and would it have the same appeal I doubt it.

Some people want to change just because of socialist dogma and the usual politics of envy, but the bottom line, one you have to propose a suitable stable alternative, secondly if you do that the country will likely take a financial hit from Tourism, and thirdly what does it actually achieve does it satisfy the socialist dogma and the politics of envy well they may think so, but the chances are that the children of the family with the successful business down the road are going to enjoy a better life than the children of the family on benefits, but that's how it is life isn't fair and never will be, but the point is you try a raise those at the bottom to a reasonable level and not try and attack everyone else just because they may be well off or have a certain amount of privilege, of course you could go to communism but generally that didn't seem to work too well and it would seem some were more equal than others which will always be the case.

Yesturday was a glorious advertisement for UK PLC, and heck it even showed that we have the occasional sunny day!.

I’m not a socialist, and while I don’t particularly have any affection for the monarchy I’m not advocating major change.

I’m just pointing out the royalty may have benefits to British society but the idea that people come here because of the royals is not borne out by evidence.

Some of the world’s greatest tourist attractions are palaces and built structures the public can now visit because a royal family no longer inhabits then. Versailles gets even more annual visitors than the Tower of London and it’s not even in Paris proper.

Suggesting that large numbers of people come here for the Royals is talking down our country big time. We have masses to offer. 99% of the great things to do in this country have diddly squat to do with the Royals.

 

[DarloRich]

So you are saying that Buck House has more visitors than the White House or the Elysee palace? I think that’s highly questionable.

In fairness Buckingham Palace is only open to pleb tours between the end of July and the end of September. I think there are a couple of dates outside of that season but not many. It is at least open to all. The White House seems to be closed to foreign tour groups at present.

 

[Dave1987]

In fairness Buckingham Palace is only open to pleb tours between the end of July and the end of September. I think there are a couple of dates outside of that season but not many. It is at least open to all. The White House seems to be closed to foreign tour groups at present.

They we told to open Buck House up more to pay for the repairs. The Royals refused and wanted more money from the treasury to pay the bill.

 

[DarloRich]

They we told to open Buck House up more to pay for the repairs. The Royals refused and wanted more money from the treasury to pay the bill.

The Queen does live there so has a right to expect some privacy! However it should be open to people more often.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think your talking nonsense the point is yes they may never see the Queen but there is possibility they might, or they might come for a specific royal event, as opposed to seeing an empty building where the Queen once lived, and why would you retain the Queens guard without the Queen you may as well just have some G4S people guarding the place. Yes it could used by an elected president of some sort instead and retain some form of presidential guard in which security costs wouldn't be a lot less and would it have the same appeal I doubt it.

Some people want to change just because of socialist dogma and the usual politics of envy, but the bottom line, one you have to propose a suitable stable alternative, secondly if you do that the country will likely take a financial hit from Tourism, and thirdly what does it actually achieve does it satisfy the socialist dogma and the politics of envy well they may think so, but the chances are that the children of the family with the successful business down the road are going to enjoy a better life than the children of the family on benefits, but that's how it is life isn't fair and never will be, but the point is you try a raise those at the bottom to a reasonable level and not try and attack everyone else just because they may be well off or have a certain amount of privilege, of course you could go to communism but generally that didn't seem to work too well and it would seem some were more equal than others which will always be the case.

Yesturday was a glorious advertisement for UK PLC, and heck it even showed that we have the occasional sunny day!.

You accuse someone of talking nonsense, yet you have repeated the argument of tourism being impacted with such confidence despite the fact you have failed to present any evidence or reports that strongly suggest this would happen. An argument to which I have already provided a counterargument in the form of VisitBritain's most recent 2016 survey which showed that most people coming to the UK do NOT come for the purpose of the Royal Family, and given that most of the attractions related to them are mostly open and unoccupied all year round it's safe to say tourism could potentially go up if Buck Pal was open all year round. It doesn't strictly mean that tourism won't take a hit, but for the time being the claim that tourism will be hit if we abolish the Monarchy is entirely baseless, whereas there are some things to suggest it wouldn't take much of an impact or could go up in the long run.

