It's The Queens Birthday Day.

maryishere

actually they are subsidising you.

dr.fuzzenstein

karma_ wrote: »

If you're going to bring literature into an argument, you should understand it, otherwise it can make one look very stupid.

alrighty.

What point? We aren't arguing about democracy. You are trying to convince me why it is I should have no problem with handing over money to a wealthy person (even if it is only 53p a year).

I'm a fairly reasonable guy, I can take a rational argument and can be convinced by it, but so far you've just told me to; read Orwell??, get out of my own home or employ democracy... so yeah, give me one good reason why I should feel fine about handing that cash over and I will pledge never to bring the matter up again as long as I breathe.

I'm saying you can have a problem, you can complain, but if your point of view is not shared with the majority of people, I'm afraid you're sh*t out of luck. So no, you don't have to be fine about handing over the money. But you have to hand it over all the same. The democracy part is, you can complain as long and as loud as you want about it. As for fair and reasonable, Jesus I wouldn't want to see you if you really got screwed over...

karma_

maryishere wrote: »

actually they are subsidising you.

Vapid response, as usual mary, as usual.

maryishere

the truth may hurt

Anyway, how a government spends or invests its money is democracy. As someone else said, your point of view is not shared with the majority of people, I'm afraid you're sh*t out of luck.

karma_

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

alrighty.



I'm saying you can have a problem, you can complain, but if your point of view is not shared with the majority of people, I'm afraid you're sh*t out of luck. So no, you don't have to be fine about handing over the money. But you have to hand it over all the same. The democracy part is, you can complain as long and as loud as you want about it. As for fair and reasonable, Jesus I wouldn't want to see you if you really got screwed over...

And that's fair enough, all I'm asking.

karma_

maryishere wrote: »

the truth may hurt

Anyway, how a government spends or invests its money is democracy. As someone else said, your point of view is not shared with the majority of people, I'm afraid you're sh*t out of luck.

Truth?

Here's a spot of truth for you, I've seen you call others entitled on here, I've seen you argue that the likes of teachers get paid too much, yet here you are, using 'democracy' no less as an argument for bankrolling a royal family.

Do you smell that mary? It's called hypocrisy.

FA Hayek

karma_ wrote: »

In all seriousness... how the f**k is that ironic?

Butthurt Irish republicans who bemoan the fact that there is an English Royal family yet more than happy to move to the UK to earn their bread. They resent historical interference of the UK in Irish matters but will voice their opposition to the royal family while living in said country. Its ironic.

Having a Queen impacts on ones life 0% of the time. Its insecure hogwash.

FA Hayek

karma_ wrote: »

Penned by a socialist, how does that even help your point of view?

Orwell was also a fierce critic of Socialism and the nature of power.

Lurkio

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In addition to this the Royal family are financed by the Queen's own hereditary wealth. If she were to become a private citizen, Mrs. Windsor, her wealth would be her own and the government would have to finance an entirely new office of President. From wikipedia:

Such staunch defence. Truly I had no idea that libertarian monarchists were a thing.

line console zero

The Republic of Ireland -

2 government houses (An upper and lower), with 1 largley ceremonial leader. Local government is delegated to local authorities called councils. The legal system is built upon British common law.

The United Kingdom -

2 government houses (An upper and lower), with 1 largley ceremonial leader. Local government is delegated to local authorities called councils.The legal system is built upon British common law.

Lurkio

maryishere wrote: »

She does not really own the castle any more than the Pope owns the Vatican. She is just passing through, a sort of custodian, a sort of caretaker. She cannot sell Buckingham Palace and other castles and gamble the money in ladbrookes.
Here in Ireland we spend a lot more than 53 pence a year on our bunch.

Back in yet another thread lauding the Brits and slagging off the paddies jimmy mary?

biko

The amount of WestBrits in this thread :eek:

biko

biko wrote: »

The amount of WestBrits in this thread :eek:

Well, what do you expect to see in a thread titled " It's The Queens Birthday"! Sydney Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain..."

