What Is Happening To Our Country?

[tdmickey3]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

They are off again, the self proclaimed know it all and his lackey, Mickey. Stick to the thread about Andrew chaps. 

🤣

Says the forums biggest know all, know nothing 🤡

[Farmer Saint]

[Farmer Saint]

7 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

They are off again, the self proclaimed know it all and his lackey, Mickey. Stick to the thread about Andrew chaps. 

Bloody hell, it's a joke. Get yourself a sense of humour you boring oik.

[revolution saint]

39 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Cause they don’t generate any value to our country, support good causes or encourage tourism do they? Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. The Royal Family is one of the reasons that the UK is best known across the globe. Having lived abroad there is huge interest and respect for them and the heritage of the royal family. Having said this Andrew is clearly a complete idiot and an embarrassment 

 

How about they're undemocratic?  The idea that you can be born into the role of head of state regardless of ability or talent is laughable.  The Andrew that you describe as a complete idiot and an embarrassment was once second in line to the throne and could easily have ended up as King.  

[Sir Ralph]

8 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

How about they're undemocratic?  The idea that you can be born into the role of head of state regardless of ability or talent is laughable.  The Andrew that you describe as a complete idiot and an embarrassment was once second in line to the throne and could easily have ended up as King.  

But they don’t have any power and don’t align themselves with a political position. How have they made any decisions in your lifetime that have impacted you?

If you spoke to the numerous charities and businesses / employees of tourism that benefit from the royal family they would highlight the positive benefit.

As a whole the country wants to keep the monarchy based on polls. If there was a democratic vote on this it’s highly likely people would vote to keep it

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sheaf Saint]

8 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

How about they're undemocratic?  The idea that you can be born into the role of head of state regardless of ability or talent is laughable.  The Andrew that you describe as a complete idiot and an embarrassment was once second in line to the throne and could easily have ended up as King.  

Username to post content checks out 👍

[sadoldgit]

I love the idea that we would have less tourism without the Royal Family. I can just imagine people planning their next foreign trip based on the possibility of having tea with Charles and Camilla.

As for voting to keep them, we voted to leave the EU and live to regret it. If we were to have a vote to keep them, why not have a vote every five years to elect a Royal Family? 

Edited 9 hours ago by sadoldgit

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

I love the idea that we would have less tourism without the Royal Family. I can just imagine people planning their next foreign trip based on the possibility of having tea with Charles and Camilla.

This is one of your most ill informed post yet. You clearly have no idea about tourism in the capital

Edited 9 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[revolution saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

But they don’t have any power and don’t align themselves with a political position. How have they made any decisions in your lifetime that have impacted you?

If you spoke to the numerous charities and businesses / employees of tourism that benefit from the royal family they would highlight the positive benefit.

It's an undemocratic and unaccountable institution and for me that's enough.  Quite telling that you would choose to shift the argument from democratic principle because it's a pretty indefensible position to be arguing from.  

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

It's an undemocratic and unaccountable institution and for me that's enough.  Quite telling that you would choose to shift the argument from democratic principle because it's a pretty indefensible position to be arguing from.  

My point was that if you are concerned about the democratic will of the people as to the royal family remaining, the outcome of any vote would likely be yes
 

We will obviously disagree on that but I take from that that their decisions have no impact on your life or outcome. Do you know how much the royal family cost the uk taxpayer versus the income it generates? I obviously googled this. 
 

Annual cost is £86 to £132 million. Income from tourism annually estimated £500million, with broader benefits associated with media and trade influence around £1 billion to £2.5 billion per annum. Why do the royal family always get rolled out for visiting dignitaries do you think? This is before any taxes paid by the Royal family which will also contribute to the treasury

We obviously come at this from different angles so fair enough 

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[aintforever]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

But they don’t have any power and don’t align themselves with a political position. How have they made any decisions in your lifetime that have impacted you?

If you spoke to the numerous charities and businesses / employees of tourism that benefit from the royal family they would highlight the positive benefit.

As a whole the country wants to keep the monarchy based on polls. If there was a democratic vote on this it’s highly likely people would vote to keep it

People would still visit the UK for its history and heritage if we put Charles on 40K a year and stripped him and his hangers-on of most of their wealth. Might even create more tourism opportunities if we hoofed some of them out and stuck their belongings etc in a museum and opened more up as attractions.

[Lighthouse]

13 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I love the idea that we would have less tourism without the Royal Family. I can just imagine people planning their next foreign trip based on the possibility of having tea with Charles and Camilla.

As for voting to keep them, we voted to leave the EU and live to regret it. If we were to have a vote to keep them, why not have a vote every five years to elect a Royal Family? 