Interestingly as well, you go on about socialist dogma and politics of envy, yet by repeating the tourism argument despite it's lack of evidence you are perpetuating the royalist dogma that views republicans as traitors to the UK and deserve nothing short of being punished by a lynch mob chanting "God Save the Queen". Now if you're going to argue that not every royalist is like that, then I imagine I'll have got you thinking about your own perspective. By that I mean this: obviously not every royalist sees it that way, but by the way you're grouping everyone who wants to get rid of the monarchy into a single group of envy-driven socialists you'd think it was that black and white. I said it before and I'll say it again, I am not a socialist. AlterEgo is not a socialist, and even DarloRich who is clearly not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn (a socialist) is indifferent to the royal family. But by contrast the self-identified socialist known as yorksrob has stated that they wish to keep the monarch in power. Suddenly not every person who wants a republic is an envy-driven socialist traitor to our glorious empire.

I may have been a bit over the top there but I've already addressed your points twice and yet you've still dodged them and repeat the same addressed argument. But do you know what, okay, you don't have to address the arguments, and if you wish you can go as far as block me for all I care. But since you asked for someone to propose some kind of alternative as you wished earlier, here you go: once the monarchy would be abolished in this hypothetical scenario, an elected President who fulfills very similar roles would be elected by the general public in an election separate from the general elections. He would not have a day-to-day role in running Parliament, and as such very little would change in the way the country is run aside from the fact we now have equality of opportunity for every child to aspire to be head of state, which as a British liberal I am in favour of. If you think it's a pointless change, then fair enough, it's why at this moment in time it's a low priority of mine to think about when this country is facing bigger problems at this moment in time such as leaving the EU.

(On a final note I wish to apologise in advance if you were referred to in my argument yet/or don't like me naming you by name. I mean I doubt most of you would mind, but you can never be too careful).

 

[Bromley boy]

As an aside I must say I detest the Tory obsequiousness and forelock tugging that this kind of event engenders. It is sicking.

Why anyone would camp out in Windsor for hours in the hope of catching a glimpse of a celebrity or the wave of a gloved hand speeding passed is beyond me. Don’t they have better things to do?!

I can only assume most of them were yanks - they lap that kind of thing up. Especially as the Windsor soap opera now features Meghan’s Hollywood smile.

 

[Bromley boy]

I may be cynical and doing him a massive disservice. He may have ( as i hope) insisted he served with his fellow officers and faced exactly the same risks that they did and if he did that fair play to him. However I doubt that risk could be taken. The army couldn't let a prince of the realm fall into the hand of the tallibunnies. The PR would be disastrous! Good on him for doing it but lets not pretend he faced the same risks as Private Nobody from Rotherham

As I recall at the time his service was hushed up, and he was actively prevented (against his will) from undertaking certain duties in Iraq because of who he is and the position he happened to be born into.

He wanted to serve alongside his mates in Iraq but was prevented from doing so. Fair play to the bloke for that.

 

[Bromley boy]

And further to my last post, in the article I quoted above, a general who opposed his deployment said the following:

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

Dannatt, who had opposed Harry's deployment to Iraq, went on to praise the prince's performance on deployment.

"His conduct on operations in Afghanistan has been exemplary," the general said. "He has been fully involved in operations and has run the same risks as everyone else in his battle group."

Good enough for me.

 

[Dave1987]

You accuse someone of talking nonsense, yet you have repeated the argument of tourism being impacted with such confidence despite the fact you have failed to present any evidence or reports that strongly suggest this would happen. An argument to which I have already provided a counterargument in the form of VisitBritain's most recent 2016 survey which showed that most people coming to the UK do NOT come for the purpose of the Royal Family, and given that most of the attractions related to them are mostly open and unoccupied all year round it's safe to say tourism could potentially go up if Buck Pal was open all year round. It doesn't strictly mean that tourism won't take a hit, but for the time being the claim that tourism will be hit if we abolish the Monarchy is entirely baseless, whereas there are some things to suggest it wouldn't take much of an impact or could go up in the long run.