Dick phelan

As i'v stated i don't specifically hate the Queen, i hate the institution of monarchy, i'd feel the exact same if i wasn't Irish btw, Ironic people suggest to get into the 21st century we should embrace the Queen, The Monarchy is the most outdated institution going, If one thing needs to get into this century it's Britain and elsewhere which still believes a head of state should be born not chosen by the people.

Dick phelan

The idea that the Royal family generate more then they cost is a myth, do people honestly think if there's no monarchy tourists still won't visit, the castles, Palace ect, There's Castles and stuff all over the world and guess what people still visit them regardless, how many people honestly visit Britain on holiday because an old lady still lives in a Palace?

Dick phelan

Britain is not a democracy it's a shame of one, An unelected head of state, an election system which does not represent the people, despite the majority of people not voting Conservative they have complete power, Brtain like Ireland is also answerable to Europe and often to people who we don't elect.

Iwasfrozen

Dick phelan wrote: »

The idea that the Royal family generate more then they cost is a myth, do people honestly think if there's no monarchy tourists still won't visit, the castles, Palace ect, There's Castles and stuff all over the world and guess what people still visit them regardless, how many people honestly visit Britain on holiday because an old lady still lives in a Palace?

A lot less would visit.

Also as has been pointed out the Queen's cost is taken from the revenues generated by her own inherited property which are placed under government control.

If the Queen were to be removed the new President would need to be paid for without these revenues.

The flying mouse

Dont mind the queen, it was my birthday last tuesday and not did i get one well wish of any of ye,I We are was not amused.

Happy Belated Birthday to The Flying Mouse!

Happy now??

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, what do you expect to see in a thread titled " It's The Queens Birthday"! Sydney Opera House perhaps? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest sweeping majestically across the plain..."

God, I love that episode.

topmanamillion

Unless the OP is British, why refer to her as the Queen?
Monarchs are usually referenced by the country/jurisdiction.
For example the King of Saudi, King of Spain, British Queen/Queen of Britain!

I wonder did they stick on the home movie of them all doing Nazi salutes?

karma_

FA Hayek wrote: »

Orwell was also a fierce critic of Socialism and the nature of power.

Thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic Socialism as I understand it."

-George Orwell

Congrats on making yourself look ignorant.

line console zero

George Orwell was a miserable and chronically depressed man with an extremely cynical and low opinion of humanity and the world around him, so I would not look to him for any answers.

karma_

line console zero wrote: »

George Orwell was a miserable and chronically depressed man with an extremely cynical and low opinion of humanity and the world around him, so I would not look to him for any answers.

So he's wrong about the dangers of totalitarianism?

youreadthat

topmanamillion wrote: »

Unless the OP is British, why refer to her as the Queen?
Monarchs are usually referenced by the country/jurisdiction.
For example the King of Saudi, King of Spain, British Queen/Queen of Britain!

I wonder did they stick on the home movie of them all doing Nazi salutes?

The same reason Brits don't specify 'Dublin, Ireland' every time they mention it. How many people will think you meant Dublin, Indiana?

Dick phelan

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A lot less would visit.

Also as has been pointed out the Queen's cost is taken from the revenues generated by her own inherited property which are placed under government control.

If the Queen were to be removed the new President would need to be paid for without these revenues.

Nonsense, France hasn't had a monarchy for a long time, plenty of people still vising Versailles. If you honestly think people will visit a country because they have a monarch then i don't no what to say to you.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

So he's wrong about the dangers of totalitarianism?

He's 100% correct about the dangers of investing too much power with government.

Iwasfrozen

Dick phelan wrote: »

Nonsense, France hasn't had a monarchy for a long time, plenty of people still vising Versailles. If you honestly think people will visit a country because they have a monarch then i don't no what to say to you.

Well the monarchy isn't going anywhere so I guess we'll never know eh?

line console zero

karma_ wrote: »

line console zero wrote: »

George Orwell was a miserable and chronically depressed man with an extremely cynical and low opinion of humanity and the world around him, so I would not look to him for any answers.

So he's wrong about the dangers of totalitarianism?

For some cultures totalitariansim works. For others Western democracy works. What has been proven without a doubt is that true socialism does not work.

