You guys sure do turn on something that makes more money than it keeps quickly, lmao.
Look man, I agree with you to an extent. It's hard to have pride in your country in our current political climate- when the people running the show seem determined to destroy everything good about our nations identity, while dialling up the worst aspects to 11 any chance they get.
It's hard to get excited over some exceedingly wealthy couple getting married, when you know the homeless have been stripped of their belongings and told to go be poor somewhere else to make way for crowds of adoring sycophants and camera crews, especially considering all of the fanfare stems from the fact one of the people getting married was essentially just considered born better than everyone else because of some pretty dumb arbitrary tradition.
But that's not all there is to British culture. We have the potential to be so much more than Tory authoritarianism, class elitism, and xenophobia.
Britain is completely fucked right now, I agree with you. But that doesn't mean it can't ever be turned around again.
And this all is coming from someone who thinks nationalism is a load of complete shite. You can still find pride in your country, it's just that you have to look a little harder to see it under all the fucking rancid toss right now.
Its more of a total disregard over a wedding and the lives of a couple of people who aren't the least bit interesting outside of the fact that they were born with the "rich and famous" tag on their head that gave them instant publicity.
A good way to compare it, would be if suddenly, whenever a Kardashian got married, the marriage would be televised live, as if aliens came down from the sky, and all sorts of trivia and news about Kim taking a shit and the pope not liking it were to flood news outlets.
In short: the problem isn't anyone letting them get married. The problem is that people find annoying the enormous press coverage over anything the royal family does.
The only thing I like about the royal family is the fact that the Queen is fucking immortal and will live on through the ages throwing meatpies at her maids and laughing at them, and that pic with her and the princes grinning at 9/11.
Veni, vidi, vici motherfuckers. Harry's ours now. We took Edward VII and now we took him. All part of Congress' long-running scheme to salt the royal bloodline and bring down our ex-slave masters. You filthy lobsterbacks dug your own graves when you vied for a rematch in 1812 and lost. Guess who has the largest navy in the world now, huh? We do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbOCob23pw4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
Cost is £40 Million.
Revenue from the Crown: £200 Million.
Making that argument is like killing the golden goose.
The UK monarchy is the same as the Danish monarchy. They unite people and are essential country-celebrities.
The Queen also makes the economy of UK thrive.
46.7% of Chinese-consumers in a study, said it increases the chances of them buying clothes if it was woren by royalty.
57% of Chinese consumers said the Royal Warrant is important or very important in increasing desirability of British lifestyle brands
Like it or not. The Royals are importen to the British culture and economy.
Ahhh this CGP Grey video - one of his least informed videos.
Firstly, the revenue from the crown isn't £200 million - it's over £300m from the Crown estates ( https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our-business/financial-information/ - you'd know this if you'd researched beyond this one video that cites no sources). This is money generated from their crown estates owned by the monarch (this is NOT the same as the state owning it - it is privately owned by the monarchy). Ignoring the murky nature of a monarch owning great swathes of land anyway, the Queen pays (or so it is claimed) 85% of this in tax, leaving 15% for them. Now, if you approach this from purely a financial perspective - something you have done - it becomes more efficient and more financially viable for these estates to be state-owned so 100% of the revenue can be collected.
The second argument is a classic. The idea that the monarchy brings in tourism is not only false, but it has been disproven. Firstly, Windsor castle is the 24th most popular tourist attraction ( ALVA | Association of Leading Visitor Attractions ) - this is something that would not change after the abolition of the monarchy, especially given that the Queen spends most of her time in Sandringham. People can't go to see a monarch that isn't even there. When you actually look at the reason people come to the UK statistics show that it's not for the monarchy (Visitor Activities). Tourists come to the UK for the museums, the history, and other non-royal things (ibid), so this claim that is the royal family bringing in tourism is provably false. It is not a "golden goose" bring in any money - it's a regular goose taking credit for the other golden geese. When you see articles like this one from the Atlantic - Is the British Royal Family Worth the Money? - exploring this issue, they look at the visitations to sites considered royal, not the intentions or reasons for visitations; it's logically fallacious. In this, there is this assumption that people go there because of the royal family, when there is absolutely no proof for this, but proof for the opposite (see "Visitors Activities" above).
It may also be worth noting that the UK monarchy is not the same as the Danish monarch - this a false assumption to make and ignores fundamental differences between our societies. The UK is a lot more hierarchical, less equal, and more class driven than that of the social-democratic Denmark. This means that the existence of a monarchy is innately more divisive. I was in the UK yesterday when the wedding was taking place and the only thing I've seen divide people to this degree is Brexit. People were either keenly supportive, completely apathetic, or staunchly against it. Do these statistics (http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l17f2s80tt/HuffingtonPost_Results_180514_RoyalWedding_w.pdf) look like an act of unification to you. I mean, you could argue that they do, but only in their unified apathy for the royal wedding. The division will become even clearer when Charles becomes king (if you look at the above statistics, he is only of the least popular monarchs listed.
