No More Public Engagements For Prince Phillip

[Smurf]

Must be trying to cram in as much shagging in his retirement at 96....

Unbelievable that he until recently was driving around London incognito in a black taxi!

Was reading earlier that when the Queen dies there will be 14 days of national mourning. And that on the day of her funeral the London Stock Exchange will close costing the UK billions.

Will there be a holiday I wonder....

 

[Kenny]

Must be trying to cram in as much shagging in his retirement at 96....

Unbelievable that he until recently was driving around London incognito in a black taxi!

Was reading earlier that when the Queen dies there will be 14 days of national mourning. And that on the day of her funeral the London Stock Exchange will close costing the UK billions.

Will there be a holiday I wonder....

final salary pension?

 

[southfieldhibby]

Monarchy is weird eh? Nationalists who love them, unionists who don't.

 

[Doc Shrink]

Must be trying to cram in as much shagging in his retirement at 96....

Unbelievable that he until recently was driving around London incognito in a black taxi!

Was reading earlier that when the Queen dies there will be 14 days of national mourning. And that on the day of her funeral the London Stock Exchange will close costing the UK billions.

Will there be a holiday I wonder....

I didn't know that!

That's quite amusing really. Can you imagine the 'road rage' if he was cut up by a coach full of "slanty-eyed bastards"..... that would have been brilliant to see/hear.

 

[aggie]

Was reading earlier that when the Queen dies there will be 14 days of national mourning. And that on the day of her funeral the London Stock Exchange will close costing the UK billions.

Fuckin scandalous. Fuck them all.

 

[Braehead Cabbage]

The right wing press always banging on about immigrants not doing a days work and living off state benefits but going into meltdown cause they thought the auld racist was dead.
Oh the irony

 

[Smurf]

The right wing press always banging on about immigrants not doing a days work and living off state benefits but going into meltdown cause they thought the auld racist was dead.
Oh the irony

I'd say they are a net contributor to the UK?

I've never been a royalist but I'm no longer a republican. I think overall this queen has been good for the UK and indeed Scotland.

 

[Westside Green]

I'd say they are a net contributor to the UK?

I've never been a royalist but I'm no longer a republican. I think overall this queen has been good for the UK and indeed Scotland.

What do they actually contribute? I'd consign their freak show to history, where it should've been sent centuries ago.

 

[southfieldhibby]

I'd say they are a net contributor to the UK?

I've never been a royalist but I'm no longer a republican. I think overall this queen has been good for the UK and indeed Scotland.

net contributor over what time frame? This queen coming to the throne, or her entire lineage?

Think attitudes towards the royal family will later once this queen dies. I'd suggest that the crown estate as a business could be a larger net contributor without the actual royal family once this queen has died.

- - - Updated - - -

What do they actually contribute? I'd consign their freak show to history, where it should've been sent centuries ago.

They do help inward tourism. And they're rolled out when we need to borrow cash off China/Qatar to offer pomp and ceremony. But their time is coming to an end as they currently operate.

 

[Smurf]

What do they actually contribute? I'd consign their freak show to history, where it should've been sent centuries ago.

You any idea how much tourism cash comes into the UK thanks to "their freak show"?

 

[Westside Green]

You any idea how much tourism cash comes into the UK thanks to "their freak show"?

You any idea how many more people visit Versailles compared to Buckingham Palace? No resident freaks there now.

 

[southfieldhibby]

You any idea how much tourism cash comes into the UK thanks to "their freak show"?

I suspect you don't know either, or if the figure would go down or up if the freaks left the palaces and castles and we opened them up? France being the obvious example. 3 times as many tourists as the UK, Versailles is the biggest tourist attraction in europe and the vast wealth held by the royal family in art alone could be used better for the nation than currently is.

So, they're good for tourism, but not having them could be even better, and there's examples to agree with this.

 

[Two Headed Boy]

You any idea how much tourism cash comes into the UK thanks to "their freak show"?

