Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Royal Baby
- Thread starter Tilpots
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Personally I don't understand the utter fascination with the "royals", especially outside the UK
On the other hand, I don't particularly understand the hatred towards them either
On the other hand, I don't particularly understand the hatred towards them either
From the Twitter Blog
Fascinating stuff. A child is born and the world reacts. Can you imagine your birth being a world wide event? That spotlight's gotta feel real bright.
Fascinating stuff. A child is born and the world reacts. Can you imagine your birth being a world wide event? That spotlight's gotta feel real bright.
I've been to England many many times, and while it pales in comparison with France, its still such an interesting place.
The question is.
Why are the English people still giving the royals all this great treatment?
Their useless, they don't do anything useful at all. All they do is suck up money and get waited on hand and foot. What the hell is wrong with England? Those boot licking suplicants.
Time to boot those idiots out and have them get real jobs.
Tourist money wouldn't suffer as all the famous landmarks would still exist.
The question is.
Why are the English people still giving the royals all this great treatment?
Their useless, they don't do anything useful at all. All they do is suck up money and get waited on hand and foot. What the hell is wrong with England? Those boot licking suplicants.
Time to boot those idiots out and have them get real jobs.
Tourist money wouldn't suffer as all the famous landmarks would still exist.
The vibe I get from my British friends is that most Brits couldn't give a flying **** about the royal family. It seems to me it's us Americans that are so obsessed with them.
It's notable that the interviews with wellwishers gathering outside the hospital and the Palace tend to be a bit light of any British accents...
Can't be any worse than the name Kanye and Kim came up with for their daughter.
That has a special place as the epitome of human decadence... the whole Kardashian clan should just get off the planet.
I know, it's almost as daft as getting excited about rumours of new computers and phones.
I'm sure I should let a Brit answer this question...
It's my understanding that there is a lot of resentment (hatred?) toward the Royals living very high on the hog off the public dole. They also represent a vestige of a time that was just dandy for the Royals and Nobility...and for the rest of the population life was not so terrific. Finally, they represent unearned privilege, just being born to a life most other Brits can't even imagine.
They are a throwback to a time past, which, for many is now best relegated to the past.
Apologies for my outsider's view...please feel free to correct my very possibly uninformed views.
A lot of us feel the same.
I can't understand why it's covered on the news every 5 seconds here in the USA. Blows my mind!
There are some that hold this view, and there are also some who are extremely pro-monarchy. However, I would say that the largest school of thought regarding the monarchy is "meh" (and I include myself in that).
There isn't any real prospect of the monarchy going anytime soon as those who are really vocal or strongly republican are relatively small - and therefore the idea isn't taken that seriously. Equally the really pro-monarchy people are looked down on as a bit weird. Generally so long as the Queen just stands around being a figurehead the majority of people are ok with the status quo.
There may be a certain amount of resentment in Britain. But if there is, its is misplaced. The British Taxpayer actually gets a pretty good deal from Elizabeth II & Co.
In addition to the billions of pounds in tourist revenue Britain gets courtesy of having the Royal Family, there is also the financial windfall the Exchequer gets courtesy of the Crown Estate.
All those fancy department stores up and down Picadilly? At one time that land (plus a few thousand acres of other prime British property) was owned personally by the British Sovereign. But good old King George III (the mad one, who lost the American Colonies) ran a little short of cash in the late 18th century. So he made a deal with Parliament, swapping all that property in exchange for an annual payment (known as the Civil List) to keep the family in style.
In fiscal 2012 the Crown Estate had revenues (paid into the general tax fund) of approximately £250 million. The Civil List (ie. the money paid to the Queen and her family) was comfortably under £10 million. Even allowing for the other expenses of keeping the Monarchy (ie. police, security, etc.) - the British taxpayer still comes out way ahead.
While as an outsider, I wouldn't presume to totally disagree...except for the point that those billions of pounds of tourist dollars are not all attributable to the presence of the Royal family. While you are undoubtedly correct that some percentage of the money comes in because of their presence, there are many other reasons to visit, and enjoy, Britain than the Royals. And I'm not really sure, aside from some public events, how the Royals are that big a draw, since the likelihood of seeing them is about nil. All the changing of the guard stuff, and other public manifestations of their presence, occurs whether they are present, or even in town, and not at one of their other residences.
And my tourist visits to London were in no way motivated by the existence of the Royals..so there is a couple of billion pounds right there that can't be attributed to the existence of the Royal family. (I stay in nice hotels, eat out a lot, and I'm a very heavy tipper!).
BTW: About that little contretemps with George a few years ago...you were well rid of us. Nasty and brutish bunch, we...
Last edited:
While as an outsider, I wouldn't presume to totally disagree...except for the point that those billions of pounds of tourist dollars are not all attributable to the presence of the Royal family. While you are undoubtedly correct that some percentage of the money comes in because of their presence, there are many other reasons to visit, and enjoy, Britain than the Royals. And I'm not really sure, aside from some public events, how the Royals are that big a draw, since the likelihood of seeing them is about nil. All the changing of the guard stuff, and other public manifestations of their presence, occurs whether they are present, or even in town, and not at one of their other residences.
And my tourist visits to London were in no way motivated by the existence of the Royals..so there is a couple of billion pounds right there that can't be attributed to the existence of the Royal family. (I stay in nice hotels, eat out a lot, and I'm a very heavy tipper!).
BTW: About that little contretemps with George a few years ago...you were well rid of us. Nasty and brutish bunch, we...
Both of his points aren't actually true, but the media are very good at pushing these myths and manipulating the figures.
The crown estate isn't owned by the royal family and never has been, if the monarchy were disbanded then the government would get the money from it. And as you say most tourists never actually see the royals, they visit for the historical buildings and other attractions.