advertisement


Prince Charles

stevec67 said:
Some do, most not. Most don't like the idea of being "a subject" as they are all "citoyens" of La Republique and have "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" as guiding principles.

I did once have a bizarre conversation with a French woman who was a staunch Lady Di fan.
Click to expand...

In my experience the French, and most specifically French women, were quite obsessed with Lady Di. They would also come over all starry-eyed about 'La Reine Elizabet', whom they adored.
 
PaulMB said:
The Italians follow events among UK royalty quite a bit. Lots of Lady Di fans here, too. It is entertainment, a bit like following Downton Abbey or what Kim Kardashian is up to.
Click to expand...

So it is true that Italy has the worst tv ?
 
I think it’s when you spend some money on something and you then feel really pleased with what you bought. If the ultra biased report you linked to is correct, then they cost me about £7.00 this year. About the same as a decent pair of socks, so yes, great VFM I reckon.
 
Rockmeister said:
I think it’s when you spend some money on something and you then feel really pleased with what you bought. If the ultra biased report you linked to is correct, then they cost me about £7.00 this year. About the same as a decent pair of socks, so yes, great VFM I reckon.
Click to expand...
At least a pair of socks have a purpose, you might like them, but why do I have to subsidise the cost of your socks for you?

Republic might be biased but it’s assessment of the cost of monarchy based on available figures. The problem is that most of the figure are hidden. The real issue is that the £350m figure is the absolute minimum that the monarchy costs. We don’t know how much extra it really costs because it is hidden. That Most of the wealth of the monarch is hidden is a fundamental problem in a head of a state that is supposed to be based on equality, transparency, accountability, openness and merit. Quite how an incredibly wealthy institution, paid for to untold an extent by the taxpayer, an institution that symbolises secrecy, hierarchy, hidden wealth, the power of elites and vested interest above democracy and meritocracy is vfm I don’t know.
 
With all those adjectives I'm not surprised. I couldn't answer that either.
Being puzzled is good for you though. Think of all that brain development that's going on.

My view is that if you choose to reduce the word 'value' down a list of finances, and don't understand that the value of the monarchy is in fact a far broader and complex business than that, then you are missing maybe 75% of the equation. Of course 350 million is a lot of money. And Of course we could spend it elsewhere. But we choose not to. Your argument is undermined by you failure to see the broader picture (again). The point is, yes, they are expensive, but so what? The majority in the UK (and with a strong international approval rating to boot) like them and want them here.

And as to socks and etc, why don't you just stop paying taxes? Might be worth a try? You'll get 'free' meals in prison, then I'll be subsidising you. Think of that! :)
 
The matter is simple. No society should be funding the expensive lifestyles of highly expensive freeloaders. Other people who are able-bodied are called 'fit to work' and denied support or condemned if they don't secure paid work. The imaginary view of certain people designated by a god (or by a superstitious population) to sit at the top of a hierarchy, which is then justified after-the-fact as being 'a tourism draw', is a failure of meaningful reason.

The 'tourism draw' is an unsustainable false argument. In any case you can't justify unnecessary and wasteful domestic spending by referring to foreign-derived income (which is but a fraction of total tourist income anyway). It's pure drivel.
 
Rockmeister said:
With all those adjectives I'm not surprised. I couldn't answer that either.
Being puzzled is good for you though. Think of all that brain development that's going on.

My view is that if you choose to reduce the word 'value' down a list of finances, and don't understand that the value of the monarchy is in fact a far broader and complex business than that, then you are missing maybe 75% of the equation. Of course 350 million is a lot of money. And Of course we could spend it elsewhere. But we choose not to. Your argument is undermined by you failure to see the broader picture (again). The point is, yes, they are expensive, but so what? The majority in the UK (and with a strong international approval rating to boot) like them and want them here.

And as to socks and etc, why don't you just stop paying taxes? Might be worth a try? You'll get 'free' meals in prison, then I'll be subsidising you. Think of that! :)
Click to expand...
Adjectives are not the point. The real point is that the royals are not Value For Money. First of all you have failed to say what value they actually add, but more than that, without knowing their true cost, their vfm cannot be measured. The very fact that so much of their financial affairs are hidden, means that their value cannot be set against cost. So we have no known ‘value’ and no known ‘money’ making the assertion that they are vfm an article of faith rather than reason.

Too many confusing adjectives or not, the question of the vfm of the monarchy is a question that cannot be answered until the monarchy is open and transparent, instead of secretive and self serving.
 
There are two basic kinds of person who think the royal family are a benign benefit to the UK:

1. Simple people who see nothing but exciting pomp and live vicariously through the idea of 'royal Britain'.
2. Trad conservatives who have an emotional attachment to a groundless idea of 'tradition' and invest this ultimately in the concept of royal freeloaders.
 
Le Baron said:
There are two basic kinds of person who think the royal family are a benign benefit to the UK:

1. Simple people who see nothing but exciting pomp and live vicariously through the idea of 'royal Britain'.
2. Trad conservatives who have an emotional attachment to a groundless idea of 'tradition' and invest this ultimately in the concept of royal freeloaders.
Click to expand...
I think a monarchy also appeals to those who want or need something to look up to. Which is why a love of monarchy seems to go hand in hand with a love of God and a fear of the absence of an overlord.
 
Le Baron said:
The matter is simple. No society should be funding the expensive lifestyles of highly expensive freeloaders. Other people who are able-bodied are called 'fit to work' and denied support or condemned if they don't secure paid work.
Click to expand...
That's a valid point. However, the royals do have various duties and obligations, and their lives are to a large extent following a script. I for one would not wish to trade places with one of them, especially not one in line for the throne.
 
mansr said:
That's a valid point. However, the royals do have various duties and obligations, and their lives are to a large extent following a script. I for one would not wish to trade places with one of them, especially not one in line for the throne.
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but we don't to trade places with them, just to put them among us because they are not special.
 
Le Baron said:
The matter is simple. No society should be funding the expensive lifestyles of highly expensive freeloaders. Other people who are able-bodied are called 'fit to work' and denied support or condemned if they don't secure paid work. The imaginary view of certain people designated by a god (or by a superstitious population) to sit at the top of a hierarchy, which is then justified after-the-fact as being 'a tourism draw', is a failure of meaningful reason.

The 'tourism draw' is an unsustainable false argument. In any case you can't justify unnecessary and wasteful domestic spending by referring to foreign-derived income (which is but a fraction of total tourist income anyway). It's pure drivel.
Click to expand...

which monarchy are you describing? Your ideas seem to vaguely based on something on TV that was set in? 1700 ish ?

The current Monarch works a 10 hour day on our behalf, and has for 70 years. Of course they are wealthy, she’s the queen FFS.
As to your other post and the insights into who loves a monarchy, I can’t agree there either. A bit simplistic and very rude to so many. Maybe you didn’t mean to be patronising and dismissive, but it sure comes across as though you do. There are more than three shades of grey in the world, and a little thought would perhaps have allowed you to see that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top