People say this all the time without ever showing real figures. I'm certain London would be a top tourist destination regardless.

 

[egb_hibs]

I used to be a the standard anti monarchist that people of our background tend to be. However I have come around to smurf's position and now consider them to be a lesser evil than alternatives.

The UK is fragmenting into a bunch of grievance communities, assiduously nurtured by identity politicians. Tireless efforts to ensure nothing holds the population together bar dependence on a collapsing welfare system are coming dangerously close to fruition.

An elected head of state would just introduce more opportunities for division and factionalism, more wasted time and money on electing a show pony, loss of tourist dollars, and we'd be at high risk of David beckham or Stephen fry as president.

 

[southfieldhibby]

I've read they generate about £500M PA in revenues and cost all in about £300M. So £200M profit...which is not to be sniffed at, but how much of the £500 would be lost if they didn't exist and how much of the £300 in costs could be saved as a result of that too?

I reckon they even out, so it's a philosophical question about whether you think it's correct to have a Royal Family.

- - - Updated - - -

I used to be a the standard anti monarchist that people of our background tend to be. However I have come around to smurf's position and now consider them to be a lesser evil than alternatives.

The UK is fragmenting into a bunch of grievance communities, assiduously nurtured by identity politicians. Tireless efforts to ensure nothing holds the population together bar dependence on a collapsing welfare system are coming dangerously close to fruition.

An elected head of state would just introduce more opportunities for division and factionalism, more wasted time and money on electing a show pony, loss of tourist dollars, and we'd be at high risk of David beckham or Stephen fry as president.

I think a second chamber-and a head of state- should be chosen like juries are chosen. Luck of the draw, name out a hat. With a second chamber, you have to do it for 2 years, your job is held open for you and you can only do it once. Head of state, take out politicians/convicts, be over say 30 and chuck everyones NI numbers in a hat and pick one.

 

[Smurf]

I suspect you don't know either, or if the figure would go down or up if the freaks left the palaces and castles and we opened them up? France being the obvious example. 3 times as many tourists as the UK, Versailles is the biggest tourist attraction in europe and the vast wealth held by the royal family in art alone could be used better for the nation than currently is.

So, they're good for tourism, but not having them could be even better, and there's examples to agree with this.

If we were starting from scratch no way would I want a Royal Family.

Indeed should Scotland go independent I'd not want whoever is king or queen as head of state.

However, I suppose old age is making me sentimental and more of a traditionalist. Lots of people love the Royal family and I just don't get why they provoke such hatred from certain quarters.

 

[Braehead Cabbage]

I'd say they are a net contributor to the UK?

I've never been a royalist but I'm no longer a republican. I think overall this queen has been good for the UK and indeed Scotland.

Not the point I was making just pointing out the hypocrisy

 

[Kenny]

I've read they generate about £500M PA in revenues and cost all in about £300M. So £200M profit...which is not to be sniffed at, but how much of the £500 would be lost if they didn't exist and how much of the £300 in costs could be saved as a result of that too?

I reckon they even out, so it's a philosophical question about whether you think it's correct to have a Royal Family.

- - - Updated - - -



I think a second chamber-and a head of state- should be chosen like juries are chosen. Luck of the draw, name out a hat. With a second chamber, you have to do it for 2 years, your job is held open for you and you can only do it once. Head of state, take out politicians/convicts, be over say 30 and chuck everyones NI numbers in a hat and pick one.

 

[egb_hibs]

If we were starting from scratch no way would I want a Royal Family.

Indeed should Scotland go independent I'd not want whoever is king or queen as head of state.

However, I suppose old age is making me sentimental and more of a traditionalist. Lots of people love the Royal family and I just don't get why they provoke such hatred from certain quarters.

I think the hate is largely based on tribalism which is playing an ever greater part in society.

The bit on top of it that is so ridiculous is that it's so backwards - part of a preoccupation with yesterday's arguments while missing where you're being shafted today.

