And when he hasn't got his way, he has abused his 'power' to influence the decisions of foreign investors - recently delaying and scuppering a project that would have included much needed social housing in London.
And when FoI requests are made so that the extent of his attempts to influence policy and impact on decisions, they are rejected on the spurious grounds that they impinge on 'his preparations for kingship'. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19959233
As for seeing the Royals, I walk past Charles' house every day on the way to work in Victoria from Green Park (the building works at Victoria station are a nightmare) and I reckon I've seen him once in five years - mind you, I don't go out of my way to look for him.
I'm not saying no one comes to the UK based upon the Royals or their periodic ceremonies - of course they do, but that does not negate the need for change or at least the consideration of it.
Quite frankly though, I lose far more sleep worrying about the Flames and whether Feaster is going to make something good of the next draft.
All good points, I guess I'd argue that the same situation would exist regardless of the titles they hold simply due to wealth and power. More of a rich people problem than a monarchy problem in my eyes, but of course that wealth and power was derived from the monarchy so I see your point.
And I agree, there is certainly a need for consideration of change and action if Britain could benefit from a change.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
So that's a yes to it being above your ahead I guess.
It's too bad that you thought the topic was worth a thread but won't actually discuss it.
No, The Palace says the costs were 38 million pounds, idependant thoughts put it at around 200 million pounds, truth is most likely in the middle.
The queen is view as thew richest women in the world, again The Palace refutes that claim (why wouldn't they).
There is a lack to transparency with The Palace's finances. The funds direct at the queen could have been far better served by being directed at housing, healthcare or any number of programs currently being cut.
There are opinions that the recent diamond jubilee cost the UK economy 1.2 billion pounds.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
The Following User Says Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
No, The Palace says the costs were 38 million pounds, idependant thoughts put it at around 200 million pounds, truth is most likely in the middle.
The queen is view as thew richest women in the world, again The Palace refutes that claim (why wouldn't they).
There is a lack to transparency with The Palace's finances. The funds direct at the queen could have been far better served by being directed at housing, healthcare or any number of programs currently being cut.
There are opinions that the recent diamond jubilee cost the UK economy 1.2 billion pounds.
Tourism is one of the largest industries in the UK, worth about £76 billion in 2002 and contributing 4.5% of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Last year, there were approximately 23.9 million overseas visitors to the UK, spending £11.9 billion. It is estimated there are 2.1 million jobs in the UK related to tourism, 7% of total employment.
The monarchy costs 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer. In return, besides the Crown Estate profits, there is the unquantifiable, but enormous, tourist revenue it generates. Claims that a republican head of state would be less costly are absurd. The German presidency costs about the same as the Queen, but how many tourists line the streets of Berlin to catch a glimpse of – er – what is his name?
In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas.
So, during times of austerity and hardship is Britain’s monarchy a help or a hindrance to the nation’s finances?
Branding expert David Haigh has tried to put a figure on the value of Britain’s Royal Family as a brand.
The sum he came up with: A whopping £44 billion - or $70 billion.
Quote:
"There’s little doubt that, as an institution, the monarchy adds significant annual earnings and long term economic value to the UK," says Haigh, chief executive and founder of Brand Finance Plc.
Quote:
Take the official four-day jubilee celebrations set to kick off this weekend: Haigh reckons the festivities alone with likely generate an extra £2.4 billion in revenues, including a £924 million boost for the UK’s leisure and tourism industry.
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Oh hang on. Looks like Christy Walton might have surpassed Bettencourt. My bad.
They seem to go back and forth. In January, Walton was ahead. As of beginning of March, Bettencourt surged back into 1st place, from the looks of it. Regardless, the Queen just doesn't even come close to being richest. Wonder if Oprah is richer? lol
Oh hang on. Looks like Christy Walton might have surpassed Bettencourt. My bad.
They seem to go back and forth. In January, Walton was ahead. As of beginning of March, Bettencourt surged back into 1st place, from the looks of it. Regardless, the Queen just doesn't even come close to being richest. Wonder if Oprah is richer? lol
Wouldn't a lot of what the Queen 'owns' really be owned by the State, and not the Windsors?
I believe UB is going for the conspiracy theory that the Queen is only pretending to be poor so that she can get money from the state when she actually has billions of dollars that are unreported. Maybe her name will come out with the latest release of off shore accounts.
I have no problem with England (or UK-whatever) having THEIR Queen, I do however protest to her status in OUR country.
I don't support OUR taxes going to her trips (or "improvements for her visits) nor the taxes spent on her representatives in OUR country--all money better spent else where. She has no real power in our country, yet she enjoys trips here on our dime, and has far too many representatives (one per province and territories- 10 lieutenant governors, and 3 commissioners, plus the Governor General) all with only ceremonial duties, all which could be done (and are to some degree) by the elected Prime Minister and Premiers! We see no tourism dollars by being associated with the British Monarchy.....
When I was in primary school, all us students were lined up to see the Queen and Phillip drive by in a parade. Their visit to Canada was a big deal and we all received commemorative tokens. Of course that was years ago. More recently I was walking in DT Toronto and a bunch of motorcycles and limos drove by and parked at the hotel across the street. I remembered reading the Queen was in town and I briefly saw her get out of the car while some ceremony went on. I couldn't be bothered to cross the street and not many others did either. To me they are irrelevant and should be only heard of on the gossip page.
The whole notion of royalty is so outdated and archaic, I hope we see an abolishment of the monarchy, and all monarchies, in the Western world during my life time.
Someone centuries ago procliamed devine right to rule, and those families have been living in the lap of luxury since then. It's absolutely ridiculous. Makes my blood boil.
I used to think the same but this is "Monarchy" is a big part of british history. The way it is precieved now is not the same as it was centuries ago. They're harmless, they do a lot of charity work, and its just fascinating to think that Kings and Queens still exist. I think people should appriciate that the royal "lineage" is continuing to exist in countries like Britain, Japan, etc etc. Its like a .... living museum...
The fact that tourism dollars is the main justification for the monarchy is reason enough why it should be abolished, especially here where we don't get the benefit of those tourist dollars.
Family connections, historical landmarks and whatnot mean Britain will receive a lot of tourists anyways, the Queen's birthday or jubilee or whatever is just a convenient time for people to visit. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would have tourists regardless of whether or not the head of state lived there. The British government should spend the Royal upkeep money on a British Disneyland or a British Legoland. They would probably get more tourists than the Royals do.
The Following User Says Thank You to Magnum PEI For This Useful Post:
The fact that tourism dollars is the main justification for the monarchy is reason enough why it should be abolished, especially here where we don't get the benefit of those tourist dollars.
Family connections, historical landmarks and whatnot mean Britain will receive a lot of tourists anyways, the Queen's birthday or jubilee or whatever is just a convenient time for people to visit. Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would have tourists regardless of whether or not the head of state lived there. The British government should spend the Royal upkeep money on a British Disneyland or a British Legoland. They would probably get more tourists than the Royals do.
Four in five British adults wants to keep the monarchy in place.