You laugh but that level of regal pomposity is exactly what people come to this country to see. The might not get to have tea with the King but the palaces, the tower, the castles, the changing of the guard etc. are all what foreigners come here to see. They don't come here for the weather, that's for sure.

Also, like it or not, people like Trump love the idea of royalty and self importance. The royal family can be a useful tool in dealing with these people.

[sadoldgit]

16 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

This is one of your most ill informed post yet. You clearly have no idea about tourism in the capital

And you have no sense of humour.

[Sir Ralph]

9 minutes ago, aintforever said:

People would still visit the UK for its history and heritage if we put Charles on 40K a year and stripped him and his hangers-on of most of their wealth. Might even create more tourism opportunities if we hoofed some of them out and stuck their belongings etc in a museum and opened more up as attractions.

No it wouldn’t. Do you understand how the government use the royal family to drum up trade interest and investment in the country as well as entertaining dignitaries whilst discussing international matters? There is a reason that the government use them regularly. 
 

The Royal Family own their palaces (Buckingham, Windsor, etc etc) and land so they could just shut them if they wanted to. That would be really good for tourism. You can’t strip them of their wealth it’s theirs. I suspect they could become richer if they were deposed as they would no longer be accountable to the public

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

1 minute ago, sadoldgit said:

And you have no sense of humour.

Your post wasn’t funny - you were making a poor point

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

You laugh but that level of regal pomposity is exactly what people come to this country to see. The might not get to have tea with the King but the palaces, the tower, the castles, the changing of the guard etc. are all what foreigners come here to see. They don't come here for the weather, that's for sure.

Also, like it or not, people like Trump love the idea of royalty and self importance. The royal family can be a useful tool in dealing with these people.

They could still come and see all of that stuff without a Royal Family couldn’t they? Open up Royal Palaces as hotels and maybe we’d get more visitors?

I once stayed in a pub which did b & b (the Royal Oak near Rye) and we were served breakfast by Sophie’s brother (Prince Edward’s wife). Imagine the pull for tourism if you could have them wait on you! 

[Sir Ralph]

12 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

They could still come and see all of that stuff without a Royal Family couldn’t they? Open up Royal Palaces as hotels and maybe we’d get more visitors?

I once stayed in a pub which did b & b (the Royal Oak near Rye) and we were served breakfast by Sophie’s brother (Prince Edward’s wife). Imagine the pull for tourism if you could have them wait on you! 

I’m off the Switzerland to use Dignitas. Put me down now

Edited 8 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[sadoldgit]

4 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Your post wasn’t funny - you were making a poor point

There is a difference in making a poor point and making a poor joke. You don’t have a sense of humour. As Barry Humphries once said, “If you can’t laugh at yourself you might be missing the joke of the century.”

[sadoldgit]

32 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m off the Switzerland to use Veritas. Put me down now

Hopefully you didn’t waste your money on a return ticket?

Oh sorry, misread that as Dignitas.

I’m really not fussed if we keep them or not, but they are certainly an anachronism and need to be slimmed down and modernised. The likes of Andrew and Fergie have done nothing but drag the image down (except to provide the country with even more Royal baggage with the two ugly sisters).

The Windsors have long been one of the most dysfunctional families in the country. We could do them a favour by realising all of the hangers on back into normal lives and just keep two to do the head of state stuff. 

By the way Ralph, it’s the Oldies who would vote to keep them. Most of the youngsters don’t want them. 
 

Edited 8 hours ago by sadoldgit

[Sheaf Saint]

This idea that we can't abolish the monarchy because tourism is just absurd.

I visited the royal palace at Sintra in Portugal a few years back and it was absolutely heaving with tourists by the coach load. And they overthrew their monarchy over a century ago. 

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would draw shit loads of paying visitors if they were no longer inhabited and opened up as tourist attractions.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Sir Ralph said:

 

The Royal Family own their palaces (Buckingham, 

No they don't, the Crown Estate  effectively a commercial branch of Parliament, own Buck House. Windsor Castle and Holyrood House belonging to the Crown, not the Royal family. The King owns Balmoral and Sandringham.

The revenues from the Crown Estate go to the Treasury, and in part are then used to fund the King's official expenses.

Edited 7 hours ago by badgerx16

[Turkish]

44 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

There is a difference in making a poor point and making a poor joke. You don’t have a sense of humour. As Barry Humphries once said, “If you can’t laugh at yourself you might be missing the joke of the century.”

Says the bloke that takes himself very seriously and get very, very angry when people take the piss out of him 

Thats for explaining your joke though, the best ones are always the ones you have to tell everyone was a joke

[badgerx16]

Just now, Sheaf Saint said:

This idea that we can't abolish the monarchy because tourism is just absurd.

