If you really, really, are convinced of that, I have a bridge that you might like to buy.
It spans the Thames between Bermondsey and Tower Hamlets and the centre section divides and raises
up to allow tall ships to pass under it.
The Royals
- Thread starter Cryogenic
- Start date
If you really, really, are convinced of that, I have a bridge that you might like to buy.
It spans the Thames between Bermondsey and Tower Hamlets and the centre section divides and raises
up to allow tall ships to pass under it.
Why do you have such a low opinion of your countrymen/women? If moving on from this decrepit, rotten system (that only ever seems to benefit the chums of Eton) somehow leads to fascism, then maybe we deserve it.
Well the buildings would still be associated with the monarchy regardless of the monarchy's place in our legislature, so I see no tangible loss in tourism as they'd still be around and I'm sure there's a few ceremonial roles they could continue to take part in if they wanted to.
I also see no reason why the crown estate couldn't just continue to operate in the same manner it has done in regards to the treasury.
The only issue I can see is the implied ownership of lands through escheat, but due to the way that works it's not really stealing anything if the government takes responsibility over ownerless assets. Perhaps there are lands that don't make sense remaining in Royal control and as such ought to be purchased with the intention of either holding on to it (if it's important to the MoD or something) or putting the lands up for auction to minimise the cost.
Yeah, the tourism argument is very suspect, people seem to attribute revenue from tourists to the royals themselves "they pay for themselves" etc.., it's pure handwaving given that France has a bigger tourism industry than we do and plenty of visitors to Royal Palaces despite no Royals being present there.
There is however perhaps value in the diplomacy/soft power aspect or at least there is for now, especially across the commonwealth, the middle east etc..
Man of Honour
Why are you making stuff up and attributing it to me?
I think that's not a like for like comparison. France is (despite being next door) much more centrally located. It also has a lot more tourist attractions unrelated to their historical monarchy. Some of the locations that are related to their historical monarchy have a lot of tourism value unrelated to their historical monarchy (e.g. the palace of Versaiiles and its gardens). It's palaces are more impressive, too. Compare Versailles with Buckingham Palace. So I think it's not plausible that deposing the monarchy in the UK wouldn't have any effect on tourism here.
Then there's the issue of stealing the family's assets. France had a revolution and forced their royal family to choose between exile and death. A like for like comparison would be a problem nowadays. Ethically, politically and diplomatically.
Then there's the fact that the large majority of the expenses for the royal family would still need to be paid anyway. All expenses related to the head of state. All expenses related to diplomatic work. All expenses related to maintainance of historic buildings. Then add all the expenses for the frequent presidential election campaigns that would be necessary. Then add all the losses caused by the fact that the head of state would be beholden to whatever organisations bought the election for them. The cost savings would be minor at best. I very much doubt if they'd even outweigh the reduction in tourism income even in a best case scenario.
Something that I don't think a President Boris Johnson could pull off at all well. Even a competent politician wouldn't be able to do the job in the same way and there's ample evidence demonstrating that politicians who win elections are not necessarily competent.
They have separate personal property - Sandringham, Balmoral, stock portfolios etc.. that doesn't need to be stolen. Other assets are arguably state assets and/or would be if we decided to abolish the monarchy.
Doesn't need to be anywhere near the same - certainly doesn't require so many homes, servants including for extended family etc..
Not clear there would be much of a reduction in tourism though, that's the point.
Man of Honour
Does that apply to the land and business owned by other families? Or businesses? If not, why not? For example, much of London is privately owned. Shouldn't that be a state asset? It's a crucial part of the nation's economy.
Do you have any figure, even a rough one, for the cost of the things you wouldn't allow the new head of state and new diplomats to have and which isn't currently paid for from whatever of the royal family's assets you wouldn't seize?
How does that figure compare to the repeated and frequent costs of a presidential election? Evaluating the cost of having an elected head of state would be more difficult and would depend on how you would allow it to happen (e.g. the amount of controls you put on campaign spending would affect the extent to which the head of state was owned by donors), but it would be a cost.
Not clear that there wouldn't be, either. Nor is it clear that there would be much of a reduction in costs. Or any reduction at all. In purely financial terms, it would be a gamble at largely unknown odds with at best an unknown minor payoff.
Even assuming that there would be a net cost saving, would it outweigh the value we agree on - diplomacy/soft power?
I'd also argue that there's some value in the image of stability which would be lost by having the nominal head of state change every few years, replaced each time by whoever won the last election. Which is usually won by the best liar and/or whoever was bought by the richest donors.
I think it's outdated. It represents repression, colonialism exploitation and anti democratic processes.
Not sure on ins and out and how you'd achieve it. But I'm sure a lot of the younger generation (30s downwards) would support this.
A land grab would be acceptable. This was all paid for by explosive means. Again. Not sure how this would work. Or what future would look like. Or if its legally possible. But I'd still support it.
