Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

How the British Royal Family earns YOU £2.60 every year

Scroll to see replies

Reply 100

member398873

Original post by No Future

The UK isn't famous for being a beach destination, duh.

The UK is famous for nothing except the Royal Family.

Reply 101

thisismycatch22

Original post by f00ddude

im pretty sure its actually in the royal families ownership rather than the sovereign, but im too tired to look it up but the end result is the same
edit: just looked it up, its in the royals name "the crown" and therefore refers to whoever is king/queen

You just proved yourself wrong, I'm afraid. "the crown" is the sovereign and does not refer to the windsor family in person.

Reply 102

thisismycatch22

Original post by lechaton-x

The UK is famous for nothing except the Royal Family.

Maybe you should rtft, the UK is famous for plenty of things except the Royal Family and the royals are very low in the priority of foreign tourists.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1578941/Royals-low-on-must-list-for-visitors.html

Reply 103

joe3469

Original post by Drewski

Fairer? Debatable, but I see your point.

Better? Almost definitely not.

Human endeavour is driven by striving to be better. Survival of the fittest?

Eliminate that forwards surge to be betetr and survive and what are we left with? Stagnation and pointlessness.

Imagine if that first caveman had thought "well... I'd like to see what's outside my cave, but it might be mean of me..."

Ok it's off topic and late but I'd suggest checking out out this vid if you are interested in libertarian socialist alternatives to capitalism:

Reply 104

Drewski

Original post by thisismycatch22

Maybe you should read your own source... because while the tourists may admit there are things some of them have a preference to above the Royals, every single one of them - according to the article - said they were a reason, just perhaps not the top one.

Original post by joe3469

Ok it's off topic and late but I'd suggest checking out out this vid if you are interested in libertarian socialist alternatives to capitalism:

I can't begin to tell you how I'm not.

Reply 105

thisismycatch22

Original post by Drewski

According to the article [thanks, btw, I'm clearly much too lazy this morning] some do and some don't... And as they said it's tourists from China who do [and they *generalisation alert* tend to come with bucket loads of money] then it's still not a bad thing.

And everybody still said they were a reason for coming, even if they're not the top one.

A reason behind things like shoes and fried sausages. And the existence of fried sausages isn't a slap in the face to the ideal of a meritocratic and fair society.

Reply 106

TheOFactor

Original post by f00ddude

no its owned by them
think about it like this, you parents die (hopefully not but u'know) and leave you their house, you now own this house, this is the same as what happens to the royals, they pass down all their assets
it is in the sovereigns name, but thats exactly the same, if i said tsr is owned by thisismycatch22, you own it, you pass the name on, the other person owns it and so on
if your username was deleted, the person in ownership of it at the time keeps ownership of tsr

im pretty sure its actually in the royal families ownership rather than the sovereign, but im too tired to look it up but the end result is the same
edit: just looked it up, its in the royals name "the crown" and therefore refers to whoever is king/queen

that's not entirely accurate. The Crown Estate is separate to the Windsors, it's an independent organisation that administers the property portfolio, and is accountable to the government and the current monarch. Even the Crown Estate struggle to define what "Crown land" means (http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm). I think you'll find it's not a black and white case with regard to who would be entitled to this property should the monarchy be dissolved - quite the opposite in fact.

Reply 107

No Future

Original post by lechaton-x

The UK is famous for nothing except the Royal Family.

False

Reply 108

thisismycatch22

Original post by Drewski

Well, firstly it doesn't say that anywhere. That is just a non-factual statement. I mean, I could stop there, but I'll go on.

Secondly, the fact that they are incredibly unpopular goes against all the people saying they are a major source of tourism for the UK, or even that there is no other reason for people to come here.

Thirdly, even if everyone did put the royals down, the survey may well have been a ranked listing rather than blank space, meaning that everyone would have *had to* put the Royals somewhere.

Reply 109

No Future

Original post by Drewski

That was exactly my point...

What is the UK famous for around the world... The Queen. Ok, I freely admit that might not be why they come here... but it is what they know.

What is your point?

Your second line makes no sense

Reply 110

Palbert

mp's total expenses come to more than royal family expenses. i say we abolish parliment for a despotic monarchy.

Reply 111

TheOFactor

Original post by lechaton-x

The UK is famous for nothing except the Royal Family.

Houses of Parliament, Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, Picadilly Circus, Madame Tussaud's, Tower of London, the Gherkin/financial district, Lake District, Scottish Highlands, Snowdonia, Cornwall, Abbey Road, the Beatles, Oasis, British punk, the Beckhams, football, football hooligans, fish & chips, pubs, certain clubs, etc etc etc

the UK is famous for many things, not all of them great, but still.

