Originally posted by Lord Lucien
And that's different than usual in which way?
-and that's the point it isn't. It costs more in real terms because it's money taken from public budgets and any money it generates is money that does not go back into the tax payers pockets directly or even indirectly as the economy is level. Are you suprised by this?
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
-and that's the point it isn't. It costs more in real terms because it's money taken from public budgets and any money it generates is money that does not go back into the tax payers pockets directly or even indirectly as the economy is level. Are you suprised by this?
What are you talking about?
If the government makes $11 for every $10 it spends on the wedding then the public has effectively had none of their taxes spent and the govt has increased reevnue without raising taxes. Realistically a portion of that money is coming from tourism which means it does go directly into the pockets of the people.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What are you talking about?If the government makes $11 for every $10 it spends on the wedding then the public has effectively had none of their taxes spent and the govt has increased reevnue without raising taxes. Realistically a portion of that money is coming from tourism which means it does go directly into the pockets of the people.
Not really; because, the $1 extra will be spent on something like being part of the 'world police', which has no relevance to the people of the U.K. Rather than kept in the pockets of the citizens themselves. Big Government decides what the money is spent on and usually it's not as enriching to the people- as if they kept the initial money. This has always been why people dislike taxation, they never get to decide how it's spent. Look at Robin Hood or don't you get that? As for a portion coming back as tourism, that argument is pretty false, people would visit the UK regardless of an institutionalised constitutional monarchy, due to the old buildings and history, much as they do France and everywhere else in Europe. It's a myth propagated by royalists. People go to New York to see the Empire State building, the tower, houses of parliment, st pauls etc have a similar draw.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
But it's money the individual people will never see, the one's it's been take from. It will be squandered on grandiose schemes that enrich there lives little or imperialistic wars.
Originally posted by King Kandy
no, I mean it brings in money because it increases tourism which puts money directly in the local economy.
It certainly did increase tourism in London for one day, however it was a bank holiday so the rest of the U.K. did not go to work meaning a huge decrease in manufacturing etc. Swings and roundabouts. It also means small business that cannot afford to pay extra days off etc. are put under extra strain.
How much money do you think the world spent on souvenirs, hotel fees, restaurant tabs, pub bills?
There are things that cause thousands of dollars that people don't hesitate to byu [a friend of my mother's bought a Royal Chartered Scrapbook at Diana's wedding, which was made in London and mailed to her. It had official photos, documents, real invitations [with real gold leaf on them] everything you could imagine. It was 5,000 dollars.
And all those shops with Royal Charters have made tons of money...
This thing has been a huge financial boon to England. Did all of these costs really go over the limit?
Originally posted by siriuswriter
How much money do you think the world spent on souvenirs, hotel fees, restaurant tabs, pub bills?There are things that cause thousands of dollars that people don't hesitate to byu [a friend of my mother's bought a Royal Chartered Scrapbook at Diana's wedding, which was made in London and mailed to her. It had official photos, documents, real invitations [with real gold leaf on them] everything you could imagine. It was 5,000 dollars.
And all those shops with Royal Charters have made tons of money...
This thing has been a huge financial boon to England. Did all of these costs really go over the limit?
Actually it wasn't because most of the population had a day off, meaning manufacturing down. As for the world undoubtedly they bought some souvenirs, mostly though the money from those will not be seen by anyone beyond the Chinese factories that manufactured them and the souvenir makers. Doubtless some money will go to charities. Upper end at risk ceramic companies may well have seen it as a boon, i'm sure Crown Derby etc did. Sales of royal tat are bound to be internet driven, as Americans love the royals.
Why do I dislike the royal wedding? It perpetuates the national narrative that the uppermost reaches of the society are closed to most people - except to a pretty girl who manages to catch a prince's eye. To paraphrase Joan Rivers, a woman doesn't need an education because no royal ever stuck his hand up a girl's skirt looking for her library card. Is that the signal we want to send the young women of our society? I don't care that the royal family has cleverly reinvented itself as an offshoot of the celebrity culture. It's still an insidious obstacle to a truly open society with social mobility etc.
Originally posted by Daemon SeedThe great thing is that no matter your internet zeal, they're not going anywhere.
Why do I dislike the royal wedding? It perpetuates the national narrative that the uppermost reaches of the society are closed to most people - except to a pretty girl who manages to catch a prince's eye. To paraphrase Joan Rivers, a woman doesn't need an education because no royal ever stuck his hand up a girl's skirt looking for her library card. Is that the signal we want to send the young women of our society? I don't care that the royal family has cleverly reinvented itself as an offshoot of the celebrity culture. It's still an insidious obstacle to a truly open society with social mobility etc.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The great thing is that no matter your internet zeal, they're not going anywhere.
Eventually we'll have a referendum, probably ten to twenty years from now, they'd lose now. In the future without the present retired they are toast.
J.K Rowling did it. Anyone can! I doubt a referendum any time in the near future will oust the monarchy. I've seen a poll recently that showed that most people don't support removing them (even if they don't see them as inherently useful). Plus I think you'd need to get unanimous Commonwealth approval.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Actually it wasn't because most of the population had a day off, meaning manufacturing down. As for the world undoubtedly they bought some souvenirs, mostly though the money from those will not be seen by anyone beyond the Chinese factories that manufactured them and the souvenir makers. Doubtless some money will go to charities. Upper end at risk ceramic companies may well have seen it as a boon, i'm sure Crown Derby etc did. Sales of royal tat are bound to be internet driven, as Americans love the royals.
Yeah, Chinese factories tend to be the main beneficiaries in such situations....
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
J.K Rowling did it. Anyone can! I doubt a referendum any time in the near future will oust the monarchy. I've seen a poll recently that showed that most people don't support removing them (even if they don't see them as inherently useful). Plus I think you'd need to get unanimous Commonwealth approval.
Really no, because if everyone could do it they would. England has far worse social mobility than almost any developed nation. Commonwealth approval would not be a prerequisite for the U.K. as her titles are distinct for each commonwealth nation. At the moment, no she would not go due to the present high popularity of the young royals mainly. After what happened with Diana, the royals popularity dipped and they had were saved by Blair. I don't think Britain can become a classless society with a Hereditary monarch as head of state, It symbolises privilege and elitism.