The Royal Wedding

[steveinbsas]

So you do accept the fact that the royal family could have had a hand in the death or murder of Diana? The grand father of Diana's unborn child says he is certain of it.

Though I appreciate your thanks to my last post, the death of Diana is not an issue here, and what her "lover's" father said about her death is irrelevant to this thread (and possibly as well as reality).

Please, blame the drunk driver that was responsible for the death of Diana (in a new thread if you must)!

 

[Gringoboy]

FFS!
Go away!

 

[jp]

This begs the question, "At whose expense?"

The Queen, Prince Charles, the Middletons and then the City of London. The royal family cost the taxpayer around 40 million a year, and Londoners will likely foot the clean up bill and the extra policing required.

All of which would seem very unfair, were it not for the fact that a million people attended the event, millions more watched it on TV, the royal family bring in around half a billion pounds worth of tourism each year - and more importantly - millions of people love them. So you tolerate the expense and respect the fact that even if its not important to you - it is to millions of others, and your tax contributions don't exclusively fund things that you personally value.

 

[tanvimil]

the death of Diana is not an issue here, and what her "lover's" father said about her death is irrelevant to this thread (and possibly as well as reality).

The issue is about the love of the royal family. And people who are in to that sort of stuff normally love Diana. So if it turns out that the grand father is right, then it is a bit ironic how people like gringoboy can love both the victim and the murderers at the same time.

the royal family bring in around half a billion pounds worth of tourism each year

So people go to London just to see the royal family. Yeah right.

FFS!
Go away!

I am sorry. Am I punching a hole in your fairytale story?

 

[steveinbsas]

The Queen, Prince Charles, the Middletons and then the City of London. The royal family cost the taxpayer around 40 million a year, and Londoners will likely foot the clean up bill and the extra policing required.

All of which would seem very unfair, were it not for the fact that a million people attended the event, millions more watched it on TV, the royal family bring in around half a billion pounds worth of tourism each year - and more importantly - millions of people love them. So you tolerate the expense and respect the fact that even if its not important to you - it is to millions of others, and your tax contributions don't exclusively fund things that you personally value.

I VOLUNTARILY pay for EVERYTHING I personally value.

As a result of taxation, I also pay for many things I don't value.

A Royal Wedding in the UK isn't one of them, but many abortions in the US are (just one example thanks to "Planned Parenthood").

I don't ask (or demand) that others pay for any of the things I want.

No matter how many millions of them there may be watching the ceremony or wanting the service.


Now, can we just get back to the beautiful wedding (which I originally shunned) and the fantastic sista (who I now want to marry, healing the wounds created in 1685 when my ancestors were forced to leave England)?


PS: I really want to marry her!

No pomp.

No circumstance.

Just a small, private ceremoney that won't cost the taxpayers anything.


I'll even pay the preacher.

Just like I did the first time.

 

[jp]

So people go to London just to see the royal family. Yeah right.

You're completely missing the point.

http://media.visitbritain.com/News-...-tourists-says-VisitBritain-research-5d2.aspx

Tourism brings in around 120 billion a year. The royal family only bring in 500 million. Not much, but substantially more than the 40 million the taxpayer pays to support them.

 

[tanvimil]

You're completely missing the point.

http://media.visitbritain.com/News-...-tourists-says-VisitBritain-research-5d2.aspx

Tourism brings in around 120 billion a year. The royal family only bring in 500 million. Not much, but substantially more than the 40 million the taxpayer pays to support them.

Let me quote from the article that you posted:

But within that total one-in-eight of those sites – ranging from the Tower of London to The Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and Ruthin Castle in Wales – are associated with Monarchy. The report reveals that foreign tourists who visited them generated £500 million of spending, directly and indirectly. (1)

So basically the number 500 million pounds is probably a gross exaggeration. But you do give a valid point; They might take in a whole lot more in revenue than they actually cost. Although, in absence of actual proof, that is just pure speculation. Because it's also likely that most of these museums/castles would still receive a lot revenue despite monarchy being abolished.

 

[dr__dawggy]

George III spoiled the whole respect for royalty thing for us USA Americans. Taxation without representation and all.

But women are more forgiving than men. I am the first to admit that wimmins all over the US and the world luv, luv,luv them some princesses marrying princes. I call it the Cinderella syndrome.

Princess Di and now Kate have done have done much to heal old wounds. Now, if you could arrange a marraige between Steve and Kate's hot sis, it will help further restore relations between our two countries.

OK, on a totally serious note: Yes the wedding cost a forture. But look what it generated in revenue! I imagine Hollywood would be quite pleased with a blockbuster that took in 10 times the cost of production. And Royal weddings are nothing less than a blockbuster of a staged event.

good show, old chaps .God save the Queen and so forth.

 

[StevePalermo]

So you do accept the fact that the royal family could have had a hand in the death or murder of Diana? The grand father of Diana's unborn child says he is certain of it.

I'm no supporter of the monarchy and thought Diana was just another privileged aristocrat living off the state, but Al Fayed, the father of her lover is a very nasty piece of work and about as trustworthy as Bernard Madoff. The modern state is capable of anything, but the royal family assassinating Diana is pure fantasy.

 

[StevePalermo]

OK, on a totally serious note: Yes the wedding cost a forture. But look what it generated in revenue! I imagine Hollywood would be quite pleased with a blockbuster that took in 10 times the cost of production. And Royal weddings are nothing less than a blockbuster of a staged event.

good show, old chaps .God save the Queen and so forth.

Its not about the money, its about our self respect. We want a vote, not a monarchy.