Royals and race: inquiry under way into naming of Charles and Catherine in new book

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Royal family play a role and they play it very well.

 

It seems to me that the only people who object to it are those who are envious of their wealth and maybe unhappy with their own lot in life. There is no reason to change a system that has been working well for centuries so that we can end up with someone like Macron, or even worse the war criminal Blair. 

 

You seen unable to see options beyond the extremes. The obvious alternative to our undemocratic head of state does not have to be a polarising figure. We do not need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds annually on the cutting of ribbons - we need to spend that money on building the hospitals themselves.

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You seen unable to see options beyond the extremes. The obvious alternative to our undemocratic head of state does not have to be a polarising figure. We do not need to spend hundreds of millions of pounds annually on the cutting of ribbons - we need to spend that money on building the hospitals themselves.

 

But you are only seeing one side of the coin. You are ignoring the money they bring into the country, estimated by Brand finance to be as high as 1.7 Billion pounds.

 

https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/valued-at-67-billion-the-monarchy-is-britains-greatest-treasure

 

Plus the soft power. When people think of Britain they think of the late Queen, the King, Buckingham Palace, the mall, the pomp and ceremony etc. I'd much rather they thought of that than Tony Blair. 

[RuamRudy]

8 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

But you are only seeing one side of the coin. You are ignoring the money they bring into the country, estimated by Brand finance to be as high as 1.7 Billion pounds.

 

https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/valued-at-67-billion-the-monarchy-is-britains-greatest-treasure

 

Tourists doing routinely receive an audience with the monarch. They come for the history, palaces and photo opportunities. France is testament to that. We can have that income without having to pay an enormous sum to an already incredibly rich family.

 

12 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Plus the soft power. When people think of Britain they think of the late Queen, the King, Buckingham Palace, the mall, the pomp and ceremony etc. I'd much rather they thought of that than Tony Blair. 

 

How about neither of them, but a person considered suitable by the electorate, and who can be replaced if not?

[JonnyF]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

We can have that income without having to pay an enormous sum to an already incredibly rich family.

 

But they contribute more than they cost. They are an asset to the country (as long as they behave themselves).

 

IMO the sensible thing would be to keep them, but to strip any that misbehave of their titles. Starting with Harry and after that, possibly Andrew. 

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Royal family play a role and they play it very well.

 

It seems to me that the only people who object to it are those who are envious of their wealth and maybe unhappy with their own lot in life. There is no reason to change a system that has been working well for centuries so that we can end up with someone like Macron, or even worse the war criminal Blair. 

 

Envious of their wealth? Not really,  although given that Charles' position and wealth is the result of his forefathers largely having done away with their opponents, it's a stretch to say that it is deserved.

 

All in all, fortunately I'm pretty content with my lot.

 

You can tell that someone has lost the argument when they attempt to bring unrelated tangential issues into the conversation but then, there is no rational argument to support your view.

 

[JonnyF]

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Envious of their wealth? Not really,  although given that Charles' position and wealth is the result of his forefathers largely having done away with their opponents, it's a stretch to say that it is deserved.

 

All in all, fortunately I'm pretty content with my lot.

 

You can tell that someone has lost the argument when they attempt to bring unrelated tangential issues into the conversation but then, there is no rational argument to support your view.

 

 

How have I lost the argument when I have provided links to show that they bring in more revenue to the country than they cost? That is an entirely logical economic argument. All you seem to have to back up your argument is that they have a lot of inherited wealth and you don't like the success of their forefathers (I'm guessing all our family trees have some skeletons if you look back far enough) which led me to my logical conclusion that a lot of the objections to the family (not just you but generally speaking so try not to take it so personally) are rooted in envy. 

 

In my experience people who are genuinely happy with their lot do not look over their neighbours fence and complain about what they have and how they got it.

[VocalNeal]

51 minutes ago, RayC said:

the result of his forefathers largely having done away with their opponents

 

In most countries and cultures since civilizations began. 