Interestingly as well, you go on about socialist dogma and politics of envy, yet by repeating the tourism argument despite it's lack of evidence you are perpetuating the royalist dogma that views republicans as traitors to the UK and deserve nothing short of being punished by a lynch mob chanting "God Save the Queen". Now if you're going to argue that not every royalist is like that, then I imagine I'll have got you thinking about your own perspective. By that I mean this: obviously not every royalist sees it that way, but by the way you're grouping everyone who wants to get rid of the monarchy into a single group of envy-driven socialists you'd think it was that black and white. I said it before and I'll say it again, I am not a socialist. AlterEgo is not a socialist, and even DarloRich who is clearly not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn (a socialist) is indifferent to the royal family. But by contrast the self-identified socialist known as yorksrob has stated that they wish to keep the monarch in power. Suddenly not every person who wants a republic is an envy-driven socialist traitor to our glorious empire.

I may have been a bit over the top there but I've already addressed your points twice and yet you've still dodged them and repeat the same addressed argument. But do you know what, okay, you don't have to address the arguments, and if you wish you can go as far as block me for all I care. But since you asked for someone to propose some kind of alternative as you wished earlier, here you go: once the monarchy would be abolished in this hypothetical scenario, an elected President who fulfills very similar roles would be elected by the general public in an election separate from the general elections. He would not have a day-to-day role in running Parliament, and as such very little would change in the way the country is run aside from the fact we now have equality of opportunity for every child to aspire to be head of state, which as a British liberal I am in favour of. If you think it's a pointless change, then fair enough, it's why at this moment in time it's a low priority of mine to think about when this country is facing bigger problems at this moment in time such as leaving the EU.

(On a final note I wish to apologise in advance if you were referred to in my argument yet/or don't like me naming you by name. I mean I doubt most of you would mind, but you can never be too careful).

How very eloquently put.

 

[Dave1987]

As I recall at the time his service was hushed up, and he was actively prevented (against his will) from undertaking certain duties in Iraq because of who he is and the position he happened to be born into.

He wanted to serve alongside his mates in Iraq but was prevented from doing so. Fair play to the bloke for that.

I have heard several stories about his conduct whilst in the Army that were hushed up because of who he was and of his brother also. Both would likely have been booted out had they not been royalty. You will never hear about them because the powers that be won’t allow them to get out because of the negative PR for the Royals.

 

[Bromley boy]

I have heard several stories about his conduct whilst in the Army that were hushed up because of who he was and of his brother also. Both would likely have been booted out had they not been royalty. You will never hear about them because the powers that be won’t allow them to get out because of the negative PR for the Royals.

I take it you have a source?!

I know a guy who did five tours of Iraq and Afghan who has nothing but praise for HRH Harry Wales.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I somehow doubt the army would have let him loose in an Apache if he hadn’t cut the mustard.

 

[Dave1987]

I take it you have a source?!

I know a guy who did five tours of Iraq and Afghan who has nothing but praise for HRH Harry Wales.

Anecdotal evidence aside, I somehow doubt the army would have let him loose in an Apache if he hadn’t cut the mustard.

Yes I do. PM me if you wish to know my sources.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

They we told to open Buck House up more to pay for the repairs. The Royals refused and wanted more money from the treasury to pay the bill.

Buckingham Palace belongs to the State, not to the Royal Family. They have a number of private estates, but Buckingham Palace is not one of them.

Would you pay up if your landlord told you that you would have to pay in full for repairs to anywhere you lived in but he owned?

 

[BlueFox]

Buckingham Palace belongs to the State, not to the Royal Family.

It must cost them a fortune to rent a place that big in central London.
I'm surprised they haven't downsized and moved to a cheaper area.

 

[47802]

You accuse someone of talking nonsense, yet you have repeated the argument of tourism being impacted with such confidence despite the fact you have failed to present any evidence or reports that strongly suggest this would happen. An argument to which I have already provided a counterargument in the form of VisitBritain's most recent 2016 survey which showed that most people coming to the UK do NOT come for the purpose of the Royal Family, and given that most of the attractions related to them are mostly open and unoccupied all year round it's safe to say tourism could potentially go up if Buck Pal was open all year round. It doesn't strictly mean that tourism won't take a hit, but for the time being the claim that tourism will be hit if we abolish the Monarchy is entirely baseless, whereas there are some things to suggest it wouldn't take much of an impact or could go up in the long run.