I visited the royal palace at Sintra in Portugal a few years back and it was absolutely heaving with tourists by the coach load. And they overthrew their monarchy over a century ago. 

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would draw shit loads of paying visitors if they were no longer inhabited and opened up as tourist attractions.

Of course nobody goes to Paris or Vienna to see the palaces, and as for castles, it is not as if there are any in France or Germany.

[badgerx16]

44 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

 

The Windsors have long been one of the most dysfunctional families in the country.  

 

3 of the Queen's 4 children are divorced, I would say they are a typical family.

[Sir Ralph]

26 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

No they don't, the Crown Estate  effectively a commercial branch of Parliament, own Buck House. Windsor Castle and Holyrood House belonging to the Crown, not the Royal family. The King owns Balmoral and Sandringham.

The revenues from the Crown Estate go to the Treasury, and in part are then used to fund the King's official expenses.

I was wrong - you are correct

[Sir Ralph]

30 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course nobody goes to Paris or Vienna to see the palaces, and as for castles, it is not as if there are any in France or Germany.

As equally right you were about the crown estate, you are incorrect on this. You honestly don’t think that tourists don’t come to the UK because of the Royal family? 
 

Evidence:

https://bmpwealth.com/how-the-monarchy-helps-add-value-to-the-uk-economy/
 

https://www.regionalstudies.org/rsa-blog/blog-the-impact-of-the-uk-royal-family-on-tourism/#:~:text=Recent attempts to measure the,to be £1.766 billion.

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

As equally right you were about the crown estate, you are incorrect on this. You honestly don’t think that tourists don’t come to the UK because of the Royal family? 

That is not my point, tourists would come regardless of whether we had a Royal family.

[AlexLaw76]

The Monarchy should have died with the Queen. 
 

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

That is not my point, tourists would come regardless of whether we had a Royal family.

Yes some would but not as many - cue the evidence provided by me above, not speculation. I assume you aren’t arguing that the numbers wouldn’t change and that the royal family doesn’t have economic value once you have reviewed the articles provided?

Edited 7 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes some would but not as many - cue the evidence provided by me above, not speculation. I assume you aren’t arguing that the numbers wouldn’t change and that the royal family doesn’t have economic value once you have reviewed the articles provided?

I do not believe that a significant proportion of tourists come because of the Royals. Other than the Changing of the Guard there is very little pageantry to see, and that could happen without the Royals as it does in other capitals. What you have posted is the value of "Royalty" and history, it's not as if there is much chance of spotting any of the Family.

Edited 7 hours ago by badgerx16

[AlexLaw76]

I liked the queen, but turns out she spat out some horrible kids.

Charlie is an arse, Edwards seems harmless, Anne is a trooper and Randy Andy is a massive cunt.

They bounced back after Princess Di, but even if they come out of the current situation intact, their popularity will be horrible 

[revolution saint]

26 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Yes some would but not as many - cue the evidence provided by me above, not speculation. I assume you aren’t arguing that the numbers wouldn’t change and that the royal family doesn’t have economic value once you have reviewed the articles provided?

I actually did take a quick look at those articles and it's pure speculation (obviously) and they even acknowledge that themselves with lines such as,

"we have observed difficulties in fully grasping the extent of the UK monarchy’s economic influence due to the multifarious nature of their influence on society. Additionally, we have highlighted how problematic it is to rigorously measure the economic impact of tourism."

 

[Sir Ralph]

11 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I actually did take a quick look at those articles and it's pure speculation (obviously) and they even acknowledge that themselves with lines such as,

"we have observed difficulties in fully grasping the extent of the UK monarchy’s economic influence due to the multifarious nature of their influence on society. Additionally, we have highlighted how problematic it is to rigorously measure the economic impact of tourism."

 

Yes it’s not an exact science obviously but to discount it on the grounds of being pure speculation and made up would be inaccurate. I can’t see data evidence which says that the royal family has limited impact on tourism. These parties don’t appear to have an agenda so it is clear that even if they are wrong to some degree there is still a significant positive impact

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Sir Ralph]

23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

I do not believe that a significant proportion of tourists come because of the Royals. Other than the Changing of the Guard there is very little pageantry to see, and that could happen without the Royals as it does in other capitals. What you have posted is the value of "Royalty" and history, it's not as if there is much chance of spotting any of the Family.

This is your perspective and here-say though. At least I’ve put some evidence from parties with no apparent agenda. People normally take views based on evidence and advice. Having lived abroad in a country that loved the royals with Americans who also loved the royals my perspective is different to yours.

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

I struggle to see why so many get worked up. If you think it’s not right that people are born into privilege you have a very fucking naive view of the world. They don’t have any impact on our lives.

