The Royal Family #41

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
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.

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.
---
France doesn't have a monarchy and yet Paris is where everything happens. I think the decision to have a more decentralised country doesn't rest on having a monarchy or not. Historically, the UK and France both built their nation on the foundation of a strong state, already present for centuries. Germany and Italy, on the other hands, got unified only in the end of the 19th century, it's partly why the have more decentralised governments and more cities being important poles.

The UK would have to reimagine its whole way of functioning, politcally, economically etc. to become a more decentralised country. Abolishing the monarchy can be a step in that direction, but much more things would be needed to really happen. I, btw, think, a more decentralised country is a good thing, less inequality in the country and less pressure in one city in term of housing etc.
 
France doesn't have a monarchy and yet Paris is where everything happens. I think the decision to have a more decentralised country doesn't rest on having a monarchy or not. Historically, the UK and France both built their nation on the foundation of a strong state, already present for centuries. Germany and Italy, on the other hands, got unified only in the end of the 19th century, it's partly why the have more decentralised governments and more cities being important poles.

The UK would have to reimagine its whole way of functioning, politcally, economically etc. to become a more decentralised country. Abolishing the monarchy can be a step in that direction, but much more things would be needed to really happen. I, btw, think, a more decentralised country is a good thing, less inequality in the country and less pressure in one city in term of housing etc.
This makes sense but what would Chalres, William etc do? I exclude Camilla as she is a grandmother in her own right and Kate as she still is a Middleton
 
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.

What makes you think their lives are not fulfilled? I find that notion a bit ridiculous. Do you think they would be more fulfilled if they lived in a one bedroom flat on a sink estate and went to work in a supermarket? It's as fulfilling as they make it.

They get to do whatever they want. Want to join the forces? No problem. Learn to fly a helicopter? Absolutely. Compete in Horse trials? Sure. Set up a multi million pound charity? Of course. I think King Charles is very proud with what he has achieved with the King's Trust and Prince Philip with the DoE Awards. Even Harry had success with Invictus.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 16
@Onetwofour Sadly the housing crisis and exploding rents in bigger cities as well as shrinking villages, people moving away from not as developed regions, less and less or no shops, schools, doctors in small towns are very much happening in decentralised countries as well. Big time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3
I think the impact on charities is more individual than any report can really show. For example the CEO at the baby banks said after Kate visited publicly they had an influx of people coming to actually use the service as they didn’t know about it until they saw it in the press off the back of her visit, so there was impact just not necessarily in financial donations
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16
I think the impact on charities is more individual than any report can really show. For example the CEO at the baby banks said after Kate visited publicly they had an influx of people coming to actually use the service as they didn’t know about it until they saw it in the press off the back of her visit, so there was impact just not necessarily in financial donations
BIB - that is very true as well and the report I was talking about previously spoke about this. They said it doesn’t help that the firm itself is a bit disorganised when it comes to talking about their charity connections - for example one charity linked on the Royal Family website was not actually a charity but a porn site.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 8
BIB - that is very true as well and the report I was talking about previously spoke about this. They said it doesn’t help that the firm itself is a bit disorganised when it comes to talking about their charity connections - for example one charity linked on the Royal Family website was not actually a charity but a porn site.
Orf with their head 🤭
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2
Tbf the Royals do a lot more and contribute a lot more than some. Loads of useless greedy lazy feckers about. There's plenty with millions in the bank that do sweet FA and don't believe in giving back
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 7
I mean IMO everyone is a winner with this. The kids bring more attention and headlines to the charity, they look good, plus it helps to satisfy the press and the public getting glimpses of the kids and preventing intrusion in their lives…the video itself is actually informative rather than a “look at us aren’t we great” vibe
& the charity has regularly spoken about how grateful they are for her help and awareness, it’s not like she turned up with a film crew and forced them to let her in.

