4 ms·
Looking at the current estimates from the UN, if you completely liquidated the British monarchy and got good value for all the seized assets, you could feed the
by jws 4y ago
Looking at the current estimates from the UN, if you completely liquidated the British monarchy and got good value for all the seized assets, you could feed the hungry for 6 months.
- tpush 4y ago[flagged]
- LeoPanthera 4y agoThe Royal Family makes a profit for the British government. Removing them would be a long-term loss. A better solution is for the British government to actually give a shit about the poor, but they don't.
- fullshark 4y agoPerhaps I am dense, but how? Do you see the royal family as a positive branding exercise or something, inspiring people to work harder?
- LeoPanthera 4y agoYou can read the finances in detail here, which is now a few years old, but still relevant. https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report...
- Jensson 4y agoThe royal family owns a lot of land and they let the state use it for free. Of course you could take that land from then when you dethrone them, but since we respect property rights of billionaires we probably wouldn't.
- jleyank 4y agoThey’re not billionaires in a liquid sense. Read in the bbc or guardian that the current pm (sunak) was wealthier than the queen. And people on HN love to talk about some billionaires…
- ljf 4y agoPalace of Versailles draws more tourists than the Royal Family in the UK. France has not had a royal family for some time.
- flarg 4y agoThey don't make a profit and they don't give a shit. Britain's biggest recipients of state benefits and they still don't pay inheritance tax.
- flarg 4y agoThey cost 345 million a year in money that we give to them.