BBDBB

The royal family in place is a massive cause of tourist interest, excitement and they spend a fortune. Don't believe me? Go hang around outside Windsor castle, Edinburgh castle & Buckingham palace and listen. People come from all over the world to visit these places (amongst others in Britain) they hang around outside watching the spectacle that accompanies a royal family in residence ( most haven't a clue whether a royal is there or not) but guards being changed, flags on display, etc and they watch for twitching curtains on balconies, ponder over no entry signs and then fork out for guided tours of dungeons and jewels and suits of armour. It's all part of the same attraction. They damn near wet themselves if a limo passes by.

The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise. Tourism is a massive income for the uk and the royal family are a central theme of most tourists visits both directly and indirectly

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He's 100% correct about the dangers of investing too much power with government.

You'll have no bother backing up where Orwell says this?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

You'll have no bother backing up where Orwell says this?

Sure, he mentions it in a few writings but if you start on the first page of 1984 and work your way to the last page what's between them is probably the best known warning on the existence of big government ever written.

Stalinism, nationalism, collectivism, patriotism and war are all trashed.

karma_

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Sure, he mentions it in a few writings but if you start on the first page of 1984 and work your way to the last page what's between them is probably the best known warning on the existence of big government ever written.

Stalinism, nationalism, collectivism, patriotism and war are all trashed.

Except that we were talking about socialism and it takes a special kind of stupid to bring up Orwell in defence of the monarchy and in an attack on socialism itself. You're just misrepresenting the man.

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Except that we were talking about socialism and it takes a special kind of stupid to bring up Orwell in defence of the monarchy and in an attack on socialism itself. You're just misrepresenting the man.

Except I've done no such thing.

Orwell was a socialist, he fought as a private in the Spanish civil war but it's clear his work for the British Ministry of information during WW2 made him weary of big government and the intoxicating effect of nationalism on a person's mind. Viscount Bracken was basically O'Brien.

He was also probably a little gay for Bracken.

Dirty Dingus McGee

BBDBB wrote: »

The royal family in place is a massive cause of tourist interest, excitement and they spend a fortune. Don't believe me? Go hang around outside Windsor castle, Edinburgh castle & Buckingham palace and listen. People come from all over the world to visit these places (amongst others in Britain) they hang around outside watching the spectacle that accompanies a royal family in residence ( most haven't a clue whether a royal is there or not) but guards being changed, flags on display, etc and they watch for twitching curtains on balconies, ponder over no entry signs and then fork out for guided tours of dungeons and jewels and suits of armour. It's all part of the same attraction. They damn near wet themselves if a limo passes by.

The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise. Tourism is a massive income for the uk and the royal family are a central theme of most tourists visits both directly and indirectly

I doubt that very much.

Of the top 50 tourist attractions in the UK in 2013 very few of them had any link with the royal family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2986259/Epping-Forest-receives-4-4million-visitors-Brighton-Pier-10-site-outside-London-UK-s-popular-visitor-attractions-revealed.html

BBDBB

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I doubt that very much.

Of the top 50 tourist attractions in the UK in 2013 very few of them had any link with the royal family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2986259/Epping-Forest-receives-4-4million-visitors-Brighton-Pier-10-site-outside-London-UK-s-popular-visitor-attractions-revealed.html

It's part of the package though, it's part of the appeal

Put yourself in the mind of tourists, they visit places to sample the "culture", not the real culture, but some romanticised picture they've got from tv and the imagination of the countries tourist board and travel companies. Most don't distinguish what's genuinely Royal and what's historic when it comes to Britain.

Like it or loathe it the thing that Britain can do with some gloss over their imperialism is the pomp and ceremony bit and there is money to be made in it. Central to that is a real life royal family



Ps I had to laugh at the daily mail list including avenham & Miller park at number 42. Whichever stats compiled to make that possible has to be taken with a pinch of salt


Pps just taking a second look at that top 50 tourist attractions in Britain, what's interesting about its accuracy/ credibility is what's not in the top 50, none of the following made that top 50
Windsor castle, Edinburgh Warwick castle, Leeds castle
Eton
Oxford, Stratford upon Avon, Bristol, Cambridge
Legoland, Alton towers, chessington, Madame Tussaud's
Cheltenham, Bath, cheddar gorge, Stonehenge, the Cotswolds, Yorkshire moors, Dartmoor moors, Cornwall
Seaside resorts like Blackpool, Southend, Skegness,


That list is full of gaping holes, something is definitely iffy about it

Strazdas

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I doubt that very much.