I found out about the Baby Banks after Kate started working with them and have donated £100s since because I think its such a great idea. I know in the past couple of years they’ve been able to open a centralised warehouse and a lot of the brands Kate brought on board signed up to long term partnerships, and the video has had 1million views on YouTube so I’m sure the charity are very happy even if some moaners on Twitter complain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 16
I did read some research a few years ago that showed that people were less likely to donate to a charity of a big donation had been made as they felt it was doing okay so on the long run the charity was worse off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I think the impact on charities is more individual than any report can really show. For example the CEO at the baby banks said after Kate visited publicly they had an influx of people coming to actually use the service as they didn’t know about it until they saw it in the press off the back of her visit, so there was impact just not necessarily in financial donations
Also, there will be people who haven't realised that baby banks exist and will google their local one and donate there.
---
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-
Plus many people will buy new toys and books specifically to donate. There are also children's clothing/uniform banks who ask people to throw in a pack of underwear or socks or a shirt into their supermarket shopping trolley to donate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
@Flowergirl14 the @Great_Kate is a fountain of knowledge for all things royal! Ask her to tell you about the tiaras (I love the bling). She’s also incredibly well balanced with her responses

Being a foreigner I’ve personally learnt so much on these threads and love when people actually have substance versus an axe to grind
 
  • Like
  • Heart
  • Sick
Reactions: 10
I've been vehemently anti royal my whole life until recently, then I realised "hmm if we swap this for a president are we going to make her/him live in a flat and walk to the office? Will we provide no ceremony for their swearing in? Will no costs be incurred providing their security, expenses etc? And if we're voting them in is it OK for them to be purely a figurehead with no powers? Seems unlikely, so we'll pay huge sums to elect and keep a president who we then give some powers to like usa/France, and hope it goes well and costs less than what we have now?" I've settled on the gilded cage approach we have now, an alternative won't be cheaper and there's a danger of a nut job running the show
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 15
Tbf the Royals do a lot more and contribute a lot more than some. Loads of useless greedy lazy feckers about. There's plenty with millions in the bank that do sweet FA and don't believe in giving back
In fairness they have little to nothing better to do
---
Also, there will be people who haven't realised that baby banks exist and will google their local one and donate there.
---

Plus many people will buy new toys and books specifically to donate. There are also children's clothing/uniform banks who ask people to throw in a pack of underwear or socks or a shirt into their supermarket shopping trolley to donate.
Err. Exactly. No need to film it
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
I've been vehemently anti royal my whole life until recently, then I realised "hmm if we swap this for a president are we going to make her/him live in a flat and walk to the office? Will we provide no ceremony for their swearing in? Will no costs be incurred providing their security, expenses etc? And if we're voting them in is it OK for them to be purely a figurehead with no powers? Seems unlikely, so we'll pay huge sums to elect and keep a president who we then give some powers to like usa/France, and hope it goes well and costs less than what we have now?" I've settled on the gilded cage approach we have now, an alternative won't be cheaper and there's a danger of a nut job running the show
I'm similar. While I am certainly not particularly attached to any given monarch outside of their historical value, I like the Westminster system. I've yet to see a proposition to replace the Westminster system in the UK and commonwealth that I feel has the same sturdiness and genuine capacity for reducing the risk of an individual or single ideology taking total power.

Until an alternative appears better than the current setup, I'll live with the current lot being a mix of tabloid madness and soft power.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 6
I'm similar. While I am certainly not particularly attached to any given monarch outside of their historical value, I like the Westminster system. I've yet to see a proposition to replace the Westminster system in the UK and commonwealth that I feel has the same sturdiness and genuine capacity for reducing the risk of an individual or single ideology taking total power.

Until an alternative appears better than the current setup, I'll live with the current lot being a mix of tabloid madness and soft power.
I've been attempting to explain why the Irish Republic has a president not at all like Macron or Biden. Basically independence happened 100 years ago and they modelled it on whatever the British King (or Queen) did at the time
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.