I think those pretending the royal estates, assets and history couldn't at the very least generate the same if we didn't have a sitting monarch are the financially illiterate ones here.
Poll: Will you be putting up the Bunting next month?
- Thread starter Ice Tea
- Start date
The monarchy continuously evolves. It is noticeably different to Queen Victoria, Henry VIII, William I etc. It is noticeably different to when the current monarchs mother came to the throne
That is because the country is different. Nobody it seems has a coherent plan of what to replace them with and that is a decision for the whole country. Personally I think it does not need changing and that is the way I would vote.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
The Crown Estates earned £490m last year. That is by far the bulk of the money. Any monies raised by visitors to palaces/castles would rise not fall. People would still visit the country, in fact I think even more would visit if they could access the parts they currently aren't allowed in.
The The Palace of Versailles had 15m visitors last year, no palace or castle in the UK gets anywhere near that. They haven't had a royal family for 225 years.
So charities in countries like France or Germany can't raise money because they got rid of their monarch? Sorry but you are living in the land of make believe. The country wouldn't come crashing down because we ditched an antiquated system. And if that is all that is keeping the country together then we have a serious problem.
Last edited:
its not the bulk of the money they bring in like 1.7 billion
Does the palace of versailles rake in nearly 2 billion?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Lets see these figures. And it better be money earned by the actual royals, not by the Crown Estate which would pass to the country if we ditched them or the palaces/castles as they'd still exist and earn money or tourism as people would still come. Show me the money the actual royals earn.
If that's a response to my post then... You're agreeing with me?
I only ask as it sounds at first you're disagreeing but then end up saying the same thing.
How much money does the monarchy bring to the UK? Some £1.7bn a year...
The death of Queen Elizabeth II led to questions about the future of the monarchy, but the institution makes a lot of money for the UK.
www.investmentmonitor.ai
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
How much money does the monarchy bring to the UK? Some £1.7bn a year...
The death of Queen Elizabeth II led to questions about the future of the monarchy, but the institution makes a lot of money for the UK.
OMG people would stop buying our biscuits if the coat of arms was removed
I can't take you seriously, that is laughable.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 10,695
- Location
- Shropshire
The current British royal family can trace back their lineage to the 9th century, 1,209 years and 37 generations, Most "celebs" are lucky to know who their father really is without a DNA test
Celebrities are highly transient, our royal family is not.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
The current British royal family can trace back their lineage to the 9th century, 1,209 years and 37 generations, Most "celebs" are lucky to know who their father really is without a DNA test
Celebrities are highly transient, our royal family is not.
Yep 1,209 of marrying cousins.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
Exactly. There is no reason why the coat of arms would have to be removed if we did away with the royals. Its not like the actual monarch personally uses and endorses all these products.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Wait are you saying its just like the money we gave the EU that made us more than it costs then?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2007
- Posts
- 4,258
@Colonel_Klinck why are you so anti royal?
although my reply had been cynical about the benefit of royal product warranty - it probably does have a benefit, who doesn't clock it whenever they use the product and think if its good enough for them -If that's a response to my post then... You're agreeing with me?
Yanks especially(pre meghan anyway)
I guess for the anti royalists they despise these products, their nemesis like garlic for a vampire, police could have heinz paint guns to pelt them with
(like whenever I see red tractor emblem that's a baddie poor animal welfare, but rspca assure fine)
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,659
Yes looking at the actual tree, the god given lineage stopped dead at the Tudor's, anyone else from then on is just an imposter to the godly throneThe current British royal family can trace back their lineage to the 9th century, 1,209 years and 37 generations, Most "celebs" are lucky to know who their father really is without a DNA test
Celebrities are highly transient, our royal family is not.
Because that's all it is, a concert.
I'm not convinced it would hold up longer term without the active royalty - in most other countries the tourist/other income has declined after awhile when the sitting monarchy has gone. Although IMO some of that decline will happen with Charles anyhow as he'll never have the draw the Queen had.
EDIT: Personally don't really care one way or another - but personally I consider it something which belongs in the past and all the empty showy rituals and pretentiousness of the coronation just look out of place and irrelevant in this day and age.
Last edited: