In the 21st century, do we need a monarch?

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • We have an OPT OUT clause when joining a trade union whereby none of your fee goes to a political party.

    I would guess the struggling Royals would be suicidal if we had the same for them ref our tax. They would have to use some of their BILLIONS. They dont get it do they... it is this vital factor that hard working people who really do struggle, pay for this billionaire group to eat five course meals and have someone open doors for them and wipe their arses. They should stop moaning and the MSM and stupid people should stop saying.. "oh my god, how do these people cope, the queen is 92, how do they manage, no one else could do what they have to do" ??? Absolute bollox. I am not saying be malicious or horrible to them. I simply say be flipping straight and realistic.

    There are thousands of people every week who have their homes taken from them by the banks... those same banks who created the so-called credit crunch.

    Ricky Gervais injected reality into those pathetic actors .. perhaps he should present the Royal Variety Performance and do the same there.

  • .

    So what?

    It is not yet illegal to be enjoy the trappings of being born or married into a rich family. Nor is it illegal as to whether you put that lucky benefit to good purpose or become a selfish wastrel. Nor is it illegal to be a pigheaded spectator exercising a biased speculation because of a left wing chip on their shoulder.

    You might idolise and worship an unelected head of state, a view from the distant age of empire

    However such a view is rapidly disappearing as people become better educated and question why they should finance this Ruritanian pantomime. I doubt your devotion will get you a gong so you will have to live in hope

    Another mistake, it's not a "left wing chip". Most of my life has been supporting the Tory party when they were a centre party

  • Your reference to a "Royal Brand" is just a derogatory way of describing the Royal Family or the Monarchy or British Sovereignty. "Brand" was usually a product (eg Cadbury, Nike, Ford, Marlboro) that has become one of those moronic shorthand descriptions of any entity that captures people's awareness and generates perceived thoughts, feelings, attributes and even - God Forbid if it's Royalty - a personality. Forum Box could become a "brand". You, Horizon, could become a "brand". In theory!

    If royalty is not a brand, why are Harry and Meghan seeking numerous trademarks over their Sussex brand? In a few months time, try selling a Royal Sussex teapot and see what happens.

    The Royal Firm/Buck Inc wouldn't exist in these post-Thatcher times if it wasn't a cash cow. So, in your parlance, it has long been a "brand" and it makes a lot of money .... or as they say in the FT, it provides a good ROI, or as you would describe it more charmingly, "a money-making machine".

    A money making machine for itself, not us. Cash cow for themselves, not us.

    In the meantime, until you decide on such thoughts - and because you're a keen researcher - I'd be fascinated to know any details that support your discovery that "Harry and Meghan have created one massive merchandising machine using a royal brand". I'm asking here about what they have done as opposed of what you or the media speculate they might or plan to do.

    Read one of the links posted in this thread in last few days, or look it up on Google. They've trademarked hundreds of items. Perhaps you think they will give away all this stuff to starving African children, while they reside in some freezing shack in the Canadian wilderness with bears and tins of baked beans for company?

    That said, which do you think is the better "brand image" for Britain's most famous historical and current-day "family" that symbolises a stable sovereign nation?


    (a) Outdated tradition, pomp & circumstance


    (b) something more natural, sincere, less fake, less encased in aspic, more communicative, a persona that acknowledges that Britain, with all its more positive features is, for better or worse, in the 21st century?


    Yes, of course, something in between! But increased in which direction - towards (a) or (b)?

    There is a debate to be had, why we need a head of state at all, but nothing wrong with pomp and tradition in my book. As for getting something which is natural and sincere, I suppose we need a human version of Holland and Barratt for that, but preferablely cheaper.

  • The Sussex Royal Foundation is also getting into the food and drink industry.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHdwbbJYqIg

    • 56101 - Licensed restaurants
    • 56102 - Unlicensed restaurants and cafes
    • 56302 - Public houses and bars

    See for yourselves...registered and terminated on 11 Jan 2020. Something odd going on there to cover tracks or maybe hide something. Very MI6 type behaviour, possibly some form of tax avoidance scheme with a bit of cloak and dagger.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC650317/officers

    It seems they have their fingers in many pies.

