Australia gives Knighthood to Prince Philip - er, ... A Prince Philip appreciation thread

[kentonio]

As has been observed many times, Kentonio is not an actual conservative.

Oh hush.

[Hauldren Collider]

Honestly I'm not even mad about the corruption. What would the point of having a monarchy be if they weren't allowed to do cool things that no one else is allowed to do? You know, like take bribes, evade taxes, neat stuff like that. If they can't do that you might as well get rid of it then.

[Sava]

Kentonio, you should just come out and straight up admit that you're kinda fond of the cutesy aspect of having ~a monarchy~ and that it swells your national pride, kinda like the space shuttle or mars rover or B-2 do here. Except wait a minute. Those actually do things.

thankworthy post
I have no thanks

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

You really need to compare Buckingham Palace against the tourist performance of other royal buildings with no actual royals in them.

Like the Louvre. Or Versailles. Or Neuschwanstein Castle. Or the Taj Mahal. They seem to be doing quite well.

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, why aren't the tourist entry fees for Buckingham Palace used for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace, rather than asking for them to be covered by the taxpayer?

[kentonio]

Wiki says the entrance fee was originally used to restore Windsor after the fire, but there's no mention of how its used now. Do you have a better source for how the money is used currently?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It goes to the Royal Collection Trust, as does the entry fees for Windsor Castle.

http://view.digitalissue.co.uk/00000082/00008128/00089455/

See page 76/77.

So, you have a set-up where these palaces which are quite emphatically owned by the state, are used to generate fund from visitors (inefficiently). The proceeds go to a the Royal Collection Trust, which is a "charity" and therefore pays no tax. I put the quote marks around "charity" because the Royal Collection Trust exists to maintain the Royal Collection- a collection of arts and treasures legally owned by one person- HM the Queen. We are told that they are held in trust for the state, but as anyone who has studied the Law of Trusts (like me) can tell you, that means legal ownership and control sits squarely with the legal owner. The Queen.

As devices to funnel public funds into a private purse go, it's a pretty good one.

[kentonio]

A private purse that pretty much solely goes towards public works. Unless you're aware of the Queen spending her personal wealth on super yachts and high stakes poker?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Quite the opposite, in fact. The Royal Yacht Britannia was funded by the state, so there was no need to trouble the Royal Purse with it.

The Queen's state-originated income is primarily spent on her army of staff. And as many are housed in the palaces (state-owned) there's effectively a big state subsidy for living costs slapped on.

Do you see a trend emerging?

[kentonio]

Quite, I'm practically apoplectic about it already.

[pchang]

While one can show that the UK would be financially better off without the Monarchy, there really is no way to overvalue the "Royal Feel Good Factor", eh Ken?

[kentonio]

One can't show that. That's kind of the point.

[pchang]

Oh, I think Bugs has you on that one.

[kentonio]

Not in the slightest, he just cares enough to argue the point. If it was actually provable, then the Republican movement might actually make up some ground.

[kentonio]

Three quarters of people believe that the newborn Prince George will one day accede to the throne to which he is third in line, the ComRes survey for The Sunday Telegraph found.

Just 9 per cent of those questioned think that he will not become king because Britain will have become a republic — whereas a poll in 2011 found that a quarter of people expected a republic to emerge within 50 years.

Even among 18 to 24-year-olds, the age group most likely to hold republican views, today’s poll shows a solid 69 per cent believe that Prince George will one day become king.

The poll suggests that the majority of the country sees no benefit in republicanism, with some two thirds of those polled (66 per cent) thinking that Britain is better off as a monarchy.

Only 17 per cent wanted a republic instead.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...oll-shows.html

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I'm one of those 3/4 who think the little parasite will accede to the throne. However....

1- That doesn't mean to say the role of the throne will be unchanged, and...

2- That's not a seal of approval. I'm pretty sure I'll get hemorrhoids one day, but I'm not putting up bunting in anticipation.