Kate and Williams Baby

[Malcador]

230 million pounds and 3 soldiers, seems pretty good

[Walsingham]

I consider myself a monarchist. Which is to say I find their antics meaningless, and their role fundamental.

[BruceVC]

 

I honestly don't see the appeal of royal family so meh

 

Yeah that's what  people say who live in countries that don't have Royal families, its easier to claim indifference than to face the reality that you don't have much of a historical legacy

[Nonek]

They're going a little overboard in the reporting of the birth, i've nothing against the Windsor's but i'm getting a little sick of hearing about their child allready.

[ShadySands]

We love celebrity and distraction

 

I don't think it's any deeper than that really

[BruceVC]

So the little tykes name is George Alexander Louis

 

Cool name

[Gorgon]

The royals are needed once every 5 years to ensure the traditional transfer of power from one leadership to the next and that the military is far removed from this event, just in case. Other than that one could well argue for the appropriation of their castles and lands.

[BruceVC]

The royals are needed once every 4 years to ensure the traditional transfer of power from one leadership to the next and that the military is far removed from this event, just in case. Other than that one could well argue for the appropriation of their castles and lands.

 

Did you read how much money the British monarchy generate for the UK?

[Raithe]

Technically, the queen also has to sign all changes to law.

 

Out of curiousity, for those saying their land holdings should be appropriated.. What makes that right? As in, how many generations of family building landholdings / ownership of real estate is too many? So, if you say the monarchy should have their real estate re-possessed just because they're monarchy, or should we start saying any family that's been having large bank accounts and real-estate for more generations then x should have it re-possessed?   

 

For the wacky approach, should we look at the Kennedy's and the Bush's and say "Oh, well, you've been involved in government politics and getting money from the people for generations, we're going to take your real estate because you've had it too long"...

 

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

For the wacky approach, should we look at the Kennedy's and the Bush's and say "Oh, well, you've been involved in government politics and getting money from the people for generations, we're going to take your real estate because you've had it too long"...

 

 

 

Your comment is not wacky at all but actually very applicable

[Oerwinde]

 

 

The royals are needed once every 4 years to ensure the traditional transfer of power from one leadership to the next and that the military is far removed from this event, just in case. Other than that one could well argue for the appropriation of their castles and lands.

Did you read how much money the British monarchy generate for the UK?

The tourism thing isn't everything either. The private lands held by the royal family generate hundreds of millions of dollars annually. They then donate the entirety of it to the UK, and their expenses are paid out of that money. The royal family ddoesn't actually cost UK taxpayers a dime.

[Gfted1]

Werent all of their land holdings and palaces originally financed by the people? Or they used their own personal fortune to build Buckingham palace?

[Malcador]

Yeah that's what  people say who live in countries that don't have Royal families, its easier to claim indifference than to face the reality that you don't have much of a historical legacy

What about France ?

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

 

They do cost the British people a negligble amount, cancelled out by the presumed tourist revenue, it seems. So I guess they're just like Guard Dog said they are, like a zoo attraction

[BruceVC]

Werent all of their land holdings and palaces originally financed by the people? Or they used their own personal fortune to build Buckingham palace?

 

 Sometimes you make posts that I really don't understand but you make me laugh , to answer your question yes the wealth of UK was probably used to build Buckingham Palace 300  years ago. But I don't think it would be fair to hold that against the current Monarchy?

Edited July 24, 2013 by BruceVC

[Gorgon]

It beats a guillotine. Their wealth all originates in an absolute monarchy. I'll gotten gains, however profitable the dividends are now. 

[BruceVC]

It beats a guillotine. Their wealth all originates in an absolute monarchy. I'll gotten gains, however profitable the dividends are now. 

 

I could be misunderstanding you but I question your adulation and respect for the British Monarchy?   

[Gorgon]

Your conclusion is entirely correct. The same goes for our own. 

[Raithe]

That depends how far back in history and how you define their own personal fortune.

It gets a bit mixed when you look at any of the Royal Families throughout Europe. Think about it, the early Kings built treasuries from the taxes paid directly to them by the people they ruled. From that, they provided the security and government and wotnot. They used those treasuries to build castles, palaces, establish towns, pave roads, get flashy crowns and all that jazz.

