You guys heard the latest about the Khardashians? I mean, might as well discuss, while we're talking about useless families.
You guys heard the latest about the Khardashians? I mean, might as well discuss, while we're talking about useless families.
Voted than one up!!
Make me a revenue sucking Royal and I'll watch, he'll I'd even go. Aston Martins are cool when someone fixes them for you.
1988RedT2 said:NickD said:Beer Baron said:Maybe if Charles has a short reign....
I feel like it's going to be by default. I mean, how old is the guy? He's no spring chicken.
The man's only 75. With modern medical technology, he could live for decades. It's not like he's going to work himself to death.
Not to mention his mom made it to 96, his dad all the way to 99, and his grandmother to 101. Those are some pretty good genes, longevity-wise.
Mr_Asa said:From everything I've been seeing online, even the Brits aren't too happy with the coronation.
"Massive amount of struggling within the country, and these billionaire leeches decide to throw a massive party celebrating a thing that doesn't mean anything? Piss off" kinda vibes.
That pretty much sums up the opinion and attitude of a fair number of my friends in the UK.
The bit about the public being invited to pledge allegiance to the new guy with the funny expensive hat as part of the ceremony has also riled up a bunch of people. Apparently that's a new "bright" idea as well, last time that was restricted to the aristocracy where there obviously was historical precedent.
One might be tempted to celebrate it by driving to Boston and drop a tea bag or two in the harbour, but that would probably get one into trouble even with it being a proud tradition and all that.
Hard to comment further on this without getting political, so I'll keep that part of my opinion to myself.
1988RedT2 said:NickD said:Beer Baron said:Maybe if Charles has a short reign....
I feel like it's going to be by default. I mean, how old is the guy? He's no spring chicken.
The man's only 75. With modern medical technology, he could live for decades. It's not like he's going to work himself to death.
Plus he can probably eke out a few more years just to spite Meghan The Actress 
.
As usual, my Twitter showing me things I have no interest in. Except, someone gave the bastard the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch?!?
In reply to RevRico :
And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it."
One!... Two!... Five!
BoxheadTim said:Mr_Asa said:From everything I've been seeing online, even the Brits aren't too happy with the coronation.
"Massive amount of struggling within the country, and these billionaire leeches decide to throw a massive party celebrating a thing that doesn't mean anything? Piss off" kinda vibes.
That pretty much sums up the opinion and attitude of a fair number of my friends in the UK.
The bit about the public being invited to pledge allegiance to the new guy with the funny expensive hat as part of the ceremony has also riled up a bunch of people. Apparently that's a new "bright" idea as well, last time that was restricted to the aristocracy where there obviously was historical precedent.
One might be tempted to celebrate it by driving to Boston and drop a tea bag or two in the harbour, but that would probably get one into trouble even with it being a proud tradition and all that.
Hard to comment further on this without getting political, so I'll keep that part of my opinion to myself.
Maybe Adrian will weigh in, but it seems that the monarchy is cash-positive for the UK because of all the tourism it generates. I can see it.
Not a Briton, but I think the exception that many of the younger generation in the UK take is that a wealthy monarchy making more wealth for bigger corporations via tourism is like the rich paying the rich. Their argument (as I understand it) is the same argument that has surrounded the monarchies of Europe for a thousand years: The centralization of wealth at the control of the rich, ruling class doesn't do much for people dying of starvation and lack of financial security.
TL;DR - a net positive from having a monarchy only works for the poor if they are the beneficiaries of that profit.
See Also: USA. (we do the same E36 M3)
Did I see the Grim Reaper walk through the lobby of the Cathedral or was I mistaken?
In reply to fasted58 :
Clearly a Sith master.
In reply to Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) :
I mean, Monarchy IS an absolute...
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:BoxheadTim said:Mr_Asa said:From everything I've been seeing online, even the Brits aren't too happy with the coronation.
"Massive amount of struggling within the country, and these billionaire leeches decide to throw a massive party celebrating a thing that doesn't mean anything? Piss off" kinda vibes.
That pretty much sums up the opinion and attitude of a fair number of my friends in the UK.
The bit about the public being invited to pledge allegiance to the new guy with the funny expensive hat as part of the ceremony has also riled up a bunch of people. Apparently that's a new "bright" idea as well, last time that was restricted to the aristocracy where there obviously was historical precedent.
One might be tempted to celebrate it by driving to Boston and drop a tea bag or two in the harbour, but that would probably get one into trouble even with it being a proud tradition and all that.
Hard to comment further on this without getting political, so I'll keep that part of my opinion to myself.
Maybe Adrian will weigh in, but it seems that the monarchy is cash-positive for the UK because of all the tourism it generates. I can see it.
I'm trying to not be overly cynical and political on this - yes, this gets trotted out fairly regularly as one of the big reasons to keep the monarchy. That, and the impact on the "international image"[1].