It reminds me of weegie football fans really and their ancient grievances - huns railing about papist conspiracies when the real enemy to their 'way of life' is more likely to be union hating, middle class atheists. Celtic fans fretting that a catholic can't be in line to the crown when that is as likely these days as one leading the Labour Party - which is far more material. Or perhaps people railing about the miners strike decimating communities while anyone from Yorkshire who complained of communities being decimated right now would be labelled a racist.

Backward priorities and in the end, a safe outlet that helps what really matters to fly under the radar.

Like you I think independence is a logical point for Scotland to be done with it; it's unlikely though as independence could never be achieved while alienating those who wish to retain a union of crowns - in my view they can knock themselves out, let them have their largely irrelevant monarch. It will just be like Scotland for Independence not to happen due to people become entrenched over such sideshows.

 

[Braehead Cabbage]

I used to be a the standard anti monarchist that people of our background tend to be. However I have come around to smurf's position and now consider them to be a lesser evil than alternatives.

The UK is fragmenting into a bunch of grievance communities, assiduously nurtured by identity politicians. Tireless efforts to ensure nothing holds the population together bar dependence on a collapsing welfare system are coming dangerously close to fruition.

An elected head of state would just introduce more opportunities for division and factionalism, more wasted time and money on electing a show pony, loss of tourist dollars, and we'd be at high risk of David beckham or Stephen fry as president.

But if you had a Beckham or Fry you could vote them out we're stuck with this lot until they die.
It shouldn't be a right of birth to be head of state.

 

[egb_hibs]

I've read they generate about £500M PA in revenues and cost all in about £300M. So £200M profit...which is not to be sniffed at, but how much of the £500 would be lost if they didn't exist and how much of the £300 in costs could be saved as a result of that too?

I reckon they even out, so it's a philosophical question about whether you think it's correct to have a Royal Family.

- - - Updated - - -



I think a second chamber-and a head of state- should be chosen like juries are chosen. Luck of the draw, name out a hat. With a second chamber, you have to do it for 2 years, your job is held open for you and you can only do it once. Head of state, take out politicians/convicts, be over say 30 and chuck everyones NI numbers in a hat and pick one.

Given juries have been judged inadequate to deal with highly technical court cases - sophisticated fraud for example - I'm not sure it provides a workable precedent for this. I actually can't believe you reckon this would work, for pretty much every reason from competence, to churn, to the propensity for political chaos as a random selection of views end up in the second house, which could be entirely unrepresentative of the population. That said, one thing is for sure, on average we'd have a far more 'reactionary' legislature than we do currently!

- - - Updated - - -

But if you had a Beckham or Fry you could vote them out we're stuck with this lot until they die.
It shouldn't be a right of birth to be head of state.

It's a big so what for me. They have feck all impact on me, and I have no more control over a lot of things that do, and am no more represented by any of the political parties.

 

[Dub]

I think the hate is largely based on tribalism which is playing an ever greater part in society.

The bit on top of it that is so ridiculous is that it's so backwards - part of a preoccupation with yesterday's arguments while missing where you're being shafted today.

It reminds me of weegie football fans really and their ancient grievances - huns railing about papist conspiracies when the real enemy to their 'way of life' is more likely to be union hating, middle class atheists. Celtic fans fretting that a catholic can't be in line to the crown when that is as likely these days as one leading the Labour Party - which is far more material. Or perhaps people railing about the miners strike decimating communities while anyone from Yorkshire who complained of communities being decimated right now would be labelled a racist.

Backward priorities and in the end, a safe outlet that helps what really matters to fly under the radar.

Like you I think independence is a logical point for Scotland to be done with it; it's unlikely though as independence could never be achieved while alienating those who wish to retain a union of crowns - in my view they can knock themselves out, let them have their largely irrelevant monarch. It will just be like Scotland for Independence not to happen due to people become entrenched over such sideshows.

No argument from me on this.

