The British Royal Family - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-15-2005, 12:16 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The royal family, itself, is fine if the British people continue to want them, but I would be quite incensed if my tax dollars were being used to support their posh lifestyle.

Melon
Consider the Monarchy a commercial enterprise. The UK takes in considerable $$$ from tourism and an active monarchy is a big tourist draw (think of all the people who line the streets to see the Queen Mum's new hat).
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:27 PM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
TheQuiet1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N.Yorkshire UK
Posts: 3,816
Local Time: 12:41 PM
There's an oft-quoted statistic that the royal family costs a tax payer less than a pint of milk.
__________________

__________________
TheQuiet1 is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:32 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Consider the Monarchy a commercial enterprise. The UK takes in considerable $$$ from tourism and an active monarchy is a big tourist draw (think of all the people who line the streets to see the Queen Mum's new hat).
Queen Mum's new hat with Queen Mum still wearing it?
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:33 PM   #19
New Yorker
 
{paintedroses}'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,064
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Consider the Monarchy a commercial enterprise. The UK takes in considerable $$$ from tourism and an active monarchy is a big tourist draw (think of all the people who line the streets to see the Queen Mum's new hat).
I don't think tourism would suffer that much without an active monarchy. If the monarchy was abolished all parts of royal palaces and castles could be open to the public all year long. The Palace of Versailles in Paris draws in more tourists than Buckingham Palace. The royal arts collection could also be released and displayed in galleries which would bring in tourism from inside the UK as well as other countries.
__________________
{paintedroses} is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:35 PM   #20
New Yorker
 
{paintedroses}'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,064
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by TheQuiet1
There's an oft-quoted statistic that the royal family costs a tax payer less than a pint of milk.
Multiply that by the amount of people in the country and see if you can't think of something better to spend it on.
__________________
{paintedroses} is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:39 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
TheQuiet1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N.Yorkshire UK
Posts: 3,816
Local Time: 12:41 PM
^^Agree about tourism. Although you'd lose some events (no changing of the guard, state opening of parliament etc) Buck palace would become access all areas so to speak. It might actually raise tourism!

^True enough. I guess the compromise would be to follow Norway's example (still have royal family but less glitzy). It is supposed to be the best place on Earth after all so they must know something.
__________________
TheQuiet1 is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:40 PM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
beau2ifulday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Birmingham, UK
Posts: 5,512
Local Time: 11:41 AM
As much as I may dislike our current royal family, I know that I would miss the tradition that they carry if they were to be overthrown tomorrow.
I was very resentful towards them at one point, but i've come to value the traditional values that Britain holds on to. I know most people my age don't feel the same way though.
__________________
beau2ifulday is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:41 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by {paintedroses}


I don't think tourism would suffer that much without an active monarchy. If the monarchy was abolished all parts of royal palaces and castles could be open to the public all year long. The Palace of Versailles in Paris draws in more tourists than Buckingham Palace. The royal arts collection could also be released and displayed in galleries which would bring in tourism from inside the UK as well as other countries.
The mystique of places like Buckingham Palace is based largely on an active Monarchy. There are plenty of old buildings throughout Europe to visit. Not having access to one actually makes it more interesting in a way.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:43 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:41 PM
Most people I know are travelling to London because of the city, not that much because of the monarchy. Of course, they are visiting Buckingham Palace and like to see the change of guard, but in first place they like to visit the city, or other sites of England. Others are more interested in Scotland or Wales.
So, I think most people won't stay out of the country if there was no monarchy. Or I know the wrong persons
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 12:47 PM   #25
New Yorker
 
{paintedroses}'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,064
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Yeah I personally find it a little insulting when people think the only reason anyone visits here is for one family.
__________________
{paintedroses} is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 01:02 PM   #26
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by {paintedroses}
Yeah I personally find it a little insulting when people think the only reason anyone visits here is for one family.
Who said that? I said the Monarchy is a tourist draw - not the "only reason" to visit the city.


Please don't look for reasons to be insulted.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 01:10 PM   #27
New Yorker
 
{paintedroses}'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 3,064
Local Time: 11:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Who said that? I said the Monarchy is a tourist draw - not the "only reason" to visit the city.


Please don't look for reasons to be insulted.
No no I wasn't aiming it at anyone in this thread, just some people's opinions in general! Sorry
__________________
{paintedroses} is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 01:26 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:41 AM
for some reason, my friends are normally suprised to find i'm not the ardent republican they expect me to be.

i wouldn't be too heartbroken if the royal family were to be abolished (the institution, not the individuals in question -- i'd be very upset if someone decided we should start executing royals) but i also don't see any point in investing time and money in getting rid of the royal family.

firstly, the queen is our head of state and as a parliamentary democracy we need a head of state. if we were to abolish the royal family we'd need to choose (presumably by election) an alternative person to fulfil that role and not only pay their salary and expenses but also fund an alternative venue for state dinners, entertaining foreign dignitaries and such since buckingham palace and other royal residences wouldn't be in use.

secondly, and as nbc pointed out, the royal family act as a tourist attraction. certainly they aren't the main reason people visit the uk, but as a british person who's spent time living overseas i can definitely say that one important for some people's interest in the uk is the royal family -- i lost count of how many times i was asked if i'd visited buckingham palace, seen the queen etc.

thirdly, for all you may wish to criticise the royal family they do a lot of important work for charities, voluntary organisations and the like. people seem to have this idea that the queen spends all day sitting in her residence ordering servants to fulfil her every wish -- in fact she works what is essentially a full-time job, although i probably shouldn't get too carried away with that argument since most people would be happy to do her work in return for the affluent lifestyle she has.

fourthly, it's just a nice tradition. i'm one of the least traditionalist people you could meet, but i don't see the point in attacking tradition for the sake of it -- if there's no compelling reason beyond "it's old-fashioned" to abolish the monarchy then let's leave it alone. (and yes, i realise there are other compelling reasons -- i'm just saying that i think that argument in particular is very weak.) people like the monarchy -- young people feel proud of receiving their duke of edinburgh award from the actual duke of edinburgh; nhs workers, teachers, public servants who get invited to one of the events the royal family hold to honour those who have made a real contribution to society; some people just enjoy seeing the royal family on the news or in magazines. certainly the nice tradition/people like them argument wouldn't be a persuasive argument in isolation, but i think there are plenty of other reasons to keep the royal family and the people like them argument is just a postscript to that.

let the "fizz, i'm disappointed in you! how can you support such a reactionary old institution?" comments begin. just kidding.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 01:57 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Vincent Vega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Berlin
Posts: 6,615
Local Time: 12:41 PM
I think the countries having a monarchy are doing very well with it.
I see no reason to abolish them and to replace them by a president or something else.
They are making a good job and still are very important for those countries, if it is charity, or entertainment, or representing or whatever. And they create a special kind of culture which is really nice.
But they shouldn't abuse their status, and they should have a connection to the people of their country, so they represent them really.
__________________
Vincent Vega is offline  
Old 09-15-2005, 08:46 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Personally I think Harry's better-looking than Will, but the whole Nazi thing, ehh not so much.

Anyway I suppose the tabloids need something to write about, although I wouldn't want my tax dollars funding it.
__________________

__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com