A Political Thread pt. 2

[dirty harry]

Charles? You mean the crown that is funded by the taxpayer who have been fleeced by the royals for centuries.

Give him £500 and deport the fucker to Ethiopia like the other nonce.

This subject has always fascinated me...

The Royal famkly cost the taxpayer anywhere from 80 to 500 million per year, but apparently bring in anywhere from 500 million to 2.5 billion per year.

Who knows if they are a net benefit or net loss to the UK, id like some transparency though to find out

 

[Welsh Exile]

This subject has always fascinated me...

The Royal famkly cost the taxpayer anywhere from 80 to 500 million per year, but apparently bring in anywhere from 500 million to 2.5 billion per year.

Who knows if they are a net benefit or net loss to the UK, id like some transparency though to find out

You're right that it's a "who knows" kind of situation partly because we'll never know how badly, if at all, tourism would be hit if we got rid of the royals.

That's what I always hear anyway, the old "ahh but they bring billions in from tourism" my gut feeling is that you'd barely notice any drop in tourism. In fact, I'd argue you could see an increase as if you got rid of them you could open up access to a lot more stuff for tourists to enjoy.

 

[Vaquer]

Humiliation complete.

No plans to remove Andrew from line of succession after losing royal titles, government says

Andrew remains eighth in line to the throne and it would take an act of Parliament to formally remove him.

www.bbc.co.uk

Big fall for someone who for decades was two heartbeats away from being king

 

[General Melchett]

You're right that it's a "who knows" kind of situation partly because we'll never know how badly, if at all, tourism would be hit if we got rid of the royals.

That's what I always hear anyway, the old "ahh but they bring billions in from tourism" my gut feeling is that you'd barely notice any drop in tourism. In fact, I'd argue you could see an increase as if you got rid of them you could open up access to a lot more stuff for tourists to enjoy.

Paris gets more tourists than London and Rome isn't far behind. Neither of these have a monarchy.

The Most Visited Cities In Europe | The Most Popular European Cities (2025)

A list of the European cities that attract the greatest number of international visitors each year.

thesavvybackpacker.com

 

[Which Tyler]

Paris gets more tourists than London and Rome isn't far behind. Neither of these have a monarchy.

The Most Visited Cities In Europe | The Most Popular European Cities (2025)

A list of the European cities that attract the greatest number of international visitors each year.

thesavvybackpacker.com

Suspect that being in the Schengen area helps tourism a touch

 

[General Melchett]

Suspect that being in the Schengen area helps tourism a touch

I'd be interested to see the data after Schengen tourists are stripped out. I suspect Paris would still be near the top and would get a lot of non European visitors. I lived in the Schengen area for many years and can't say my travel plans were influenced by the incentive of not having to bring my passport but perhaps it was a factor for others.

 

[Vaquer]

People visit Egypt even though the mummies don't walk around spooking everybody

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Anyone else think Geert Wilders looks like a Harry Enfield character?

 

[AlRums]

This subject has always fascinated me...

The Royal famkly cost the taxpayer anywhere from 80 to 500 million per year, but apparently bring in anywhere from 500 million to 2.5 billion per year.

Who knows if they are a net benefit or net loss to the UK, id like some transparency though to find out

Royal finances: Where does the King get his money?

The language of Buckingham Palace's statement is "very brutal", royal historian Kelly Swaby tells the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ignorant as always

 

[Saintjay]

Anyone else think Geert Wilders looks like a Harry Enfield character?

View attachment 24944View attachment 24945

I had to work out which was Harry Enfield

 

[Ddanno]

Royal finances: Where does the King get his money?

The language of Buckingham Palace's statement is "very brutal", royal historian Kelly Swaby tells the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ignorant as always

Aye, we're still paying for the ***** despite massive levels of private income

 

[dirty harry]

Royal finances: Where does the King get his money?

The language of Buckingham Palace's statement is "very brutal", royal historian Kelly Swaby tells the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

Ignorant as always

Such arrogance in the face of not knowing the answer lol.

Undicslosed costs, income generation in the ranges i stated above lol

Come on you bett... actualy dont worry

 

[AlRums]

Paris gets more tourists than London and Rome isn't far behind. Neither of these have a monarchy.

The Most Visited Cities In Europe | The Most Popular European Cities (2025)

A list of the European cities that attract the greatest number of international visitors each year.

thesavvybackpacker.com

That link is seriously suspect, the numbers are made up.