 

[southfieldhibby]

If we were starting from scratch no way would I want a Royal Family.

Indeed should Scotland go independent I'd not want whoever is king or queen as head of state.

However, I suppose old age is making me sentimental and more of a traditionalist. Lots of people love the Royal family and I just don't get why they provoke such hatred from certain quarters.

I hate Rangers, beasts, murderers and racists. Which I suppose could be long hand for the royal family.

- - - Updated - - -

Given juries have been judged inadequate to deal with highly technical court cases - sophisticated fraud for example - I'm not sure it provides a workable precedent for this. I actually can't believe you reckon this would work, for pretty much every reason from competence, to churn, to the propensity for political chaos as a random selection of views end up in the second house, which could be entirely unrepresentative of the population. That said, one thing is for sure, on average we'd have a far more 'reactionary' legislature than we do currently!

I'm not so sure it would be any worse than the current second chamber of priests, inherited mentalists and chosen party stooges. We'd get good guys and wanks, but it would probably reflect society a wee bit better.It was a Thursday afternoon musing, but given your opposition, it could have legs!

 

[egb_hibs]

I hate Rangers, beasts, murderers and racists. Which I suppose could be long hand for the royal family.

do you also hate giant shape shifting lizards :hmmm

I'm not so sure it would be any worse than the current second chamber of priests, inherited mentalists and chosen party stooges. We'd get good guys and wanks, but it would probably reflect society a wee bit better.It was a Thursday afternoon musing, but given your opposition, it could have legs!

You being the fantasy to the table, I'll bring the reality; together we'll get there

I think you should be careful what you wish for in any case; when the plebs get their say we get no to Indy and yes to brexit. Your plan would soon have the death penalty back, stricter border controls and massive tax cuts!

 

[aggie]

You any idea how much tourism cash comes into the UK thanks to "their freak show"?

So tiring to hear this trotted out all the time (not aimed at you in particular K). How is this measured? Tourists coming to London? People taking photos of Buckingham Palace? It's like arguing that the Tattoo is solely responsible for bringing tourist money into Scotland, or that apart from its gate money you can tell how many people are coming for it, and it alone. Of course it does bring in money in a way, but it's in no way measurable discretely against the context of the festival, let alone Scotland at large.

Furthermore, if there wasn't a Queen "in", would folk stop coming to see Buck Palace? It's not like she's there welcoming folk with a fucking cup of tea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[egb_hibs]

So tiring to hear this trotted out all the time (not aimed at you in particular K). How is this measured? Tourists coming to London? People taking photos of Buckingham Palace? It's like arguing that the Tattoo is solely responsible for bringing tourist money into Scotland, or that apart from its gate money you can tell how many people are coming for it, and it alone. Of course it does bring in money in a way, but it's in no way measurable discretely against the context of the festival, let alone Scotland at large.

Furthermore, if there wasn't a Queen "in", would folk stop coming to see Buck Palace? It's not like she's there welcoming folk with a $#@!ing cup of tea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Observable facts that without any research I can, erm, observe;

- wherever she goes folk turn out in huge numbers
- shops in London especially are full of related merchandise, which presumably sells
- loads of folk go and see Buckingham palace compared to unoccupied or historical royal seats
- Windsor hatches, matches and dispatches attract massive worldwide audiences

All suggestive that she has marketing appeal; I think the onus is on those who want change to prove that people would be as enthused by some bland establishment bureaucrat or flavour of the month celeb. We have to face facts that the queen is more popular than any political party, not least amongst incomers. Outside Scotland and half of NI, your view and mine is largely the preserve of a bunch of upper class lefties who represent a tiny constituency, and are mostly pissed because their older brothers will inherit the land and titles.

 

[Smurf]

I hate Rangers, beasts, murderers and racists. Which I suppose could be long hand for the royal family.

The Hibs badge I loved when a laddie was more long hand for the royal family....

 

[egb_hibs]

The Hibs badge I loved when a laddie was more long hand for the royal family....