Of the top 50 tourist attractions in the UK in 2013 very few of them had any link with the royal family.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-2986259/Epping-Forest-receives-4-4million-visitors-Brighton-Pier-10-site-outside-London-UK-s-popular-visitor-attractions-revealed.html

Slightly misleading. Many tourists simply show up outside Buckingham Palace and take photos and videos, as well as watching the Changing of the Guard every day.

That list refers to paying customers at tourist attractions. There's no way Buckingham Palace is behind Cadbury World and Merseyside Maritime Museum in terms of tourists.

Dirty Dingus McGee

BBDBB wrote: »

It's part of the package though, it's part of the appeal

Put yourself in the mind of tourists, they visit places to sample the "culture", not the real culture, but some romanticised picture they've got from tv and the imagination of the countries tourist board and travel companies. Most don't distinguish what's genuinely Royal and what's historic when it comes to Britain.

Like it or loathe it the thing that Britain can do with some gloss over their imperialism is the pomp and ceremony bit and there is money to be made in it. Central to that is a real life royal family



Ps I had to laugh at the daily mail list including avenham & Miller park at number 42. Whichever stats compiled to make that possible has to be taken with a pinch of salt

I doubt the removal of the current royal family would make any difference to tourism.What you mention is all history it's the same reason the old west attracts tourists to the USA even though there aren't any Cowboys and Indians around any more (or in the way people are interested in them anyway).The current royal family don't make a huge amount of difference, the palace at Verailles being one of Europe's top tourist destinations despite France not having a royal family for 300 years is evidence of the negligible impact the present day British royals have on tourism in the UK.

Lots of tourists are interested in history and the history is what attracts most tourists not the present day incarnation of the royals in Britain.

The palace of Versailles is open to the public, Buckingham Palace is not.
That makes a big difference to the number of visitors who go into those palaces.

BBDBB

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I doubt the removal of the current royal family would make any difference to tourism.What you mention is all history it's the same reason the old west attracts tourists to the USA even though there aren't any Cowboys and Indians around any more (or in the way people are interested in them anyway).The current royal family don't make a huge amount of difference, the palace at Verailles being one of Europe's top tourist destinations despite France not having a royal family for 300 years is evidence of the negligible impact the present day British royals have on tourism in the UK.

Lots of tourists are interested in history and the history is what attracts most tourists not the present day incarnation of the royals in Britain.

An ongoing history adds to the historic value you rightly identify and to the added flavour that adds, especially in today's world of paparazzi and celeb magazines. The existence of a current royal family and all the vacuous gossip and intrigue that surround them add a piquancy over and above a ruined castle, a gilded room of paintings or a good ol fashioned gen-u-wine ranch. The merchandise those other places produce and sell is not based on the current state of the place or its current function, it's based on the history of when France used to have a royal family, and when Cowboys and Indians were around and in conflict as depicted by the cinema

gormdubhgorm

Are Gerry and Martin going to give her the bumps this year?

FA Hayek

karma_ wrote: »

-George Orwell

Congrats on making yourself look ignorant.

Democratic Socialism of the 40's and 50's. Not modern day Socialism which is Marxist or the AAA-PBP kind which would have us all living in a modern day Cuba.

If he were alive today, he would be scathing in his writings about the regressive left and its thought police.

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot

Beefy78

karma_ wrote: »

That's hardly the point though is it? It's my f**king 53p and I don;t really want to give someone who is a millionaire already, many times over a single damn penny of mine. Why should I?

That's what makes it so nauseating when the most 'libertarian' 'free market' shillers spout nonsense like 'it's only 53p!' It's the fúcking principle.

And as for the argument about them bringing in more revenue, it's a moot point, for the security figures have never been made public.