The problem I have with this particular calculation is that it pins the money the government (ie, Joe "Taxpayer" Bloggs) hands over to the monarchy via the Sovereign Grant to the contribution to the overall economy. That's the pretty typical approach, and in the other studies I've seen in the past, especially when I lived in the UK, the authors usually didn't look at how much of that contribution to the economy actually ended up back in the government's coffers.
This article at least is honest enough to include the contribution of the Crown Estates, which is a nice way of saying that "The Crown" (and I don't mean the TV show) is by far the largest landowner of Great Britain. And that's not in a way similar to, say, BLM land, but in the "gerrof moi land" way instead. None of these calculations include how alternative ownership would impact the economy, for example.
I'm pretty sure that France is still benefiting from their monarchy tourism wise, despite their, err, history of a somewhat "abridged" monarchy. And I know that Bavaria also is, with their top tourist attractions other than the Oktoberfest being leftovers from the monarchy after they got rid of said monarch before he completely ruined the country.
This is definitely not clear cut as either way, but I think it very much would benefit the British monarchy to look at some of the other constitutional monarchies in Europe who seem to manage to be a lot less divisive than this lot.
It's also not "just" the monarchy - they're mainly the visible part of the iceberg, the system there that is spearheaded by the monarchy also ensures that the aristocracy and the adjacent old boy's club have their say in maintaining the status quo if they've been elected or not.
[1] Oz might disagree on that one, but that's getting very much into the political realm with them misplacing a prime minister with help from Lizzie and all that. But here, we're getting political - the important point here is that the Crown as an institution is less apolitical as their public image is supposed to suggest and less apolitical than one would expect from a constitutional monarchy.
Maybe Scotland will finally be free.
I think that whole system is well past its sell by date........
Thru the little I saw I'd love to see a Monty Python skit break out......that Eric dude with a high voice.....or maybe that was me doing wacky English accents...
BoxheadTim said:Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:BoxheadTim said:Mr_Asa said:From everything I've been seeing online, even the Brits aren't too happy with the coronation.
"Massive amount of struggling within the country, and these billionaire leeches decide to throw a massive party celebrating a thing that doesn't mean anything? Piss off" kinda vibes.
That pretty much sums up the opinion and attitude of a fair number of my friends in the UK.
The bit about the public being invited to pledge allegiance to the new guy with the funny expensive hat as part of the ceremony has also riled up a bunch of people. Apparently that's a new "bright" idea as well, last time that was restricted to the aristocracy where there obviously was historical precedent.
One might be tempted to celebrate it by driving to Boston and drop a tea bag or two in the harbour, but that would probably get one into trouble even with it being a proud tradition and all that.
Hard to comment further on this without getting political, so I'll keep that part of my opinion to myself.
Maybe Adrian will weigh in, but it seems that the monarchy is cash-positive for the UK because of all the tourism it generates. I can see it.
I'm trying to not be overly cynical and political on this - yes, this gets trotted out fairly regularly as one of the big reasons to keep the monarchy. That, and the impact on the "international image"[1].
The problem I have with this particular calculation is that it pins the money the government (ie, Joe "Taxpayer" Bloggs) hands over to the monarchy via the Sovereign Grant to the contribution to the overall economy. That's the pretty typical approach, and in the other studies I've seen in the past, especially when I lived in the UK, the authors usually didn't look at how much of that contribution to the economy actually ended up back in the government's coffers.
This article at least is honest enough to include the contribution of the Crown Estates, which is a nice way of saying that "The Crown" (and I don't mean the TV show) is by far the largest landowner of Great Britain. And that's not in a way similar to, say, BLM land, but in the "gerrof moi land" way instead. None of these calculations include how alternative ownership would impact the economy, for example.
I'm pretty sure that France is still benefiting from their monarchy tourism wise, despite their, err, history of a somewhat "abridged" monarchy. And I know that Bavaria also is, with their top tourist attractions other than the Oktoberfest being leftovers from the monarchy after they got rid of said monarch before he completely ruined the country.
This is definitely not clear cut as either way, but I think it very much would benefit the British monarchy to look at some of the other constitutional monarchies in Europe who seem to manage to be a lot less divisive than this lot.
It's also not "just" the monarchy - they're mainly the visible part of the iceberg, the system there that is spearheaded by the monarchy also ensures that the aristocracy and the adjacent old boy's club have their say in maintaining the status quo if they've been elected or not.
[1] Oz might disagree on that one, but that's getting very much into the political realm with them misplacing a prime minister with help from Lizzie and all that. But here, we're getting political - the important point here is that the Crown as an institution is less apolitical as their public image is supposed to suggest and less apolitical than one would expect from a constitutional monarchy.
You'll need to log in to post.
