Worked with leaving the EU! NHS has £300million extra A WEEK!!People behave like if we didn't have a monarchy, the money saved would make everything else in the country ok. Obviously if we get rid of the monarchy then the NHS would run perfectly, homelessness would disappear and energy bills would be pennies.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Plus what do we expect them to do? Turn around one day and go “actually yeah duck this and the whole constitution our country is built on, cya” and leave one hell of a mess for someone to try and clear up? They obviously know they’re privileged, and they do what they can within their roles and with their platforms. They’re obviously not perfect but I don’t really understand what people expect them to do about it other than the things they already do/are doing
To be fair, I thought Charity work was basically what they are for
Given that their main function nowadays is to breed more royals and be present at functions, I'll take charity functions over society events any day.
I think the issue for a lot of people is that it looks so performative. I agree they can’t win as they would be criticised whatever they do but when I see them it just highlights how much they have versus how little the people they are helping have. Maybe it’s the gushing tones of the articles about them being there that sets my teeth on edge rather than the photos themselves.
I find it interesting that people find it performative because I think that charity work in general gives most people a sense of purpose. Perhaps I’ve just read a Christmas Carol one too many times
but I imagine they really do care about the causes they support and feel that the press they get by doing things like this will really help. I would imagine their lives would be awful without charity work to give it a sense of purpose tbh… they live in a goldfish bowl. Like someone said, if Kate scratched her muff it would be shared a million times on social media. However I can understand that when you think of how rich they are etc it can feel grating. Very much them v us. But I’d argue that poverty and wealth distribution (of the lack of) is more to do with the government (bring on the election!).
I guess I just don’t think they would suddenly be poor if we ousted the Royal Family. And it’s nice to see them actually taking their kids to do charity work and it’s good to teach them the value and to show them how “the other half live” as it were…
I think I would hate their life to be sure but I am convinced Kate has decided it’s worth it and so I don’t feel that sorry for her. She has decided to choose it, she didn’t have to but presumably she wanted the man and the Crown and could put up with the lifestyle. The children and William I do feel sorry for. No choice in it and no real choice in what they will do or achieve in their working lives. I hope the slimming down of the royal family will make it possible for Charlotte and Louis to have a more fulfilled life than George and William.I find it interesting that people find it performative because I think that charity work in general gives most people a sense of purpose. Perhaps I’ve just read a Christmas Carol one too many times
However I can understand that when you think of how rich they are etc it can feel grating. Very much them v us. But I’d argue that poverty and wealth distribution (of the lack of) is more to do with the government (bring on the election!).
I guess I just don’t think they would suddenly be poor if we ousted the Royal Family. And it’s nice to see them actually taking their kids to do charity work and it’s good to teach them the value and to show them how “the other half live” as it were…
Charles and Camilla are going to Canada in May for a week
I’m a fan of the monarchy, more so as I get older. I feel that giving the country a referendum will create the same divide as Brexit did. It’s not worth it.
Yet you have people believing these toys were 'pre loved'. Laughable really
Last year, Charles went to visit a gurdwara which feeds people every day. Apparently when he visits place like that, the boot of his car is filled with food donations, in addition to any personal monetary donation he may make. Even if he's raided the Duchy Original warehouse, it means that his company is losing that money and the recipients get a product that is sold as high quality.
I think following previous visits to food / baby banks people have criticised the apparent lack of them taking anything in. Though I personally believe they will make a private donation. In the new video of Kate and the kids at the baby bank, they are seen getting boxes out of the boot of the car they arrive in.
What’s your proof they weren’t - and so what if they were new ? Am sure kids who get f*ck all will be glad of them-
Didn't the actual charity worker ask the kids to select what they themselves would choose or did I mishear?