Rent from lands they owned added to their treasuries.  After 500 or 1,000 years, it gets hard to figure out exactly what finances came from what.

 

As was previously mentioned, for the previous 300 years, the royal family turn over what amounts to a bit over £200 million each year to the government in the form of the Crown Trust. Which is pretty much all the profit and income from the family land holdings. That is entirely seperate to whatever income is generated via tourism.

 

The other side of it that tends to get ignored, is how they get used as free-floating Ambassadors of goodwill around the world. Frankly, it might be silly to many, but a lot of people react more to a visit from the Queen or Prince Charles then they do to a visiting President or Prime Minister. You can say "get rid of them" as much as you like, but people react to them. They aren't here and gone in 4 or 8 years. They grow up involved in it, they get decades of experience in handling those duties, and they keep doing them.

 

Heh, and ill-gotten gains? Just how much money gets chiselled away in one form or another by most leading politicians? How many Presidents and Prime Ministers leave office with bank accounts the same size or smaller then when they started?  Hell, should we look back at all the really rich families that made their money in the dark or middle ages? The Rothchilds and money lending which in those days.. yeah. Hell, shall we look at the "robber-barons" of the 18th century in America and just how they made fortunes on what are now totally illegal methods? The Rockefellers and their current fortune...

[Malcador]

So those are ill-gotten then too, what's your point ?

[Raithe]

So those are ill-gotten then too, what's your point ?

 

Why single out the Royal family as if just because they're Royal it makes it worse then all the others you're totally happy with.  Say "let's kick em out and take their money" all you want. Just be perfectly valid and say "Lets get rid of the Kennedy's!"  or pretty much EVERY family group that's been rich for a century.

[BruceVC]

That depends how far back in history and how you define their own personal fortune.

It gets a bit mixed when you look at any of the Royal Families throughout Europe. Think about it, the early Kings built treasuries from the taxes paid directly to them by the people they ruled. From that, they provided the security and government and wotnot. They used those treasuries to build castles, palaces, establish towns, pave roads, get flashy crowns and all that jazz.

Rent from lands they owned added to their treasuries.  After 500 or 1,000 years, it gets hard to figure out exactly what finances came from what.

 

As was previously mentioned, for the previous 300 years, the royal family turn over what amounts to a bit over £200 million each year to the government in the form of the Crown Trust. Which is pretty much all the profit and income from the family land holdings. That is entirely seperate to whatever income is generated via tourism.

 

The other side of it that tends to get ignored, is how they get used as free-floating Ambassadors of goodwill around the world. Frankly, it might be silly to many, but a lot of people react more to a visit from the Queen or Prince Charles then they do to a visiting President or Prime Minister. You can say "get rid of them" as much as you like, but people react to them. They aren't here and gone in 4 or 8 years. They grow up involved in it, they get decades of experience in handling those duties, and they keep doing them.

 

Heh, and ill-gotten gains? Just how much money gets chiselled away in one form or another by most leading politicians? How many Presidents and Prime Ministers leave office with bank accounts the same size or smaller then when they started?  Hell, should we look back at all the really rich families that made their money in the dark or middle ages? The Rothchilds and money lending which in those days.. yeah. Hell, shall we look at the "robber-barons" of the 18th century in America and just how they made fortunes on what are now totally illegal methods? The Rockefellers and their current fortune...

 

Guys I don't want to sound like I'm overdoing my support for Raithe's comments but how can you disagree with the type of logic and points that he makes. Its irrefutable.

 

I would be shocked if anyone can't see the advantages after reading his posts of the British Monarchy?

[HoonDing]

Vive la République.

[Gfted1]

The difference being the "really rich families" didn't amass their fortunes through taxation.

[BruceVC]

The difference being the "really rich families" didn't amass their fortunes through taxation.

 

Fair point, but what's better for a country and for the less fortunate. A family that pays there taxes but keeps 70 % of there wealth or a family that gives away 80-90 % of there monthly income and is instrumental in generating hundred of millions of dollars in tourism? Surly the latter

[Gfted1]

Im not interested in arguing that the monarchy should be disbanded, only in the comparisons to other wealthy families. The stark difference being everyone else "earned" it, while they commanded it.

 

And the less fortunate can suck it.