Most of the world has ditched its monarchy.
That doens't make any sense. I'm not advocating that personal property or trusts should be state-owned - again, for example, they own Balmoral and Sandringham privately, they have personal wealth, the Queen has an investment portfolio that belongs to her personally etc.. however, IF we were to abolish the Monarchy I doubt they could carry on living in Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, St James' Palace, Clarence House, Kensington Palace etc.. as they aren't personal property held by any given individual and there wouldn't be a "Crown" anymore.
I'm not advocating seizing any family assets.
Seems pretty clear to me, you'd be paying for a president and their immediate family the upkeep of fewer official residences/fewer staff. You wouldn't need to pay as much for police protection etc..
Not necessarily, thus my argument that diplomacy/soft power is the useful reason to have them.
Seems to work fine for Ireland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland#Remuneration_and_expenses
Obvs we might spend a fair bit more than that but still come in way cheaper than the current cost of the Royals.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,681
In my dreams, if I had the money, I would love to build my own castle. I'd like to know just how ruinously expensive it would be to build one now.
Lovely photos by the way. Which castles are those?
Caerphilly Castle, which is a few miles from me, is a spectacular example of 13th century state of the art.
When I think of historic architecture I immediately think of Ely cathedral. Its bewildering to think these structures could be built so far back in history.
No idea how we could replicate that historic look now.
Ely cathedral looks particularly dominating as Ely is so flat and tiny as cities go.
Not my pics
Associate
I don't really understand the calls for abolishing the Royal Family to be honest. A lot of people like them. If you don't, then ignore them - even if we did save money from getting rid (which seems far from clear) it would only get spunked on some rubbish. There will always be people at the top siphoning off large sums of cash, Royal or not.
The first Is a star fort up in italy there's actually quite a lot of little towns in them in Europe especially Holland and Italy.
The others I don't know I just googled best forts
Associate
Not really, but then I don't pay much attention to politics or news of any kind these days because it's mostly BS.
Man of Honour
A whole town could be built with that level of effort nowadays, going on the castles you posted photos of. That's tens of thousands of person-years of work there, with a fair few of those people being masters of their crafts. Plus some bona fide artists for the higher end castles.
Of course, most castles were far smaller and simpler. It's mostly the top of the range later castles that have survived and are at least fairly well known today. But those are hugely impressive. They'd be impressive built today. The fact that they were built with medieval or (at the latest) renaissance technology is hugely impressive. The knowledge, skill and logistics required were remarkable. They also looked more impressive when new, since they were unweathered and were sometimes extensively externally decorated. We tend to think of stone castles as being bare stone nowadays, but they usually weren't on the interior and sometimes weren't on the exterior. Stone castles were a serious display of wealth, prestige and power. Imagine one gleaming brightly white in the sun, freshly whitewashed. A mighty and glorious person lives here. You do not want to mess with them.
There's a group of people building a replica 13th century castle at the moment. Well, not at the moment due to the pandemic, but the project is ongoing. It's been ongoing for about 20 years. They've still got a fair bit of work to do. That's for a relatively small and relatively simple castle. They started from wild land and are doing the whole thing using only 13th century technology and knowledge with a couple of exceptions for health and safety. Scaffolding is held together with steel rather than rope and hard hats are worn in some situations, but apart from that it's a bona fide reenactment of 13th century French castle building. Right down to materials being sourced as close as possible and transported to the site by horse and cart. Or by hand, in baskets and suchlike. They also do a nice job of showing that a castle wasn't only a defensive military structure. People lived there (not just the owners) and a lot of non-military work and trade was done. So they have shops, bakeries and suchlike.
They have a Youtube channel with a number of videos showing parts of the construction. In French, of course, but with English subtitles that are done well. Very brief summaries, but with some nice details explaining why some things are done in some ways. For example, a lot of the preliminary woodworking is done in the forest because that reduces the size and weight of the individual pieces of wood that need to be hauled to the building site. The overall weight and volume will be much the same because almost all of the tree will be used in one way or another, but it changes it from a single extremely difficult to handle load to a larger number of much more manageable loads. I didn't know that before. It makes perfect sense, of course, but it was a detail of logistics that I hadn't thought about.
https://www.youtube.com/c/Guédelonilsbâtissentunchâteaufort/videos
Man of Honour
Probably not quite as ruinously expensive as maintaining one.
Caporegime
Harry and Meghan have outdone themselves with their latest woke waffling.
I can't tell at this point if they are genuinely this pathetic and ignorant of their own hypocrisy or if they are just cynically exploitative.
I can't tell at this point if they are genuinely this pathetic and ignorant of their own hypocrisy or if they are just cynically exploitative.
Oh yeah these days I'd expect an equivalent work to be something akin to a fully fortified manchester with glacis walls tens of miles thick