4 ms·

> You mean the same public that accepts and sponsors a "royal" class in 2015? We make money from the royals, does that change your opinion?

RabidSquirrel 11y ago
Pimps make money from prostitutes, doesn't make it moral. If you support having a royalty, great, that's certainly your right. If you are against the concept in principle then deciding it's okay since we make money from them seems wrong.
- dijit 11y ago
  Regardless of anything relating to the royals, it is not Queen Elizabeth who is instituting this, it is the democratically elected. Please don't bring in our royals as if they're somehow the reason of anything. There is a symbiotic relationship in regards to the royal family that you have to understand, the people who hate them are jealous- yet would probably not like the spotlight they have. They do bring in a net gain to the country, they are educated enough in certain scenarios to represent us quite well. I don't take exception to them, but if the public /did/ then government could restrict the funding to Her Majesty. (Which has happened a lot before and has constituted the closure of many of her castles.)
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >the people who hate them are jealous You say it like it's a bad thing -- that those jealous should be ashamed of themselves or something, when it's the other way around. Democracy is all about people being jealous of royalty (kings, feuds, pharaohs) having all the power, land, free food and honors, for just being "born" special, and putting and end to that charade.
    - hahainternet 11y ago
      > Democracy is all about people being jealous of royalty (kings, feuds, pharaohs) having all the power, land, free food and honors, for just being "born" special, and putting and end to that charade. I'm curious, are you saying that with a straight face? Because there's no way you can look at capitalism / US politics and believe that it's any different.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        My point wasn't to glorify capitalism/US politics (besides I'm not American). It was to put feudalism in perspective. That said, modern government/economy is unfair too, but at least those on top get their power from something tangible (money) as opposed to some bloodline and most people are not exactly serfs.
      - ionised 11y ago
        The US Republic is a farce of democratic processes for sure, but they at least did that to themselves. They were given a choice. If they fucked it up and created the plutocracy they did, fine. That was their mistake to make. We still have an unelected upper house of parliament that actually has power, as well as our unelected, divinely appointed monarch. We were never given the choice of fucking up our own republic. We should have been by now.
Symbiote 11y ago
According to whom? The figures usually provided show a lot of income from Crown land, which belongs to the state. Or, they put a big figure on tourism -- which would probably be even bigger if tourists could pay to have a look inside the palaces and castles.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  The Crown Estate net profit for the Treasury is around £250m a year - which is pocket money in the national budget. 15% of the profit goes back to the monarch. Incidentally, the Queen still "advises" the Prime Minister in weekly meetings.
coldtea 11y ago
Not in the least. First, because making money isn't a final justification for everything, and especially keeping an antiquated and anti-democratic institution around. Second, because a country can still make money showing off palaces, changes of the guards, its royal past and the like without maintaining a royal class. Heck, maybe even more money, e.g. by expropriating their castles and estates as state property and making them into luxury hotels and such. In fact this whole "we're making money off of them" only counts their annual expenses, and balances it by some touristy influx and purchases (that it also assumes would go totally amiss without the royals). That ignores all the land property they occupy which amounts to tens of billions -- (£7.3 billion for the Crown Estate alone), and which could be state property in a democracy. Finally, there all these "blue blooded" that get a "royal pathway" to politics in the House of Lords and such -- further pushing their agendas and interests into the whole of politics...
ionised 11y ago
Money is irrelevant. They are symbolic of the obscene luxury, wealth, power and elitism that comes from the absurd and archaic concepts of hereditary privilege and 'divine right'. Sod the money, we'll make do without it. Just get rid of them. The fact we still have a queen tells us we’re no more sophisticated than bees.

RabidSquirrel 11y ago

Pimps make money from prostitutes, doesn't make it moral. If you support having a royalty, great, that's certainly your right. If you are against the concept in principle then deciding it's okay since we make money from them seems wrong.

dijit 11y ago
Regardless of anything relating to the royals, it is not Queen Elizabeth who is instituting this, it is the democratically elected. Please don't bring in our royals as if they're somehow the reason of anything. There is a symbiotic relationship in regards to the royal family that you have to understand, the people who hate them are jealous- yet would probably not like the spotlight they have. They do bring in a net gain to the country, they are educated enough in certain scenarios to represent us quite well. I don't take exception to them, but if the public /did/ then government could restrict the funding to Her Majesty. (Which has happened a lot before and has constituted the closure of many of her castles.)
- coldtea 11y ago
  >the people who hate them are jealous You say it like it's a bad thing -- that those jealous should be ashamed of themselves or something, when it's the other way around. Democracy is all about people being jealous of royalty (kings, feuds, pharaohs) having all the power, land, free food and honors, for just being "born" special, and putting and end to that charade.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    > Democracy is all about people being jealous of royalty (kings, feuds, pharaohs) having all the power, land, free food and honors, for just being "born" special, and putting and end to that charade. I'm curious, are you saying that with a straight face? Because there's no way you can look at capitalism / US politics and believe that it's any different.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      My point wasn't to glorify capitalism/US politics (besides I'm not American). It was to put feudalism in perspective. That said, modern government/economy is unfair too, but at least those on top get their power from something tangible (money) as opposed to some bloodline and most people are not exactly serfs.
    - ionised 11y ago
      The US Republic is a farce of democratic processes for sure, but they at least did that to themselves. They were given a choice. If they fucked it up and created the plutocracy they did, fine. That was their mistake to make. We still have an unelected upper house of parliament that actually has power, as well as our unelected, divinely appointed monarch. We were never given the choice of fucking up our own republic. We should have been by now.

Symbiote 11y ago

According to whom? The figures usually provided show a lot of income from Crown land, which belongs to the state. Or, they put a big figure on tourism -- which would probably be even bigger if tourists could pay to have a look inside the palaces and castles.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
The Crown Estate net profit for the Treasury is around £250m a year - which is pocket money in the national budget. 15% of the profit goes back to the monarch. Incidentally, the Queen still "advises" the Prime Minister in weekly meetings.

coldtea 11y ago

Not in the least. First, because making money isn't a final justification for everything, and especially keeping an antiquated and anti-democratic institution around. Second, because a country can still make money showing off palaces, changes of the guards, its royal past and the like without maintaining a royal class. Heck, maybe even more money, e.g. by expropriating their castles and estates as state property and making them into luxury hotels and such. In fact this whole "we're making money off of them" only counts their annual expenses, and balances it by some touristy influx and purchases (that it also assumes would go totally amiss without the royals). That ignores all the land property they occupy which amounts to tens of billions -- (£7.3 billion for the Crown Estate alone), and which could be state property in a democracy. Finally, there all these "blue blooded" that get a "royal pathway" to politics in the House of Lords and such -- further pushing their agendas and interests into the whole of politics...

ionised 11y ago

Money is irrelevant. They are symbolic of the obscene luxury, wealth, power and elitism that comes from the absurd and archaic concepts of hereditary privilege and 'divine right'. Sod the money, we'll make do without it. Just get rid of them. The fact we still have a queen tells us we’re no more sophisticated than bees.