  • They already have millions in the bank. What they want is more millions and us footing the bill. Is that really acceptable to you?


    A rich family doesn't get subsides by taxpayers (if you exclude all the many subsides that land owners get) so not comparable to the The Firm. at all.

    You miss the point: Harry & Meghan can make money that not only needn't come from the tax payer but will actually rewards the taxpayer. The financial payback will come from rich Americans who want to rub shoulders with Meghan & Harry because of the connection with the Royal Family.

    Many of the big successful charities use famous or talented people to raise funds and often those (figure-)heads are well remunerated (plus travel expenses) and devote a lot of their time to the cause For example the salary of David Miliband, chief executive of the International Rescue Committee, is practically $1 million per annum (and that excludes expenses).

    Also, bear in mind that in America, donations are tax deductible to a more generous and flexible extent than in the UK. So for the right members of the Royal Family, there's gold in those hills.

    Also bear in mind that when doing an analysis of the correlation between the tax payer's cost of running the Royal Family and the income it generates from charity donations, foreign investment and tourism, it is undoubtedly profitable.

    Look at it another way: a rich semi-couth slob wants to crawl up the social ladder. The government can only extract a limited amount of tax out of him because he's got a good accountant. But he'd give hundreds of thousands to a posh charity, one where he might get invited to a Royal Garden Party or Ascot's Royal Enclosure or eventually get a knighthood. Bear in mind that the British Government already spends a lot on overseas aid and supporting charities (doubtless including excessive or unnecessary amounts allocated unwisely). Thus, Britain's taxpayers come out ahead from stroking the pathetic egos of these wealthy (aspiring/pseudo) socialites.

    Bottom line: The Government's Royal Family should pick up the tab for monetizing Meghan & Harry. It's self-financing and will generate income to the tax payers

    Once you've got over your class bias, and your Trotsky hatred of too-easily-earned privilege, and are willing to think rationally, I suggest you examine the case for taxpayers pissing away at least £100 billion on an investment which won't even begin to pay for itself until 30 years later, by which time the product created by that investment will be outmoded. I refer to HS2.



    .  

  • casablanca Ok, question for you. That Canadian article that I linked to the other day was scathing about members of the royal family being permanently based in Canada. This comes from the Canadians, who still have the Queen as head of State.

    If H&M (Harry and Meghan) ultimately base themselves permanently in LA, how will Americans (who teach their little kids that "they're a Republic for which we stand" etc etc) how will they react to members of the royal family being permanently based in the US?

    I take your point that H&M can make a lot of money on the lecture/charity/hobnob circuits, but I think you completely miss the political dimension of all of this.

  • The Sussex Royal Foundation is also getting into the food and drink industry.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHdwbbJYqIg

    • 56101 - Licensed restaurants
    • 56102 - Unlicensed restaurants and cafes
    • 56302 - Public houses and bars

    See for yourselves...registered and terminated on 11 Jan 2020. Something odd going on there to cover tracks or maybe hide something. Very MI6 type behaviour, possibly some form of tax avoidance scheme with a bit of cloak and dagger.

    https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/SC650317/officers

    It seems they have their fingers in many pies.

    The Director linked to H&M has resigned, but that is curious. I've bookmarked that page for future reference. Thanks.:thumbup:

  • The Canadians might start to think of Harry and Meghan living in their midst as a possible threat to their constitution according to this article:

    https://nypost.com/2020/01/15/can…-arent-welcome/

    Unfortunately, the Canadian paper itself is behind a paywall, so can't read the whole article, but that NY Post article gives a summary and most interesting it is too.

    Thanks for tracking that down.

    Whatever made the Royal Family presume Canada would still be a curtsy-ing colony?

    Far better for H&M to avoid lumbering themselves in Canada when just across the border a more warm and open or less tight-ass reception awaits, where the Boston Tea Party is an almost invisible ancient speck

    With a watchful eye to media malignancy I think H&M should permit themselves to undergo an unedited live TV interview in which they make it clear they are not seeking or intending to "sell Royalty" to America. They are just trying to escape the media magnifying glass in the UK which was planting seeds of divisiveness and hostility based on untruths or fabrications, which we don't wish to elaborate on.

