• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Royal Wedding

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HAL9000 said:
Interesting fact! (to those who think the royal family are expensive) the royals cost us 61p per tax payer per year. So I'm fine with it, given the tourism revenue etc.
Click to expand...

That number is old and the cost figure in 2009 was actually £41.5million. It seems to go up every year. However, the number is still the highest expenditure for any of the inbred royal families within Europe. It was 6x higher than the inbred Spanish royal family.

In addition, the number is actually only a small fraction of the actual expenditures as it excludes security costs, military involvement in royal events, and other properties. Security costs alone are in the hundreds of millions.

Also, I would argue that they cause a decline in tourism revenue than if they were removed. Entire palaces, art collections, etc. would be open to the public.
 
CanOWorms said:
That number is old and the cost figure in 2009 was actually £41.5million. It seems to go up every year. However, the number is still the highest expenditure for any of the inbred royal families within Europe. It was 6x higher than the inbred Spanish royal family.

In addition, the number is actually only a small fraction of the actual expenditures as it excludes security costs, military involvement in royal events, and other properties. Security costs alone are in the hundreds of millions.

Also, I would argue that they cause a decline in tourism revenue than if they were removed. Entire palaces, art collections, etc. would be open to the public.
Click to expand...

The palaces and art collections are open to the public, I went around buckingham palace a year ago.
 
HAL9000 said:
The palaces and art collections are open to the public, I went around buckingham palace a year ago.
Click to expand...

Yes, you saw portions of a single palace. It's not open to the public most days and reserved for the use of a single inbred family. Other properties have no or limited access. Not all of the art collection (estimated to be worth in the billions) is open to the public.

Abolish the monarchy, open all the palaces and estates to tourists, and place the entire collection in a museum. Imagine the tourism revenue growth! It would dwarf the Louvre and Versailles.
 
CanOWorms said:
Yes, you saw portions of a single palace. It's not open to the public most days and reserved for the use of a single inbred family. Other properties have no or limited access. Not all of the art collection (estimated to be worth in the billions) is open to the public.

Abolish the monarchy, open all the palaces and estates to tourists, and place the entire collection in a museum. Imagine the tourism revenue growth! It would dwarf the Louvre and Versailles.
Click to expand...

They are all open, except when in use. I saw a fuck load of it, if there's more no one is interested.
 
HAL9000 said:
They are all open, except when in use. I saw a fuck load of it, if there's more no one is interested.
Click to expand...

Tourists would be interested and they would pay. If the inbreds are kicked out, tourism would increase.

I would also suggest monarchy reform. Perhaps the institution of the monarchy can be kept, but the people can be changed. For example, perhaps there can be a national lottery where someone can be chosen to be monarch for 5 year periods. Or there can be a vote. Therefore, there is still a monarch for people who need that, but it won't be restricted to a certain bloodline. That seems like a more modern approach and it would be the first step to remove the barbarism. As such, a Buddhist, Muslim, Woman over a Man, etc. can become King or Queen, too. There can be a Queen Elizabeth followed by a King Muhammad followed by a King Chang.

All of humanity is related to each other, so people are related to this supposed royal family. If we change the succession protocols, any British citizen then could be in line for the throne. Why not choose someone who is qualified to be a head of state then? You won't be restricted to a single inbred family but tens of millions of citizens.

I feel that there are lots of solutions to help the British become modern.
 
HAL9000 said:
Stopped reading here, I gave you a chance to be an adult, you failed. Back to the ignore list.
Click to expand...

A child gave me a chance to be an adult? Your entire argument: "I saw some stuff at this one palace" is supposed to be applied to all.

And then of course you coward out at my proposals to changes in the monarchy.
 
eskimospy said:
I'm pretty sure that the British royal family creates quite a bit more interest and tourism than Versailles.

My roommate is from the UK, they don't consider themselves a peasant caste at all, they consider it their heritage. The royal family wields no power, they exist at the pleasure of the citizens. If it's something they like and it's not costing them any money (in theory), what's the harm?
Click to expand...