The Spanish one, but

 

[southfieldhibby]

Observable facts that without any research I can, erm, observe;

- wherever she goes folk turn out in huge numbers
- shops in London especially are full of related merchandise, which presumably sells
- loads of folk go and see Buckingham palace compared to unoccupied or historical royal seats
- Windsor hatches, matches and dispatches attract massive worldwide audiences

All suggestive that she has marketing appeal; I think the onus is on those who want change to prove that people would be as enthused by some bland establishment bureaucrat or flavour of the month celeb. We have to face facts that the queen is more popular than any political party, not least amongst incomers. Outside Scotland and half of NI, your view and mine is largely the preserve of a bunch of upper class lefties who represent a tiny constituency, and are mostly pissed because their older brothers will inherit the land and titles.

With the cost being met by local councils.

I think Versailles gets 3 times the number of visitors Buckingham Palace gets.

- - - Updated - - -

The Hibs badge I loved when a laddie was more long hand for the royal family....

My badly made point was I don't hate anything but Rangers,beasts etc. Certainly don't hate the royals.

 

[aggie]

Observable facts that without any research I can, erm, observe;

- wherever she goes folk turn out in huge numbers
- shops in London especially are full of related merchandise, which presumably sells
- loads of folk go and see Buckingham palace compared to unoccupied or historical royal seats
- Windsor hatches, matches and dispatches attract massive worldwide audiences

All suggestive that she has marketing appeal; I think the onus is on those who want change to prove that people would be as enthused by some bland establishment bureaucrat or flavour of the month celeb. We have to face facts that the queen is more popular than any political party, not least amongst incomers. Outside Scotland and half of NI, your view and mine is largely the preserve of a bunch of upper class lefties who represent a tiny constituency, and are mostly pissed because their older brothers will inherit the land and titles.

1) Wherever she goes... - a) huge numbers turning out in the fuckin Cook Islands matters not a jot, and b) where are these huge numbers here in the UK aside from trooping the colour or whatever. I've met the Queen at a normal engagement, and believe me, numbers are STRICTLY controlled. So basically, the odd event where folk buy a plastic Union Jack and a Starbucks coffee. You'll forgive me if I'm not that impressed.

2) Shops - Queen mugs I'll give you. But not sure the revenue from royal tat offsets the huge costs of having the fuckers.

3) Bucks as opposed to unoccupied etc - No shit. Bucks is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF FUCKING LONDON. I'm sure if Balmoral was walkable from Hyde Park Corner tube, there'd be tons of folk visiting there an aw.

4) I've no idea what "hatches, matches, and dispatches" even is, so I can't respond to that.

So aye, she's marketable - to an extent. But I simply don't accept it's this massive cash cow that justifies their existence and drain on the public purse. And no one is suggesting we would market a bland head of state, but equally no one is suggesting we spend hundreds of millions on their upkeep and their seventy houses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[egb_hibs]

With the cost being met by local councils.

I think Versailles gets 3 times the number of visitors Buckingham Palace gets.

A quick google suggests Buckie hoose gets twice as many. Maybe you were looking at figures for people going inside, which i imagine will be much less due to its use as residency

The payment question we can put to your people's second chamber - pretty sure they'll dismantle half of the state bureaucracy to cover the shortfall should it be necessary. Or given she costs us all 62p a year, they'll probably prioritise pretty much everything else in the budget first.

As above, we're in Scotland - in the rest of the UK outside NI, ours is the view of a small elite and she is much more popular than almost everything we spunk money on.

 

[southfieldhibby]

A quick google suggests Buckie hoose gets twice as many. Maybe you were looking at figures for people going inside, which i imagine will be much less due to its use as residency

The payment question we can put to your people's second chamber - pretty sure they'll dismantle half of the state bureaucracy to cover the shortfall should it be necessary. Or given she costs us all 62p a year, they'll probably prioritise pretty much everything else in the budget first.

