Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know why the topic of conversation got so derailed but I'm actually against the monarchy....we were discussing the dynamics of many Americans' attitudes towards the poor. Care to add?
Neither a presidential system or a monarchy are cheap BTW. My reasons for wanting Britain to be a republic are purely ideological, not financial. I also respect people's opinions enough not to just call them "wrong" for defending the monarchy as I also see their points to some extent.
Paris is still a far more popular tourist attraction than London. It certainly hasn't suffered from a lack of visitors as a result of not having a Royal family to gawp at. Who sees the Royals when they come to London anyhow? It's not as if Queenie pops her head out of the window to wave at the peasants below as they pass Buckingham Palace in the car. I sometimes look out of mild curiosity at the Palace and see whether the flag is at full mast to indicate whether the Queen is in or not but I can't see what difference it would make as a tourist attraction if the Queen was no longer head of State. After all, the Tower Of London is probably the biggest crowd puller in London yet we don't need to see prisoners in shackles and chains or the axeman wielding his axe to attract tourists to the venue.
Whatever angle you're coming from here the tourism argument is not only extremely debatable but also practically impossible to verify. Some people are such simpering apologists for the monarchy to the extent that I even heard many callers to a radio phione inthe other day trying to defend the need for a taxpayer funded yacht for the Royals to the tune of £60 million pounds. And this was before the Tories came out in the press and tried to placate charges of squandering taxpayers money in the midst of an economic downturn by reassuring the public that the private sector would pick up the tab.
Again, the tourism argument was used. It would bring in revenue wherever it went etc.... Yet if the Royals are such an attraction why do they need to be in a yacht? And why do they need to be funded by the taxpayer? If they pay for themselves then let them pay for themselves like the rest of us have to do.
It always amazes me how the argument for investment in health, education, training, manufacturing and jobs is always shouted down by monarchists who are usually the first to roll out the cliched 'we have to tighten our beltstraps', 'cut our cloth accordingly' and 'scrimp and save for a rainy day' mantra when applying similar logic to anything other than the public purse subsidising the extravagant and lavish lifestyles of an outdated and irrelevant Royal family that have enough funds and assets to live a life of luxury from here to eternity anyway.
I could be wrong but I think BH was being sarcastic in his description of Versailles?
Since the monarchy is self funding, there is no reason to abolish it, except it's 'old fashioned'..
By the way, London is the most visited city in the world by international tourists with around 15million..
The fact that much of the wealth that pays for the royals is notionally theirs doesn't make them 'self-funding' , and besides, there are lots of lines of argument for and against keeping them that don't relate to cost.
Since the monarchy is self funding, there is no reason to abolish it, except it's 'old fashioned'..
By the way, London is the most visited city in the world by international tourists with around 15million..
Wrong I'm afraid. I'm always wary of posters that tend to try it on without backing up their assumptions with statistical evidence. Paris is in fact the number one tourist destination in the world. Who says so? Not just me I'm afraid but also that much heralded of French propagandists your beloved Daily Mail. Sacre bleu!.
Paris - officially the world's most popular tourist destination in terms of number of visitors - tied in second place on 79 with Amsterdam.
I didn't think you would be able to explain why - so I'll go ahead and explain why they are not 'self funded'. I can't possibly understand how you could even suggest that they are self funding given that they do not work, but:
They are currently funded by a 'civil list' payment which is an offset by the treasury (tax money) for expenses - upkeep of palaces, travel, security etc. In 2013 this will be replaced by a 'sovereign grant' which is basically a payment for travel, security etc plus a percentage of the profit from the crown estate. Now, the PR is that it is self sustaining because it is a percentage from crown estate profit - buit the truth is that the crown estate is publicly funded to begin with!! It is also dangerous to draw a connection between the crown estate and the monarchy - it doesn't take an understanding of rocket science to figure out why.
15% of profit from the crown estate will be paid to the monarch. Part of the sea bed around the UK is also part of the estate, and given that wind farm production could net 250 million pounds per year this would add additional revenue to be paid directly to the queen rather to the public purse - where it belongs
The notion that the royals are somehow self-funding is ignorant and inaccurate to say the least. I actually had a face-to-face 'conversation' with my MP from Windsor before parliament were due to meet and pass the sovereign grant bill, and after he tried (and failed) in trying to claim that this was a better deal for the treasury he essentially agreed that this was still a missive expense to the taxpayer and shrugged off my request that he voted against the bill.
Oh, and have you read that Prince Andrew is in Davos racking up a nice bill for the taxpayer - explain how that is 'self funded'?
I don't know why the topic of conversation got so derailed but I'm actually against the monarchy....we were discussing the dynamics of many Americans' attitudes towards the poor. Care to add?
Neither a presidential system or a monarchy are cheap BTW. My reasons for wanting Britain to be a republic are purely ideological, not financial. I also respect people's opinions enough not to just call them "wrong" for defending the monarchy as I also see their points to some extent.
The president is democratically elected. They are not appointed through bloodline. End of argument.
Back to the point: Americans attitudes toward the poor have been discussed above, but they are not necessarily different to the UK. In fact, attitudes in the UK toward the poor have grown harder over the past decade, and are toughening further under the conservative party and the rhetoric from the 'economically challeged' (to say the least) David Cameron:
The president is democratically elected. They are not appointed through bloodline. End of argument.
Back to the point: Americans attitudes toward the poor have been discussed above, but they are not necessarily different to the UK. In fact, attitudes in the UK toward the poor have grown harder over the past decade, and are toughening further under the conservative party and the rhetoric from the 'economically challeged' (to say the least) David Cameron:
You're the king (oops sorry, president) of using a straw man in an argument. For the umpteenth time, I agree with you about the monarchy, but for some reason, you feel the need to interject your view on the monarchy into every argument, as if it should simply make Britain look worse every time. I've given you examples of other countries that have constitutional monarchies and low levels of income disparity and high social mobikity.
Britain has alway suffered from class division to some extent, but it's not as bad as it was and it varies by region. I don't dispute that Britain, like anywhere else has a segment of the population that may harbour strong views against welfare. However, it is my personal experience from having lived in the US for several years that the mentality of individuality, personal responsibility and victim blaming when it comes to the poor is considerably more prevalent in the United States than the United Kingdom. You can deny that until you're blue in the face, but you'll find that many Americans on our side of the political spectrum would agree with me.
Healthcare is a classic example of the differences between the two cultures in this regard: in the US, healthcare is seen as a priviledge, in the UK it is seen as an entitlement, or as I prefer to call it, a RIGHT.
What you fail to understand due to your blind defence of the US is that I'm not criticising the US or the UK. I am merely pointing out the difference in the two cultures.
Having been close to poor in both countries, I think that I'm in more of a position to make an honest judgment than you are, because it seems like you live some sort of 'comfy' life and came to America for the usual reasons that most British people come here for...to bank more, to own a bigger home. I can view the US for its good points and bad points more objectively because I don't hate either the US or the UK...you clearly have an axe or two to grind with the UK and with British people in general.
In summary, this is how I see the differences in how both countries view the poor:
The UK: Still has remnants of class division, has a big problem with 'dole dossers' but doesn't have as much of a problem with the working poor, even if they need to claim suppemental benefits.
The US: Forged on different and more individualistic principles in which everyone had the opportunity to rise to the top. As a result, even the working poor are more likely to be seen as failures. There's generally more talk of ending welfare all together.
There is no 'American Dream' equivalent in the UK. We are generally self-defeating at times, Americans can be the opposite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, and besides, there are lots of lines of argument for and against keeping them that don't relate to cost.
.