Yeah, because they were packing present gift bags from the donations the charity had received. I use to do something similar as a child with my childminder. We did these shoeboxes and she would always say to pick things I would want and then it would go to a girl a similar age as me. We would get things like pens and pencils etc and then also a small gift from a charity shop. It’s actually something that’s really stuck with me and even though I don’t have kids, I buy toys to donate at Christmas. Hopefully this is something that will make an impact on the Wales children too, because with their privilege definitely comes responsibility to give back.
ahhhhh I will say I didn’t think my „presents for peasants“ joke would come true so quickly.
the two aren’t really comparable though. They serve hugely different purposes, two totally different institutions with a totally different history. The comparison doesn’t work at all.People behave like if we didn't have a monarchy, the money saved would make everything else in the country ok. Obviously if we get rid of the monarchy then the NHS would run perfectly, homelessness would disappear and energy bills would be pennies.
the NHS *is* expensive because it provides essential health services.
but part of the reason it’s expensive is because it bears the brunt’s of cuts. An oft quoted example is elderly patients not being able to be discharged because they can’t get a home assessment. There aren’t enough social workers to sign off that their homes are safe. So the NHS doctors can’t discharge them, so they take up a bed an extra few nights at costs which can range up to the hundreds. This then puts pressure on less essential services and makes it longer to wait for a bed for new admissions.
the NHS can’t operate properly because it doesn’t have the peripheral services it needs to function correctly.
the Royal Family, on the other hand, are nothing like the NHS. They provide a purely constitutional “service” which doesn’t really have tangible or many intangible benefits IMO. They hold a priceless art collection in trust. They own vast estates. They have a rich source of personal wealth. They receive huge funding from the state and in return… they serve a ceremonial purpose. They head up charities and get some good PR for their causes whilst also for themselves.
with the correct legislation, there’s absolutely no reason why the U.K. would be bought up by China/Russia. The assets the royal family holds could, therotically be transferred to another trust holder. A charity? The government? Either or. They don’t have a monopoly on being good at holding estates in trust. They already outsource many aspects of it (Royal Historic palaces).
sorry but there’s no real reason to not believe that there could very realistically be a transfer of assets from the royal family to a public body that was seamless and effective. It’s worked elsewhere (Versailles, The palace of Belem.. any European former royal residence etc).
would the money be funnelled to the NHS? No. Would it need to be? No.
if we were to remove the royal family, we’d likely see knock on effects that aren’t connected to their immediate wealth ownership .
for example, a huge point of contention in the U.K. is the unequal distribution of wealth, geographically. Why is this the case?
because London is the centre and subsidies the rest of the U.K. it generates the most wealth, has the most investment and so on.
why?
Largely because of its history of being central government. Because of the Westminster system.
and why do MPs and Civil Servants need to be based on the Westminster system, and being based in London?
because there’s a monarchy and it’s based there.
inagine a world where parliament could be held in multiple locations. Where investments could be made in multiple locations. Where the underlying culture of the U.K. was one of meritocracy instead of having a head of state appointed based on nepotism. What sort of cultural shift might we see for the better if we decided that actually, people aren’t born more or less special. How might that contribute to the dismantling of classism that is prevalent in the U.K.?
there are financial benefits to removing the royal family for sure. But I think the less tangible, knock on effect benefits could be much much more valuable.
---
It’s giving Marie Antoinette taking her kids
---
* It’s giving Marie Antoinette taking her kids to donate their Christmas gifts
Last edited:
But from the charities point of view if having a royal member visit brings so much awareness to the cause and in doing so brings in more donations that's only a good thing!
It’s definitely doable to transfer the assets to a public body. I wouldn’t bet on the amount of transferred good staying into the countries hand though.
But the idea of a moving parliament is bad. It’s extremely expensive and goes with a crazy amount of work. There is a reason most of, if not all countries don’t do that. The European Parliament moves regularly and it’s a PIA and costs millions every time.
All countries experience an unbalanced distribution of wealth and businesses settling in certain regions.
All countries experience some sort of social divide. The UK has a strong class system. Other countries go by religion, wealth or other categories. My guess- there wouldn’t be a noticeable change for decades if not a century. Republicans that stem from monarchies often have those old circles still being closed off to a certain extent. They just yield their power less visible nowadays. And then it just gets less obvious because the rest will adopt another system.
Last edited:
Giving Evidence has found that from 2019-2020 74% of charities with Royal patrons did not manage to get any public engagements and they couldn’t find any evidence that Royal patrons increase a charity’s revenue. Fewer than half of their patronages are with registered UK charities.
I have often wondered if charities properly benefit from having a Royal visit and Royal patrons. I mean this most recent visit Kate did with the children - how many people will donate to the cause? When the ladies go on a solo visit do people really remember the charity’s name because so much press and talk is dedicated to what they wear. To me it seems their charity work is used as a way to justify their existence and the positive effect it has on the charities is overstated. That’s not to say they aren’t passionate about individual causes.
- Status