[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it's being set up to sound like a big number to justify royalty, thats why, but the simple truth is tourists lap up brithish history, no living royals are required

And nothing when you compare what the royals apparently earn the country to the combined earnings made from cigarettes and alcohol which is £14b a year roughly.

[jet]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

who on earth is comparing this with Britain's GDP.?

"Birmingham has a large population"

pfft "there are 7 billion people in the world"

get real

stop reaching

You’ll have to excuse SB, he is apparently psychologically affected, just like Harry, by the country having a monarchy. Waaagh!

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

who on earth is comparing this with Britain's GDP.?

"Birmingham has a large population"

pfft "there are 7 billion people in the world"

get real

stop reaching

Its pointing out that doing away with their contribution entirely would make absolutely piss all difference to the UK's cash flow, when people are using the income they generate as justification for keeping them around.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

You’ll have to excuse SB, he is apparently psychologically affected, just like Harry, by the country having a monarchy. Waaagh!

I'm not affected because I don't think the Royals have any special status or gravitas whatsoever. The effect is on people who actually buy into the sad myth that some people are born better or more important than others.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Redway

I remember how bad the cultural appropriation tag was around 2018/2019. Lots of people with crap memories of the past like to romanticise the way general society was before the pandemic (as if every era doesn’t have its highs and lows) but when it comes to that kind of propaganda (accusing people of culturally appropriating just for breathing, non-binary shiz) the late 2010s was a truly ridiculous time. It’s not as bad now.

Oh I agree that the 2018-2020 period was the era of bad takes from society, or just people not reading a Dictionary to get the definition of certain terms.

Basically I agree with you, I think I've noticed in particular some significant improvement coming in the last two years, it's not perfect by any means, but like you've said no era is perfect.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Oh I agree that the 2018-2020 period was the era of bad takes from society, or just people not reading a Dictionary to get the definition of certain terms.

Basically I agree with you, I think I've noticed in particular some significant improvement coming in the last two years, it's not perfect by any means, but like you've said no era is perfect.

That's just how it goes though, in cycles. The backlash to the backlash to the backlash etc.

Things get bad, people go progressive and try to fix the "bad things" which then hit a sort of reasonable level, then things start to get a bit silly, then people get tired of it and head back the other way, then they forget to hit the brakes and become a bit extreme in that direction, then people notice things are bad and get progressive... that's the narrative loop of the Western World.

Only now, it's hyper-accelerated by fast, free, widescale communication options (i.e. the internet) so an undulation that used to take decades is flipping back and forth much faster.

The internet hasn't "changed" anything, per se, it's just a (major) catalyst.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I'm not affected because I don't think the Royals have any special status or gravitas whatsoever. The effect is on people who actually buy into the sad myth that some people are born better or more important than others.

I don’t think many feel that way nowadays SB. People are just born, some into poverty, some into great richness , it's the accident of birth. No point in being bitter.
Many people enjoy the pomp and circumstance, the spectacular mass crowd - pulling displays, the history, the drama. Even America, who not - so- secretly envy us having our Monarchy, had to have their ‘first family’.
Not the superior you of course, you are above those who enjoy these things.

[Livia]

Royals don't need justification. They bring in a lot of cash, not just from tourists. Plus they're major employers. All the infos already online if people are truly interested and not just flogging the republican line. I could go on but I feel like I already have in threads actually about royals.

[bots]

Any other system such as a president would also employ a lot of staff, so that is a zero argument.

Everyone says, we don't want a blair or a boris as president, and that may well be true, but many people don't want a charles or a william either, but they are stuck with it. At least a president can be booted out after 4 years, we cant do that with charles

[Livia]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Any other system such as a president would also employ a lot of staff, so that is a zero argument.

Everyone says, we don't want a blair or a boris as president, and that may well be true, but many people don't want a charles or a william either, but they are stuck with it. At least a president can be booted out after 4 years, we cant do that with charles

You say "many". I say "some".

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Royals don't need justification. They bring in a lot of cash, not just from tourists. Plus they're major employers. All the infos already online if people are truly interested and not just flogging the republican line. I could go on but I feel like I already have in threads actually about royals.

Ahh an exhaustive look into the things that matter when justifying the existence of an active monarchy.

1) Tourist income
2) Jobs for servants

Well, that's that then. A full social and economic analysis of the value of the monarchy. "There's tourism and they give some people jobs carrying their silver platters and picking their hats and stuff."

I'm 100% convinced now. Why could I not see it before? They're an unproblematic gold mine!

[Livia]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Ahh an exhaustive look into the things that matter when justifying the existence of an active monarchy.

1) Tourist income
2) Jobs for servants

Well, that's that then. A full social and economic analysis of the value of the monarchy. "There's tourism and they give some people jobs carrying their silver platters and picking their hats and stuff."

I'm 100% convinced now. Why could I not see it before? They're an unproblematic gold mine!

Your sarcasm is not humorous... in case you think it is.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Livia

Your sarcasm is not humorous... in case you think it is.

I'm not looking for chuckles.

[Livia]

Sigh......

[The Slim Reaper]

Always a bizarre argument the money they bring in, as if we wouldn't make more money from getting rid of them, and opening up their houses for the public to go round and visit Buck palace for £200 a pop. The septics and Japanese would flock through to see all the history.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Always a bizarre argument the money they bring in, as if we wouldn't make more money from getting rid of them, and opening up their houses for the public to go round and visit Buck palace for £200 a pop. The septics and Japanese would flock through to see all the history.

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

I was going to use the colosseum as the example ... but that thing would be packed full if they were having real gladiator battles in it.

Fingers crossed for Musk vs Zuck I guess.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

I was going to use the colosseum as the example ... but that thing would be packed full if they were having real gladiator battles in it.

Fingers crossed for Musk vs Zuck I guess.

Pyramids were not houses, they were burial chambers

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

I was going to use the colosseum as the example ... but that thing would be packed full if they were having real gladiator battles in it.

Fingers crossed for Musk vs Zuck I guess.

Yup. Could probably rent out the queens bedroom for £1 million per night to some crazy billionaires. So many more avenues to making money without them if that's the argument the royalists are sticking to.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Pyramids were not houses, they were burial chambers

There could have been a small wooden house at the top, it would have disintegrated over time... you weren't there...

[user104658]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

Yup. Could probably rent out the queens bedroom for £1 million per night to some crazy billionaires. So many more avenues to making money without them if that's the argument the royalists are sticking to.

Not poor Liz's bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum

[bots]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

Not poor Liz's bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum

you are forgetting Camilla has already been there with "Charlie"

[user104658]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

you are forgetting Camilla has already been there with "Charlie"

Surely not... surely even Charles wouldn't get up to hanky panky in his dead mum's bed... .

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

bed absolutely littered with cocaine and cum

welcome to The Travel Lodge

[jet]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

The idea that tourism would simply cease completely if we dismantled the active monarchy is mad. "I aint going to see those daft pyramids... there isn't even a real pharaoh living in them!!"

The jaw - dropping Palace of Versaille in France, no Royals present, has an emergency fund page looking for donations from the public to keep it open.

[jet]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

you are forgetting Camilla has already been there with "Charlie"

My mind went straight to druggy Harry and Megsie.