It states it's source as

Euromonitor International reveals world’s Top 100 City…

The world's top city destination for 2024 has been revealed,…

www.euromonitor.com

Which shows


Note London 3rd and Paris 9th

That same source then stated a few lines later

"Paris has unmatched global dominance in 2024, registering over 17 million inbound arrivals."

None of the figures from it's "source" have 40-50 million on numbers in it at all.

Adding to this is the declaration that tourists go to London for the lack of language barrier suggests this is American and bears no reality to the real world.

 

[dirty harry]

You're right that it's a "who knows" kind of situation partly because we'll never know how badly, if at all, tourism would be hit if we got rid of the royals.

That's what I always hear anyway, the old "ahh but they bring billions in from tourism" my gut feeling is that you'd barely notice any drop in tourism. In fact, I'd argue you could see an increase as if you got rid of them you could open up access to a lot more stuff for tourists to enjoy.

Its not just tourism though is it, there are other incomes generated, and the role they play on the international stage etc...

We'll likely never know tbh, i think if they generated more than they cost we would probably have been made aware

 

[Ddanno]

How much rental income does the village idiot think that Regent Street alone brings in per year. Peppercorn rent? I doubt it.

Then add in various other commercial London properties, an enormous area of leased farmland up and down the country, tourism around various estates including Windsor Castle, Buck Palace etc.

We shouldn't be paying a penny towards their upkeep.

 

[Welsh Exile]

Its not just tourism though is it, there are other incomes generated, and the role they play on the international stage etc...

We'll likely never know tbh, i think if they generated more than they cost we would probably have been made aware

No it’s not just tourism but it’s the main one I see and hear from royalists with regards to them bringing in money. I agree we’ll likely never know mainly due to the fact they won’t be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

 

[AlRums]

No it's not just tourism but it's the main one I see and hear from royalists with regards to them bringing in money. I agree we'll likely never know mainly due to the fact they won't be going anywhere in our lifetimes.

The crown estates realised £1.1 billion last year, the royal family got £83 million in the sovereign grant from that profit. The rest goes to the treasury.

Add in effects on trade and tourism in increases significantly.

I know a certain Welsh twat will laugh at this, but note that yet again he brings nothing to the conversation.

Home

The Crown Estate is an independent business sitting between the public and private sectors, acting in national interests both today and for future generations. Across communities, countryside, coast and seabed, we manage land for the benefit of the nation.

www.thecrownestate.co.uk

 

[Vaquer]

Because that's the argument that's been pushed for why they are that way...

People spent time thinking about it when minorities were under represented so why is it now wrong to spend time thinking about it when they are over represented?

You can't have it both ways.

There is a double standard when it comes to things like racism, representation etc and it's part of what is fueling the current rise of the far right. The absolute worst thing when trying to convince someone that something is right is to be a hypocrite about it.

Things like race swapping, cultural gatekeeping, racist language etc are all vilified when the instigator is white but barely cause a stir if a member of a minority does it. Let's not pretend this isn't a thing because it really is.

This is quite removed from the truth businesses big enough to do TV advertising want everybody to like them. It also makes it sound like said businesses don't run themselves and do whatever left & non-white & non-chiset groups might say (which is useful for right wing types wanting to rile up people but not direct their anger at the rich & powerful).

 

[AlRums]

Report: US watchdog says IDF committed ‘many hundreds’ of potential human rights violations in Gaza

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-us-watchdog-says-idf-committed-many-hundreds-of-potential-human-rights-violations-in-gaza/

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

This is quite removed from the truth businesses big enough to do TV advertising want everybody to like them. It also makes it sound like said businesses don't run themselves and do whatever left & non-white & non-chiset groups might say (which is useful for right wing types wanting to rile up people but not direct their anger at the rich & powerful).

As far as I'm aware they aren't being controlled by legislation but by the court of public opinion. The trend until recently had been to vilify a lack of diversity.

Do you think there would be an issue if a demographic that represented 4% of the country was in every advert? What about half the adverts?

It may have financially worked to have minorities represented more than before, that's fine. What may happen is it swings the other way because minorities are so over represented it puts off the majority.

As I was saying it's a double standard. If we are saying it's wrong to notice the race of people in adverts, why are we saying it's ok to notice the lack of people of a certain race in adverts? I don't know about you but I find it difficult to believe that having a group that is 4% of the total demographic appearing in more than half of adverts really improves sales much more. I don't think it's racist to notice such a gulf in the difference between how many appear in media Vs how many you'd see in real life.