There would be even more tourism revenue if the palaces and collections were fully opened to tourism. What is your evidence that the UK royal family generates 'quite a bit more' tourism? There's no evidence of that at all. Statistically, royal residences are not popular tourism revenue generators. Only one royal residence is even in the top 20 in terms of tourist revenue. One in the top 20! Now imagine if Buckingham Palace were fully opened to the public - tourism revenue would easily place it in the top 10.

Of course your British roommate likes the royals - they're brainwashed to be peasants and to just accept it.

What's the harm? The harm is that the people and the government support this one inbred family. This inbred family has tax privileges that the peasants don't possess. They own all of the unmarked mute swans in open water in the entire kingdom. They meet with the Prime Minister just because of their inbred status. The Queen is the head of state and must be of one particular religion, which means that nobody else in the entire country who isn't of that one specific faith can never strive to be the head of state of the UK.

The list goes on and on. If you think it's appropriate to support a gender and religious discriminatory institution, then maybe you deserve to be a peasant.
 
Last edited:
I respect the Queen due to WWII and what she went through.
The kids seem to have ... issues.... to say the least.
Coverage starts at 3am cst.
Only moon walks (or future Mars walks) warrant that kind of viewing dedication.
And if you miss it, I’m sure there will be many blu-ray dvd's in glorious HD color covering
the event. Available soon from Amazon or your local RedBox.
 
HAL9000 said:
Stopped reading here, I gave you a chance to be an adult, you failed. Back to the ignore list.
Click to expand...

I think he jumped the shark when he said the wedding was a crime against humanity... Although give him credit, for once his ranting against the royals is remotely on topic.
 
RabidMongoose said:
There would be even more tourism revenue if the palaces and collections were fully opened to tourism. What is your evidence that the UK royal family generates 'quite a bit more' tourism? There's no evidence of that at all. Statistically, royal residences are not popular tourism revenue generators. Only one royal residence is even in the top 20 in terms of tourist revenue. One in the top 20! Now imagine if Buckingham Palace were fully opened to the public - tourism revenue would easily place it in the top 10.

Of course your British roommate likes the royals - they're brainwashed to be peasants and to just accept it.

What's the harm? The harm is that the people and the government support this one inbred family. This inbred family has tax privileges that the peasants don't possess. They own all of the unmarked mute swans in open water in the entire kingdom. They meet with the Prime Minister just because of their inbred status. The Queen is the head of state and must be of one particular religion, which means that nobody else in the entire country who isn't of that one specific faith can never strive to be the head of state of the UK.

The list goes on and on. If you think it's appropriate to support a gender and religious discriminatory institution, then maybe you deserve to be a peasant.
Click to expand...

Monarchy defies common sense. Logical arguments don't work in the minds of those who actually want to be declared peasants.
 
Royal Wedding Fans Already Camping Out
1303398743822_ORIGINAL.jpg



Are these the same people who camp outside best buy on black friday?
 
I only care because Kate Middleton is hot. Need I post the picture of her in a bikini? That should quell all dissent.
 
Veliko said:
I would rather be a peasant to the queen than have you as an equal to me.
Click to expand...

High five!

Although he doesn't know what peasant means to don't humour him.

A peasant is an agricultural worker who subsists by working a small plot of ground. The word is derived from 15th century French païsant meaning one from the pays, or countryside, ultimately from the Latin pagus, or outlying administrative district
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasant
 
Royal Wedding to Cost British Economy $10 Billion
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/28/uk-britain-wedding-economy-idUSTRE73R3W320110428

So apparently this wedding will "have a lasting negative impact on GDP" and "will knock a quarter of a percentage point off second-quarter GDP growth."

I wonder if the monarchy will be sent a bill for $10 billion. Oh wait, the people will just be asked to live in more austerity while the royals will celebrate the ingrained peasant culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top