  • Except it's not, that's the point I was trying to make.

    Sorry Horizon if I misunderstood you. Does this mean we're in agreement on M&H's best place to be when across the pond?

    When you say "except it's not" I'm not sure what you are defining as "it". I'm saying the reception in the US would be warmer or less critical or less past- colonial self-conscious than in Canada

  • I'm saying that the Americans may gush over Harry to begin with and I accept your arguments that he can make a lot of money doing the charity circuit, but there will come a time, possibly much sooner than anyone thinks, when it will go wrong.

    Scenario on how it might play out: Harry attends a lecture on climate change and makes his speech to a load of folks in a rust belt state after flying in on a private plane paid for by a American charity. It all goes wrong the moment when a:) He lectures the audience on how they should reduce their carbon footprint and b) Makes a joke against Trump.

    They will turn on him quick smart.

  • Why was Heathrow closed for 20 minutes stopping planes landing and taking off?

    It was something to do with Northolt where royal flights take off and land

    Was Harry taking off for Canada?

    'We have five minutes' fuel left': Pilot's warning to passengers as they circle Heathrow when dozens of flights are delayed or diverted by RAF's 'unplanned' demand to close airspace

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7…e-airspace.html

  • Why was Heathrow closed for 20 minutes stopping planes landing and taking off?

    It was something to do with Northolt where royal flights take off and land

    Was Harry taking off for Canada?

    'We have five minutes' fuel left': Pilot's warning to passengers as they circle Heathrow when dozens of flights are delayed or diverted by RAF's 'unplanned' demand to close airspace

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7898773/Heathrow-arrivals-diverted-airports-RAF-plane-demands-unplanned-use-a

    She told Mirror Online: 'It was quite alarming when the captain announced after circling Heathrow for a while, "Ladies and gentlemen we have about five to ten minutes" fuel left so we may need to divert to Gatwick'.

    I'm willing to believe the woman told something to the Mirror on line.

    From there on there are several possibilities:

    1) That she misheard that it was 5-10 minutes

    2) That she made up that it was to 10 minutes

    3) That it might have 5-10 minutes to decide whether to proceed to Gatwick

    4) That the mirror reporter made up that it was "Ladies and gentlemen we have about five to ten minutes" fuel left so we may need to divert to Gatwick" because that's what reporters do these days

    5) As for what this has to do with Harry taking off to Canada to Northolt, we'll never know. Seems a reasonable assumption although it might have been Sir Philip Green on his way to Nice. Or Tania Ecclestone on her way to Elstree. All we can be sure of is that it was someone who Bryanluc or the Mirror isn't keen on

    I think Bryanluc should become a journalist. He meets all the necessary requirements. He's wasted on this Forum except as some kind unwitting court jester

  • I'm saying that the Americans may gush over Harry to begin with and I accept your arguments that he can make a lot of money doing the charity circuit, but there will come a time, possibly much sooner than anyone thinks, when it will go wrong.

    Scenario on how it might play out: Harry attends a lecture on climate change and makes his speech to a load of folks in a rust belt state after flying in on a private plane paid for by a American charity. It all goes wrong the moment when a:) He lectures the audience on how they should reduce their carbon footprint and b) Makes a joke against Trump.

    They will turn on him quick smart.

    Or maybe he will piss on the carpet in front of them as a Royal gesture

    Or he will come on stage wearing a suit which has loads of 1,000 dollar bills pinned to it, while he sings "I'm in the money"

    Or he will walk amongst the audience handing out invitation cards to Meet Meghan for $500 per minute (excluding travel), payment in advance, Amex cards accepted, 10% reduction for cash

    Or he will do an impromptu dance with a surprise dance partner guest (Prince Andrew) to the tune of Money Money Money (from Cabaret).

    Or he will be photographed humping his sexy PR agent behind the curtain just before coming on stage

    I agree with you Horizon, all these scenarios are possible in the fullness of time and I'm sure you're right that they will be detrimental to his image

    Why don't you add to your wish list that he might drop dead? That would also sour his new career

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!