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

How have I lost the argument when I have provided links to show that they bring in more revenue to the country than they cost? That is an entirely logical economic argument. All you seem to have to back up your argument is that they have a lot of inherited wealth and you don't like the success of their forefathers (I'm guessing all our family trees have some skeletons if you look back far enough) which led me to my logical conclusion that a lot of the objections to the family (not just you but generally speaking so try not to take it so personally) are rooted in envy. 

 

In my experience people who are genuinely happy with their lot do not look over their neighbours fence and complain about what they have and how they got it.

 

Did you even open that pitiful excuse for a report? If you had then you would have noticed a complete lack of detail. The laughably entitled 'Methodology' section is no such thing. There is no mention of the underlining assumptions nor the calculation method. In short, there is nothing to support their figures. And you consider that "an entirely logical economic argument"?

 

Your logic is as failed as your premise and conclusion. Your only arguments in support of your position is to assume that your experience applies generally without any further justification and play amateur psychologist: Yet another example of a failure to employ a critical analytical approach on your part.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, VocalNeal said:

 

In most countries and cultures since civilizations began. 

 

Absolutely but aren't we meant to have learn and become more reasoned and civilised?

[JonnyF]

21 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Did you even open that pitiful excuse for a report? If you had then you would have noticed a complete lack of detail. The laughably entitled 'Methodology' section is no such thing. There is no mention of the underlining assumptions nor the calculation method. In short, there is nothing to support their figures. And you consider that "an entirely logical economic argument"?

 

Your logic is as failed as your premise and conclusion. Your only arguments in support of your position is to assume that your experience applies generally without any further justification and play amateur psychologist: Yet another example of a failure to employ a critical analytical approach on your part.

 

I would agree that it's diffficult to quantify but let's say it was 50% of that figure, it still means they pay for themselves several times over.

 

This "racism" row is just an excuse to bash the Royal Family because people don't like them. There is absolutely no evidence of this racism. When i ask people for evidence on this thread they basically say "there isn't any evidence but I believe it anyway".

 

Once again it appears that the demand for racism far outweighs the supply .  

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Absolutely but aren't we meant to have learn and become more reasoned and civilised?

 

Yes, hence they are no longer killing anyone. Now they open hospitals and raise money for charity and the UK. 

[VocalNeal]

32 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Did you even open that pitiful excuse for a report? If you had then you would have noticed a complete lack of detail. The laughably entitled 'Methodology' section is no such thing. There is no mention of the underlining assumptions nor the calculation method. In short, there is nothing to support their figures. And you consider that "an entirely logical economic argument"?

 

Your logic is as failed as your premise and conclusion. Your only arguments in support of your position is to assume that your experience applies generally without any further justification and play amateur psychologist: Yet another example of a failure to employ a critical analytical approach on your part.

 

This was written by a Bot? Not one word of sense in the whole post🤔

[VocalNeal]

29 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Absolutely but aren't we meant to have learn and become more reasoned and civilised?

 

Yes. Because we don't do it anymore but that does nullify the fact it was done often in the past.

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

But you are only seeing one side of the coin. You are ignoring the money they bring into the country, estimated by Brand finance to be as high as 1.7 Billion pounds.

 

https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/valued-at-67-billion-the-monarchy-is-britains-greatest-treasure

 

Plus the soft power. When people think of Britain they think of the late Queen, the King, Buckingham Palace, the mall, the pomp and ceremony etc. I'd much rather they thought of that than Tony Blair. 

 

Read that link. First off, it included all the money contributed from the Crown Properties. They only nominally belong to the royal family.

 The Crown Estate is a collection of properties nominally belonging to the British monarch, but managed by an independent public body.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1220546/crown-estate-revenue-uk/#:~:text=In 2022%2F22 the revenue,by an independent public body.

 

As for the rest, what's to stop the crowds from seeing the changing of the guard, the crown jewels, etc if there were no royal family? 