Send me your bank details and I'll pay your 53p. **** it I'll send you a quid if it'll cheer you up a bit.

Bongalongherb

I thought the dole thread was bad with sucking money from taxpayers. She lives by sucking off the working taxpayers to live in her extravagant lifestyle and folk think she is great ? WTF. Send her and her family out there into the real world and pay taxes instead of lizard sucking.


This comment above is an example of true entitlement and living off the back of the hard working class.

maryishere

Bongalongherb wrote: »

This comment above is an example of true entitlement and living off the back of the hard working class.

The Queen actually was a mechanic during the war. Some years after the war, she was on the way someplace in a car, the car broke down and she was the one who fixed it. More to the point, as someone else says "The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise."

Bongalongherb wrote: »

Send her and her family out there into the real world

It the finances of the UK are not real world I do not know what is. Why not send our President and his hangers on in to the real world because he costs us a lot more than the Royal family cost the British, and at least the Royal family more than pay for themselves. You will find crowds outside Buckingham palace from all over the world wanting a glimpse of the Queen ; how many would cross the street to see the President?

So you are against the 53 pence per year the British pay for the Royal family. Are you also against the money it takes from us to keep our President and family and ex Presidents and families and hangers on, and the money the Spanish spend on their Royal family, the Damish on theirs etc.

maryishere

maryishere wrote: »

The Queen actually was a mechanic during the war. Some years after the war, she was on the way someplace in a car, the car broke down and she was the one who fixed it. More to the point, as someone else says "The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise."

.

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-best-story-about-the-queen-you-will-read-today--eJYX859rsl

You are not supposed to repeat what the Queen says in private conversation. But the story she told me on that occasion was one that I was also to hear later from its subject - Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - and it is too funny not to repeat. Five years earlier, in September 1998, Abdullah had been invited up to Balmoral, for lunch with the Queen. Following his brother King Fahd's stroke in 1995, Abdullah was already the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia. After lunch, the Queen had asked her royal guest whether he would like a tour of the estate. Prompted by his Foreign Minister, the urbane Prince Saud, an initially hesitant Abdullah agreed. The royal Land Rovers were drawn up in front of the castle. As instructed, the Crown Prince climbed into the front seat of the front Land Rover, with his interpreter in the seat behind. To his surprise, the Queen climbed into the driving seat, turned the ignition and drove off. Women are not - yet - allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen. His nervousness only increased as the Queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead.

namloc1980

maryishere wrote: »

The Queen actually was a mechanic during the war. Some years after the war, she was on the way someplace in a car, the car broke down and she was the one who fixed it. More to the point, as someone else says "The income their presence generates is enormous and comfortably outweighs the cost, especially when you take into account the ancillary businesses that feed off tourism such as hotels, coaches, taxis & merchandise."

It the finances of the UK are not real world I do not know what is.

So you are against the 53 pence per year the British pay for the Royal family. Are you also against the money it takes from us to keep our President and family and ex Presidents and families and hangers on, and the money the Spanish spend on their Royal family, the Damish on theirs etc.

You're making the assumption that vast numbers of tourists come to the UK specifically for the current incarnation of the royal family. But that makes no sense given former royal palaces and castles in the likes of France and Germany get far more visitors than UK versions get. If the only draw for tourists was a Royal family then nobody would be bothered going to Versailles.

namloc1980

namloc1980 wrote: »

You're making the assumption that vast numbers of tourists come to the UK specifically for the current incarnation of the royal family. But that makes no sense given former royal palaces and castles in the likes of France and Germany get far more visitors than UK versions get. If the only draw for tourists was a Royal family then nobody would be bothered going to Versailles.

and you're forgetting that most of the royal palaces in the UK are closed to the public, so they can't get visitors!

Dirty Dingus McGee

Deleted User wrote: »

http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/the-best-story-about-the-queen-you-will-read-today--eJYX859rsl

Woman Drives Land Rover. What an incredible story and achievement.

karma_

Deleted User wrote: »

and you're forgetting that most of the royal palaces in the UK are closed to the public, so they can't get visitors!

So you're saying we should off the royals and open them all up to visitors, sounds good to me.