Reply 112

Hylean

Nyah, get rid of the government as well, if you're going to get rid of the monarchy. They're all as bad as each other.

Original post by Elbonian

There we go.

The Olympics isn't only about generating capital from tourism. It creates thousands of jobs which should give Britain the economic boost that it really needs. It'll also result in improved infrastructure and modernization. The odds are it'll benefit the British economy.

Jobs which will cease to exist after the Olympics, something which rarely succeeds in making more money than is spent on it.

Original post by manchild007

There is no evidence for that frankly, OR MORE IMPORTANTLY, any evidence to say tourism would necessarily fall if we got rid of an active monarchy. Of the Top 20 tourist sites in the UK, only ONE is a royal residence, that of Windsor Castle at lowly number 17 (not even in the Top 10).

Heck, The Louvre and Château de Versailles in France gets more visitors than Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle (the equivalents here in the UK, both in role and location from London/Paris), yet they abandoned the monarchy years and years ago.

Stop with the myths :rolleyes:

The Louvre is a famous museum/art gallery and the Chateau de Versailles has strong connections to the World Wars. Thus they are not equivalent.

Original post by Elbonian

And then we end up spending £200 million on their wedding. I like the Royal family, I think they bring a lot of character to the nation and it really shows how great and noble a nation we are.

But in this economic climate and with our massive budget deficit, I'd rather have spent the money reducing it. Every little bit counts.

Arguably the Royal Wedding has given a boost to Britain's tourism industry, but surely it isn't going to generate £200 million in the short term alone? That's the job of the London Olympics in 2012.

The majority of the costs of the wedding were covered by Kate's family and the Royals themselves. The costs shouldered by the tax payer were relatively little and costs we would shoulder under a President in the same situation.

Oh, and the jobs created by the Olympics will end after them and the games have a history of costing more than they make.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 113

Pete_91

According to private eye the economy lost £2bn because of the royal wedding alone, the royal family may generate a profit year on year but events like this generate huge losses.

Reply 114

Arekkusu

Original post by HereBeDragons

Yes.

Because ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has visited France since their revolution :rolleyes:

True, and the video response from the other guy is certainly true on that point. But I do think we are "known" for our monarchy more than, I dunno, Holland or Spain. While France is "known" mostly for its art. Without any figures, my perception is that the pull of the monarchy is probably significant within the British economy, but of course I'll gladly change my tune if I see figures.

Reply 115

Elbonian

Original post by Hylean

Nyah, get rid of the government as well, if you're going to get rid of the monarchy. They're all as bad as each other.

Jobs which will cease to exist after the Olympics, something which rarely succeeds in making more money than is spent on it.

The Louvre is a famous museum/art gallery and the Chateau de Versailles has strong connections to the World Wars. Thus they are not equivalent.

Some will, not all. Construction and Infrastructure wouldn't last without operations and maintenance. Small enterprise that flourish throughout the olympics will expand and thus create more jobs. In the short term, it's estimated to provide the British economy with a £7bn boost.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 116

Hylean

Original post by Elbonian

Some will, not all. Construction wouldn't last without maintenance. Similarly, developments in infrastructure will provide jobs in operations and maintenance. Small enterprise that flourish throughout the olympics will expand and thus create more jobs. In the long term, it is beneficial to the British economy.

Wishful thinking.

Reply 117

Arekkusu

Original post by Hylean

Jobs which will cease to exist after the Olympics, something which rarely succeeds in making more money than is spent on it.

Nah the important thing is that people, mostly tourists, will spend. This will be in theory a leg-up that brings in revenue for businesses, giving them more capital to use for investment in more risky recruiting, better advertising, better products, whatever, which self-perpetuates. Hopefully.

Of course expected gains are more important to the economy than concrete gains so investment/risks on businesses should not be limited to the few weeks that the Olympics are on.

Reply 118

f00ddude

Original post by TheOFactor

ts run by the crown estate, an organisation set up to controll all the monachs land, the organisation is owned by the crown (the royals)

your link pretty much dis proved your own comment in this aspect although their discription of the land they controll shows it also includes the governments land, rather than ambiguity over who owns it

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 119

f00ddude

Original post by thisismycatch22

You just proved yourself wrong, I'm afraid. "the crown" is the sovereign and does not refer to the windsor family in person.

no, the crown is the king or queen
the sovereign is the figure head of a state (country if you don't study politics), this could be passed on to the prime minister or other role in the case of dissolution of the monarchy, the title of "the crown" can not