As above, we're in Scotland - in the rest of the UK outside NI, ours is the view of a small elite and she is much more popular than almost everything we spunk money on.

There must be two googles. Mine tells me I was wrong too...416,000 visitors to Buck house, 7,000,000 to Versailles. And visitors should be classed as those who go inside, otherwise they're just loiterers.

 

[egb_hibs]

1) Wherever she goes... - a) huge numbers turning out in the $#@!in Cook Islands matters not a jot, and b) where are these huge numbers here in the UK aside from trooping the colour or whatever. I've met the Queen at a normal engagement, and believe me, numbers are STRICTLY controlled. So basically, the odd event where folk buy a plastic Union Jack and a Starbucks coffee. You'll forgive me if I'm not that impressed.

they control the numbers due to the sheer lack of interest do they?

2) Shops - Queen mugs I'll give you. But not sure the revenue from royal tat offsets the huge costs of having the $#@!ers.

62p per taxpayer. There's a near endless number of things I'd get rid of first and I'm not one of the large majority that are her fans. It's not just mugs either and there is a fecking lot of it; it is a concrete indicator of interest

3) Bucks as opposed to unoccupied etc - No $#@!. Bucks is RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF $#@!ING LONDON. I'm sure if Balmoral was walkable from Hyde Park Corner tube, there'd be tons of folk visiting there an aw.

more than 5x the Tower of London, in the middle of fucking London, 15x the Houses of Parliament, in the middle of fucking London , 10x St Paul's, in the middle of fucking London...

4) I've no idea what "hatches, matches, and dispatches" even is, so I can't respond to that.

Aggers, after watching with sympathy your recent debacle at the Teresa / Alan joke, I'm gonna give you a little moment to work this one out

So aye, she's marketable - to an extent. But I simply don't accept it's this massive cash cow that justifies their existence and drain on the public purse. And no one is suggesting we would market a bland head of state, but equally no one is suggesting we spend hundreds of millions on their upkeep and their seventy houses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so you're not going to provide any argument as to why she might 'run at a loss' then? As I say I think the onus on those who want change if they want to use funding as a stick - im not sure it's the right one.

- - - Updated - - -

There must be two googles. Mine tells me I was wrong too...416,000 visitors to Buck house, 7,000,000 to Versailles. And visitors should be classed as those who go inside, otherwise they're just loiterers.

Yeah that's people who go inside I think; 15m visitors to the palace

http://www.uncsbrp.org/tourism.htm

 

[southfieldhibby]

Loiterers egb, loiterers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smurf]

Over 300,000+ come to Edinburgh each year and head down to Leith to visit a yacht. Obviously nothing to do with who used to be on it...

 

[egb_hibs]

Over 300,000+ come to Edinburgh each year and head down to Leith to visit a yacht. Obviously nothing to do with who used to be on it...

You'll get nowhere with data K, Corbyn economics here; prejudice > facts

 

[aggie]

Over 300,000+ come to Edinburgh each year and head down to Leith to visit a yacht. Obviously nothing to do with who used to be on it...

Emphasis on "used to be"...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Smurf]

Emphasis on "used to be"...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But if she hadn't then I assume very few of they 300,000+ would be bothering to visit?

 

[PILTONSTANY]

I'm no a big fan of the Royal family,i don't hate them,i just don't see the point in them anymore.

Whilst it must be great to have the wealth,it must be total shite no being able to just walk along the street on a sunny day or go for a pint if you fancy it...

 

[egb_hibs]

I'm no a big fan of the Royal family,i don't hate them,i just don't see the point in them anymore.

Whilst it must be great to have the wealth,it must be total $#@!e no being able to just walk along the street on a sunny day or go for a pint if you fancy it...

I agree. I'm not even sure they have wealth in a meaningful way, ie being able to spend it as they choose, as opposed to it being retained within the 'institution'. It must be a hellish existence actually - would be for me anyway, as would any kind of fame.