It's also useful to note that the Royal Family has privately intervened to change legislation which could hurt their financial interests.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

 

And it was recently revealed that the monies realized from estates without heirs, instead of mostly being given to charity as was claimed, was used by the Duchy to upgrade its commercial real estate.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens

[JonnyF]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Read that link. First off, it included all the money contributed from the Crown Properties. They only nominally belong to the royal family.

 

Pedantry of the highest order once again. They belong to the sovereign for the duration of the reign. 

 

Secondly, tourists love the Royals, if they are going to visit castles without a monarch they may as well go to DisneyWorld and have a photo with Sleeping Beauty. 

 

Finally, That Guardian article is hyperbole. The monies were split between charity and upgrades to real estate and is a tiny percentage of the 1.7 Billion quoted. The Royals make plenty of money for the country as well as perform a role, the opinons of envious Americans are of no interest to us. 

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Pedantry of the highest order once again. They belong to the sovereign for the duration of the reign. 

 

Secondly, tourists love the Royals, if they are going to visit castles without a monarch they may as well go to DisneyWorld and have a photo with Sleeping Beauty. 

 

Finally, That Guardian article is hyperbole. The monies were split between charity and upgrades to real estate and is a tiny percentage of the 1.7 Billion quoted. The Royals make plenty of money for the country as well as perform a role, the opinons of envious Americans are of no interest to us. 

Pedantry? The vast majority of those funds go to exchequer. As noted, these monies "nominally" belong to the Crown. Definition of nomnally:

 

"in name only; officially though perhaps not in reality.
https://www.google.com/search?q=nominally+definition&oq=nominally+definition&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDY3MThqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

That definition, by the way, comes from from Oxford Languages.

 

In Disneyland, the crowds get to see sleeping beauty.

Are they Royals on display for the public to see? I kind of doubt tourists come to see the King cut a ribbon in Slough.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

 

This was written by a Bot? Not one word of sense in the whole post🤔

 

No it was not written by a Bot. 

 

Why do think that my statement, "There is no mention of the underlining assumptions nor the calculation method. In short, there is nothing to support their figures", is nonsense? 

 

Where is your evidence to support their figures?

[RayC]

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

I would agree that it's diffficult to quantify but let's say it was 50% of that figure, it still means they pay for themselves several times over.

 

This "racism" row is just an excuse to bash the Royal Family because people don't like them. There is absolutely no evidence of this racism. When i ask people for evidence on this thread they basically say "there isn't any evidence but I believe it anyway".

 

Once again it appears that the demand for racism far outweighs the supply .  

 

You are employing exactly the same rationale which you accuse others of employing.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that 50% of an unverifiable figure is correct.

[RuamRudy]

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

But they contribute more than they cost. They are an asset to the country (as long as they behave themselves).

 

IMO the sensible thing would be to keep them, but to strip any that misbehave of their titles. Starting with Harry and after that, possibly Andrew. 

 

 

The facts prove that tourists will come regardless of whether we are a monarchy or a republic. So why continue with this affront to democracy that costs us hundreds of millions of pounds every year? Let's get rid of this parasitic institution and put the money it is costing us to good use.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Pedantry of the highest order once again. They belong to the sovereign for the duration of the reign. 

 

Secondly, tourists love the Royals, if they are going to visit castles without a monarch they may as well go to DisneyWorld and have a photo with Sleeping Beauty. 

 

Finally, That Guardian article is hyperbole. The monies were split between charity and upgrades to real estate and is a tiny percentage of the 1.7 Billion quoted. The Royals make plenty of money for the country as well as perform a role, the opinons of envious Americans are of no interest to us. 

 

The Crown Estate is a property orientated business. It's wealth has (virtually) nothing to do with Charles or the royal brand. It would, most likely, continue to make similar profits under different ownership.

 

It's absolute nonsense to infer that a country must still be a Kingdom in order for a royal residence to have meaning for tourists. Tell that to the 15m tourists who visit the Palace of Versailles annually.

 

You have still not produced any hard evidence* of the actual worth of the 'Royal' brand.

 

* The Brandfinance report isn't hard evidence 

[Georgealbert]