As for your last two points, it's going to be difficult to meaningfully retort this given that you didn't cite any sources (but for some reason you cited "golden goose"?) The first one of "increased chances" is too vapid to make any meaningful claim from. Increased chances means nothing in terms of actuality at the end of the day, and it's difficult to say what these numbers actually are because you've provided no sources - I feel it is safe to assume that the increased chance of a Chinese person buying some clothes in the UK (assuming these clothes are even from the UK and not from, you know, China) is not even going to dent the economy. I thoroughlty believe that any industry lost from China upon the abolition of the monarchy would be near-negligible. People are not going to stop buying UK products and clothing because we abolished the monarchy.
Like it or not, the Royal are not as important to British culture or the economy as people like to think.
God save the queen
The fascist regime
Everything you said was fine but why add this?
How on earth is the Royal Family a fascist regime?
It's lyrics from the Sex Pistols song God Save the Queen lmao
Ah thanks for telling me
yeah CGP is overrated, I find his stuff condescending
The Daily Mail has gone mad.
https://i.imgur.com/FVi6vBQ.png
Not quite as mad as the Daily Express which still hasn't gotten over Princess Diane dying.
The income through the Crown Estate continues whether we have a monarchy or not, they are merely just honourary custodians of that land which ultimately belongs to the state. This is exactly what happened when Ireland became indepedent- the Crown Estates there got handed over to the Irish state.
And as regards tourism, I'd wager that most royalty-related tourism is because of royal legacy, not the living royal family themselves.Think of the amount of royalty-related tourism France gets (Palace of Versailles, countless castles, etc.), and their monarchy was aboloished hundreds of years ago. Disposing of the monarchy to open all these sites to the public might boost tourism, even.
If you wagered real money on that you would be a broke fool.
The royal family is popular as hell even here in Australia, each event like this creates a huge wave of attention. Every time the royals visit here it makes the news and heaps of people go to see them, theyre celebrities. And if you think star power like that is negligible compared to "money from their legacy" youre just delusional.
Id love to see the stats on royals from France vs Britain in tourism gains. What a great comparison.
I really just wish I didn't have to hear about this shit for the next three weeks. It's very nice they got married, but do I really need to hear about it for the next three weeks? If a fucking international incident happened we wouldn't hear about it until the milk bottles have melted and the Reds have turned the cat to ash. They could drop a fucking nuke in the Caspian Sea and we wouldn't even hear the boom over the chorus of "God Save the Queen"
The monarchy in Sweden is questioned a lot, I see an increased interest in abolishing it but I remain firmly on the camp of keeping it intact for several reasons, but one reason primarily: It's a piece of living history. The monarchy is a direct link to the history of my country, it goes so far back most historians can't even agree on who our first king was. I think that's really fascinating, and I want to keep that legacy going.
The amount of Irish people getting triggered over this is hilarious
You completely missed the main point of my argument. Monarchies are LIVING pieces of history. Sure, you can got to a museum and stare at things in a glass casing, but the key there is that these things being preserved are dead. They're no longer a direct link to the past. They no longer have a cultural or societal value - they're just old things in a booth.
I wouldn't expect someone from the US to understand this, because it's not part of your culture. The historical ties for a monarchy are invaluable, in my opinion, and should be kept in place.
Also your comparison to Saudi Arabia is absolutely ridiculous. When I talk about preserving the monarchy I mean of course alongside a democratically elected government.In the case of SA that isn't the case, as far as I know. That's a problem for sure. Do I think the SA monarchy should be abolished? Of course not. Do I think the power of the crown needs to be given to a democratic institution? Definitely.
It's a fucking money hole though. These people are being given money and fame for no good reason
I honestly don't really care. Part of my taxes go to maintaining historical monuments anyway, so it going to maintaining the monarchy (which to me is a living piece of history) isn't a big deal to me. Besides, the amount is absurdly low anyway, the avg. taxpayer in Sweden pays something like €1.25 a year to the royal family and that includes (to my knowledge) the guard and maintenance of the palaces & surrounding, related museums & landmarks.
Sure, you could argue you'd want that extra €1.25 a year to buy, I dunno, two kinder-eggs or something. But in abolishing the monarchy you'd also be abolishing a huge tourist-attraction and suddenly boom, literally billions in revenue vanishes out of thin air. I'm not economist, but I get the feeling that some ways the government would have to offload that loss would be through taxes - so suddenly that €1.25 might not seem so terrible anymore.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.