[revolution saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

Yes it’s not an exact science obviously but I can’t see data evidence which says that the royal family has limited impact on tourism. These parties don’t appear to have an agenda so it is clear that even if they are wrong to some degree there is still a significant positive impact

No, it's not really clear at all especially since you were saying it wasn't speculation.  As Badger mentioned you might find tourism actually increases in the event that Buck house etc is opened up and provides greater access.

It's whataboutery anyway, the point is that the hereditary principle and the monarchy are undemocratic anachronisms in a modern society.   

[revolution saint]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

I struggle to see why so many get worked up. If you think it’s not right that people are born into privilege you have a very fucking naive view of the world. They don’t have any impact on our lives.

I struggle to see why people get worked up over the suggestion that the monarchy should be abolished.  Here's your first post in the subject as an example.

4 hours ago, whelk said:

Don’t be such a twat

 

[Sir Ralph]

34 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

No, it's not really clear at all especially since you were saying it wasn't speculation.  As Badger mentioned you might find tourism actually increases in the event that Buck house etc is opened up and provides greater access.

It's whataboutery anyway, the point is that the hereditary principle and the monarchy are undemocratic anachronisms in a modern society.   

We disagree on this point about the monarchy generally. Whilst you might not identify with the monarchy a large number of people associate the royal family with their British heritage and, whilst not perfect, have pride in it. Some of the biggest nation gathering events have been around the royal family and some countries would love to have such tradition. The only reason I can see you want to remove this heritage and historical institution isn’t because of any negative impact but a view that they aren’t democratically elected, albeit this view is theoretical anyway because the Royal Fmaily has no power
 

We talked about the economic impact. There is a difference between complete speculation and estimations. The reports cannot be completely accurate as they estimate figures but it doesn’t mean those estimates aren’t broadly accurate . Yet to see evidence that they don’t have a notable positive impact on the economy from a non political source. 

Edited 6 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[whelk]

28 minutes ago, revolution saint said:

I struggle to see why people get worked up over the suggestion that the monarchy should be abolished.  Here's your first post in the subject as an example.

 

He was suggesting the catalyst to abolition being Andrew’s arrest. So being a twat

[Baird of the land]

50 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I liked the queen, but turns out she spat out some horrible kids.

Charlie is an arse, Edwards seems harmless, Anne is a trooper and Randy Andy is a massive cunt.

They bounced back after Princess Di, but even if they come out of the current situation intact, their popularity will be 

I think Charles is ok. Was pushed into a completely unsuitable marriage by the family.

the whole Andrew stuff reflects far worse on the queen and her reign.

[Sir Ralph]

4 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

I think Charles is ok. Was pushed into a completely unsuitable marriage by the family.

the whole Andrew stuff reflects far worse on the queen and her reign.

Probably needs William and Kate in charge - a break from the old. They will be seen as less associated with the Andrew stuff than Charles

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

I’m off the Switzerland to use Veritas. Put me down now

You should have Googled that one for sure. 

Jesus.

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

You should have Googled that one for sure. 

Jesus.

🤣

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph

[Lighthouse]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course nobody goes to Paris or Vienna to see the palaces, and as for castles, it is not as if there are any in France or Germany.

Which is kind of the point really. You can see palaces, castles and other historic buildings all over the world. What the rest of the world doesn't have are Charles and Di, QE2, Will and Kat etc. I couldn't give a flying f**k about the royals but they undoubtedly hold an appeal for a lot of people around the world.

[Farmer Saint]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

You really hunted that down well done Farmer Joe. Great contribution. Send me a photo of your car again

I don't think I've ever put a photo of my car on here. What car do I have?

The number of mistakes on this page already is just so embarrassing. Are you drunk?

Edited 5 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I don't think I've ever put a photo of my car on here. What car do I have?

The number of mistakes on this page already is just so embarrassing. Are you drunk?

[Farmer Saint]

1 minute ago, Sir Ralph said:

That's a Waymo I took in San Francisco you fucking idiot. It's an automated driving taxi.

What a twat.

Edited 5 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Sir Ralph]

3 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

That's a Waymo I took in San Francisco you fucking idiot. It's an automated driving taxi.

What a twat.

Yep I have this time. Oh well. 

[Farmer Saint]

Just now, Sir Ralph said:

Yep I have this time. Oh well. 

Over and over and over. Just check your fucking workings - it's every damn thread you're spamming with mistakes.

[Sir Ralph]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Over and over and over. Just check your fucking workings - it's every damn thread you're spamming with mistakes.

Not really though. Odd typo from a company I am working with, which I corrected - Veritas and this. You seem more intent on picking up minor comments from me rather than engaging in any point raised. Some would call this childish. You don’t like me and I don’t like you but address substantive points.

Edited 5 hours ago by Sir Ralph