How the British Royal Family earns YOU £2.60 every year Watch

member398873
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(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.
1
reply
thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(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.
0
reply
thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(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/ukne...-visitors.html
0
reply
joe3469
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
(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:

0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by thisismycatch22)
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/ukne...-visitors.html
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.
1
reply
thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(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.
0
reply
TheOFactor
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(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.
0
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#108
Report 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by lechaton-x)
The UK is famous for nothing except the Royal Family.
False
0
reply
thisismycatch22
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by Drewski)
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.
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.
0
reply
No Future
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by Drewski)
:rolleyes: 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
0
reply
Palbert
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
mp's total expenses come to more than royal family expenses. i say we abolish parliment for a despotic monarchy.
0
reply
TheOFactor
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(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.
0
reply
Hylean
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#113
Report 7 years ago
#113
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.
0
reply
Pete_91
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
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.
0
reply
Arekkusu
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(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.
0
reply
Elbonian
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
(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.
0
reply
Hylean
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(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.
0
reply
Arekkusu
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#118
Report 7 years ago
#118
(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.
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by TheOFactor)
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.
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
0
reply
f00ddude
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#120
Report 7 years ago
#120
(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
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (553)
37.82%
No - but I will (115)
7.87%
No - I don't want to (103)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.26%

Watched Threads

View All