Interestingly as well, you go on about socialist dogma and politics of envy, yet by repeating the tourism argument despite it's lack of evidence you are perpetuating the royalist dogma that views republicans as traitors to the UK and deserve nothing short of being punished by a lynch mob chanting "God Save the Queen". Now if you're going to argue that not every royalist is like that, then I imagine I'll have got you thinking about your own perspective. By that I mean this: obviously not every royalist sees it that way, but by the way you're grouping everyone who wants to get rid of the monarchy into a single group of envy-driven socialists you'd think it was that black and white. I said it before and I'll say it again, I am not a socialist. AlterEgo is not a socialist, and even DarloRich who is clearly not a fan of Jeremy Corbyn (a socialist) is indifferent to the royal family. But by contrast the self-identified socialist known as yorksrob has stated that they wish to keep the monarch in power. Suddenly not every person who wants a republic is an envy-driven socialist traitor to our glorious empire.

I may have been a bit over the top there but I've already addressed your points twice and yet you've still dodged them and repeat the same addressed argument. But do you know what, okay, you don't have to address the arguments, and if you wish you can go as far as block me for all I care. But since you asked for someone to propose some kind of alternative as you wished earlier, here you go: once the monarchy would be abolished in this hypothetical scenario, an elected President who fulfills very similar roles would be elected by the general public in an election separate from the general elections. He would not have a day-to-day role in running Parliament, and as such very little would change in the way the country is run aside from the fact we now have equality of opportunity for every child to aspire to be head of state, which as a British liberal I am in favour of. If you think it's a pointless change, then fair enough, it's why at this moment in time it's a low priority of mine to think about when this country is facing bigger problems at this moment in time such as leaving the EU.

(On a final note I wish to apologise in advance if you were referred to in my argument yet/or don't like me naming you by name. I mean I doubt most of you would mind, but you can never be too careful).

Right lets take the Tourism issue, the Royal wedding cost an estimated £30 million and had an estimated Worldwide TV audience of around 1.8 billion, your not telling me that wasn't a good advert for the UK and not generate interest in visiting the UK, especially from the Americans, if it increases Tourism from the US by 2% or get the existing level of US Tourists to spend an extra £20 per head in the UK it will more than pay for itself. Yes people would still visit the UK without the Monarchy but I think there would be less interest and less awareness in the Country, but at the end it is very subjective as to why Tourists visit regardless of any Survey.

In terms of the General Principal of the Head of State for the country, I am no ardent Monarchist by any means I think there is an argument to suggest those that are not in immediate line to the throne shouldn't carry out Royal Duties and have some element of Downsizing, but I see no reason to change the Head of State at this time, a non Political head of state who more than likely will be an ex Politician will still attract significant cost, and probably attract less interest in both the UK and around the world.

No not everyone who wants to get rid of the Monarchy are envy driven Socialists but a lot are, and it strikes that if you are a True Socialist then the idea of a Monarchy is somewhat incompatible to your beliefs, but then a lot of Socialists are usually extreme hypocrites who are socialist when it suits them, which is one of the many reason why I despise such people, you also seem to make out I am some raving Tory, yet at the age 56 the last election was the first time I voted Tory thanks to Corbyn Labour.

 

[Darandio]

Right lets take the Tourism issue, the Royal wedding cost an estimated £30 million and had an estimated Worldwide TV audience of around 1.8 billion, your not telling me that wasn't a good advert for London and not generate interest in visiting London, especially from the Americans, if it increases Tourism from the US by 2% or get the existing level of US Tourists to spend an extra £20 per head in London it will more than pay for itself.

Fixed it for you again.

 

[yorksrob]

No not everyone who wants to get rid of the Monarchy are envy driven Socialists but a lot are, and it strikes that if you are a True Socialist then the idea of a Monarchy is somewhat incompatible to your beliefs, but then a lot of Socialists are usually extreme hypocrites who are socialist when it suits them, which is one of the many reason why I despise such people, you also seem to make out I am some raving Tory, yet at the age 56 the last election was the first time I voted Tory thanks to Corbyn Labour.

Probably no more hypocritical than those Conservatives who bang on about how patriotic they are, then proceed to asset strip the country of everything not screwed down.