The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[Ms Macbeth 75]

Apart from holidays (I think it was 14 last year,) what work does she actually do in her job as 'director of an art gallery' that justifies a salary of £3.2 million?

 

I know lots of people with BA degrees. Not one of them earns £3.2 million. In fact quite a few of them have been unable to get any work at all in their field. She is where she is purely because she is HRH.

 

I think you have misunderstood. Her art gallery salary probably isn't very high, she wont be relying on it with assets worth £3 mill. Lots of graduates don't get work in their field, perhaps those with no connections need to consider what career opportunities their degree might offer, plus be prepared to move to Where there are jobs.

[Car Boot 10]

Isn't it time we cut the Royal scroungers off from the public purse and taxed their financial affairs the same way we tax the ordinary, decent man and woman in the street?

[Litotes 63]

And how much will the event generate for the economy - the Americans love this sort of stuff and lap it up while spending millions.

 

The Megan Markle one is reckoned to have generated up to $1.4B for the economy.

 

Good value I reckon!

 

---------- Post added 19-08-2018 at 16:02 ----------

 

Isn't it time we cut the Royal scroungers off from the public purse and taxed their financial affairs the same way we tax the ordinary, decent man and woman in the street?

 

No.

 

I don't reckon so.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

It's not up to her whether there is security or not, it comes as a consequence of her being a princess.

 

Then maybe it's time to examine why we live in a society that values some people much more highly than others, simply by virtue of their birth.

[Jomie 30]

Quote Litotes:

And how much will the event generate for the economy - the Americans love this sort of stuff and lap it up while spending millions.

 

The Megan Markle one is reckoned to have generated up to $1.4B for the economy.

 

Good value I reckon!

Litotes - you should perhaps look more closely at these claims. Some of the agencies who produce these figures, do not appear to back them up with hard facts. There is sometimes no reference to the methodology used to obtain them. They are very woolly and seem (to me) to be little more than conjecture and speculation. Also, it is worthwhile looking at the background of the organisations in case of bias.

 

These events might have a very temporary boost to the economy in the areas where they take place but it is doubtful whether they make any difference whatsoever elsewhere. It would be useful if someone could produce absolute proof that these events benefit our economy.

 

In fact if the justification for having a royal family is down to generating income then in some way it demeans the monarchy and reduces it to little more than a soap opera. It’s even more so now, with the so called ‘Markle Debacle’.

 

As for Americans spending money - can this be proved? The notion that Americans are besotted by our Royal family is spurious - after all, their history and constitution began by getting shot of the monarchy.

Edited August 19, 2018 by Jomie

[Litotes 63]

Some of the agencies who produce these figures, do not appear to back them up with hard facts. There is sometimes no reference to the methodology used to obtain them.

 

 

And some do with fully worked figures - you pick your website and you can prove anything - if Eugenie's wedding does not cover its costs through the economic benefit to the UK, then fine - but can you prove it?

 

No = I thought not.

 

Americans l;ove the royal family.

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/29/us/royal-wedding-us-interest-meghan-harry-intl/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/style/british-royal-americans.html

 

But you may think they don't - can we have contrary proof?

[mike84 23]

people getting their knickers in a twist about the cost.

 

say theres 30m tax payers in the UK as an estimate, as one of the 30m your contribution will be a whole 7p.

 

It'll have cost you more in electric to fire up your laptop to moan in this thread.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

 

Americans l;ove the royal family.

 

 

Actually Americans love celebrity and admire conspicuous wealth.

 

The English royal family tick both those boxes.

[Padders 2,867]

people getting their knickers in a twist about the cost.

 

say theres 30m tax payers in the UK as an estimate, as one of the 30m your contribution will be a whole 7p.

 

It'll have cost you more in electric to fire up your laptop to moan in this thread.

 

Good point Mike, I was thinking exactly the same...….

[sheffbag 229]

Apart from holidays (I think it was 14 last year,) what work does she actually do in her job as 'director of an art gallery' that justifies a salary of £3.2 million?

 

I know lots of people with BA degrees. Not one of them earns £3.2 million. In fact quite a few of them have been unable to get any work at all in their field. She is where she is purely because she is HRH.

 

Really? So a degree student gets a job in a field where that they are interested in and its solely because she is a royal?

 

So do your BA friends that have jobs purely have them because they are a royal? you must have some good contacts Anna.

Edited August 20, 2018 by sheffbag

[Waldo 96]

I think they totally deserve the £2 million to cover security, and it's only right it should come from taxing the plebs. I mean, it must be an aweful chore for them, lording it over us for all these centuries. Know your place pleb!

[willman 10]

The wedding is being paid for privately so who cares. What about taxpayer security for ex PM's?

 

(It's not who she thinks she is - it's who everyone else thinks she is, and surprisingly some people think she's important being a royal)

Edited August 20, 2018 by willman