Which is irrelevant as the stolen/looted wealth and privilege has continued to be passed down and built upon. They should be nationalised, retired politically and out on wages for their tourist attraction value. Of course they would still likely have billions squirreled away in tax havens.
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
Which is irrelevant as the stolen/looted wealth and privilege has continued to be passed down and built upon. They should be nationalised, retired politically and out on wages for their tourist attraction value. Of course they would still likely have billions squirreled away in tax havens.
We're talking about them fleecing people, those are people who have been fleeced, and that could be rectified but they actively choose not to. So it's not difficult in that sense to assign blame.
yep.
the only reason republican sentiment has been kept so low is that people liked the queen even if they didn't like the monarchy. don't see charles continuing that and his children can get fecked.
Exactly this. We should stop admiring a family made up of some very, very questionable people who are supposedly better than us from birth for no real reason, but yet are as fallible as the rest of us and in some special cases far more abhorrent but yet we elevate them and pay for their entire life. As a concept it's very, very strange. There are arguments against them and very few arguments for them besides 'they make lots of tourist money' which there is no evidence for.
As a bonus, the valid winner of a free and fair democratic election process would no longer have to go ask their permission to govern, which in itself is incredibly stupid. 'The people have spoken, but will you let me?' it's even more dumb because she'd never say no, it's literally just all a bullshit façade for the sake of appearances and serves no purpose. We'd be better off simply by being a society that no longer conformed to a ludicrous notion.
How is the land “stolen” if it was legitimately obtained under the feudal system of the Middle Ages?
Did William steal it from Harold, too?
Isn't royal tourism far more lucrative to Britain than the cost of having and maintaining royalty ?
Okay… but I’m talking about the Duchies…
people still visit versailles despite the french revolution.
Seemingly a myth. Often said but never any evidence for it. In addition, the majority of the UKs tourism has nothing to do with the monarchy and the last time I checked we barely cracked the top 10 countries to visit by tourism numbers.
yes
Yeah but the brand value is much different when you have an actual monarch on the throne. I don't think the French are generating these kinds of numbers.
https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brand_finance_monarchy_press_release.pdf
Well said.
I found this article interesting (towards the middle) where it states that "The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue".
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/
Apparently the Royal Wedding a decade ago generated over £100m by itself.
Almost certainly.
And it would remain. And even if it didn't it doesn't justify having such an anachronistic and undemocratic form of government.
So Hastings wasn’t a battle, it was just a massive medieval heist.
That’s certainly a way to look at it.
they can't put a solid figure on it. it's guess work. and the tangible value is just comprised of things the country already owns like land and the crown jewels.
I wonder if she didn't die earlier and they delayed the announcement to present a fiction that she died surrounded by her family? Would be a surprise given the palace have form for bullshit when it comes to such things.
They definitely delayed the announcement but not by much since its hard to keep a lid on these things for long.
Everything and anything passed down via a hereditary monarchy no matter what the circumstances belongs (or should) to the British people.
that's literally what the feudal system was. knights maintained themselves, and sometimes small armies, lords retained retinues of knights, and the king or queen was owed the loyalty of the lords. the knights went to war for money more often than not. these were private armies.
i don't think the argument, "it was legal in feudal times" makes much sense. feudalism died in britain centuries ago. the monarchy initially died with it but was brought back via counter revolutionaries.
That report is all estimates by a group that valued the Royal brand at 20 million at the time of the Royal wedding before they went back and changed their minds to 44 billion.
There was never a battle at Hastings. The battle was held 6 miles from Hastings at a site that later became the small town of ....Battle.
I'm not thinking days but perhaps she died that morning when the medical observation announcement was made, giving the royals time to get to Balmoral to create the myth she died with her family around her. Not that it matters that much or bothers me either way but just something I wondered.
Just up the road from the suburbs or skirmish and accidental border incursion.
Exactly, tourists would hardly if ever see the Royals but instead the structures that will still be there, plus the brightly uniformed touristy soldiers.
I honestly think she died when the entire process was started yesterday afternoon. Maybe at noon. Then again with the medical attention available she may have been "kept alive" for everyone to say goodbye.
Can you imagine the now town of Hastings being any more than a few shacks for fishermen and their families then?
When do the reparations for the 'commonwealth' start. About time, I'd say.
Add a couple of charity shops, a bookies and make the fishermen unemployed and that's pretty much how it is today.
So who does Australia go back to?
Don't be unkind, I lived there for a few months plus it is linked with St Leonards, a fine suburb.. cough.
Indigenous Australians ideally and it has partially - about 50% in the Northern Territory for example. Never going to happen in places where there is modern property title of course as that would mean kicking people out of their homes.
Giving government land back to the people it was stolen from as is happening to some degree in Australia is actually well aligned with the idea of Nationalising the royals and giving their ill gotten gains to who it was (indirectly) stolen from - the British people and potentially overseas colonies.
I am fully aware of how feudalism worked, thank you.
As to saying feudal claims can’t hold water today, what is your cutoff point in history then for saying “no, that’s too long ago, you can’t own that land anymore..?”
But you just said “everything and anything” passed down by Royal lineage. Does that not include their privately owned estates then?
Why wouldn’t that apply to any privately held property on land “fleeced” from someone else?
To a degree this is most certainly the case. I draw the line at 'fiction', though, as it's also entirely likely that she was kept alive until close family members arrived by her medical team.
Yes
It may (or should) depending on the circumstances. The Royals seem like a great place to start dismantling injustice and start a rebuild.
TBH at this stage I'd settle for Australia becoming a republic as after the shambles of the last few years the chances of me ever returning to the UK is virtually zero. Although I still care about the place.
And Waterloo was fought miles outside that town too… crazy how history names battles after places they were near.
Well, good luck with that. Try and not end up with a dictator this time.