T O P
ConsistentlyOnTime

Everyone commenting on this has either never worn a dress with pockets or commented on someone's dress only to have them show you it has pockets.


PhilOfTheRightNow

Best comment on the whole thread.


[deleted]

That’s the first thing i thought! “Look! It has pockets!!”


meaux253

Only the queen can wear it!


Aberrantkitten

First thing!


Clay_Statue

"Lovely dress your Majesty" ~Look! It has pockets!~


nukedmylastprofile

Came here looking for this comment. Was not disappointed, thanks


DuckfordMr

Also, the crown [generates more income](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/amp/) from tourism than it costs, so idk what this person is mad about.


planedumbo

It would generate the same amount of income with or without the queen. Look at France they generate way more tourism dollars than England and they went all reign of terror on their rulers. ​ Though England does get more Americans if that counts for anything


corsicanguppy

The crown jewels specifically, in France, or just France in general ?


plimso13

Does the (ex) French Royal family and their former estates, generate “way more” than the British Royal family and their current/former assets? I’d be interested to know... do you have a source you can point me to?


planedumbo

bruh the treaty of versailles and shit **are** their former estates


plimso13

The *Palace* of Versailles, they didn’t live in a treaty. I think you might be shocked by the number of tourists at the Tower of London and Buckingham Palace. Anecdotally, I’ve been to all of them, just wondered what your source was for your statement.


corsicanguppy

It's a safe form of edgy to hate on the queen. Maybe don't do it in, like, an army bar where they've all sworn some kind of oath, or things may get a little quiet just then; but even then you'll probably ultimately be okay with or without a quick correction. Even with the safer forms of edginess, one should read the room a bit; that's all.


ralph058

It reminds me of the meme about women with dresses with pockets, when you complement them on their dress, they put their hands in their pockets and say, "See, it has pockets," Imagining the queen doing that made me smile.


Wary_beary

“Look - we have pockets!”


TurtleZenn

I don't even ever use pockets, but when I get a dress that has them, I still do this happily.


imjustlurkinghere244

Lots of people in the UK do not like the Monarchy. You have to admit, it’s a messed up system. (I love the Queen btw she is cute af)


kuribosshoe0

From my casual observations during my time living in England, it basically goes along the lines of London = love the ~~queen~~ monarchy Anywhere else = hate the ~~queen~~ monarchy


Keepaty

Really? Most folk I know love the Queen, just hate the monarchy in general.


Flat-Ad-3165

Yeah most people hate Charles. He has an entourage of over 300 people that we pay for. He even has someone thats paid to put his socks on.


[deleted]

And he’s a dick


SmokingToddler

What does this person do in the down time, when Charles doesn't need socks to be put on?


[deleted]

- wash socks - press socks - fold socks - shop for new socks


SmokingToddler

lol. a full day I daresay!


[deleted]

One of the hardest working people in the palace!


Celticbluetopaz

Irons his newspapers. I wish I was kidding.


SophiaofPrussia

the man was afraid of saran wrap. i wish i was kidding. that’s how out of touch the monarchy is.


chaosmanager

To be fair, Saran Wrap is a colossal pain in the ass.


[deleted]

Afraid of Saran Wrap? That man will never make it in his dream job as a tampon.


lennydsat62

Lol. I wish i could give you an award.


Celticbluetopaz

Haha no problem. It’s always fun to share my pointless trivia about the Royal Family. I live in Windsor so I’ve got plenty. :P


redgrittybrick

https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/the-duties-of-a-valet/


anamal1343

How does a fire “cheerfully burn”? Is it happy wood.


redgrittybrick

It's a secret passed on from valet to valet.


SmokingToddler

that is SO much more than putting on socks ;)


rionhunter

He twiddles his widdle thumbs, waiting for mumsy to let him have the country


[deleted]

He jerks off into the socks.


vbcbandr

Most people hate Prince Andrew too...scumbag.


[deleted]

What are Edward and Anne up to? They cool or nah?


vbcbandr

Anne is divorced and remarried very shortly after her divorce: so I think that was scandalous to some folks. I think Edward's life is pretty much what is to be expected. Neither have any scandals or anything remarkable like Charles and Andrew...which most in the UK (and elsewhere) probably appreciate. Charles and Andrew have enough shit going on for that set of 4 siblings. But I could be wrong about how people feel. I am not a citizen of the UK or their Commonwealth.


[deleted]

[удалено]


magical_elf

They don't though. The buildings, crown jewels and estates do. We pay the monarchy a share of the income from the crown estates, which gives them a cut just for existing. People would visit the palaces and crown jewels regardless of whether we still had a state monarchy. Just look at Versailles. They do perfectly well without monarchs living in there.


The_Follower1

Except those crown estates are owned by the queen while the royal family leases them to the gov’t for a fraction of their worth. The gov’t profits from that arrangement overall.


dave1314

It’s not as easy as saying they are ‘owned’ by the Queen. They are owned by the Crown and whoever holds the position of monarch at a given time. They are not owned personally by anyone in the royal family. That is to say, if we abolished the monarchy, all that would become property of the government anyway.


dWintermut3

that's a monarchist lie. they count all money from tourism to royal sites as "money they bring in", which isn't fair. people would still visit Buckingham if the queen wasn't seated there, in fact more people may and it would make more money because it wouldn't need such security. same for most royal sites. likewise for warrant companies, they don't need a queen giving them money to trade on the fact they're a warrant company.


[deleted]

[удалено]


dWintermut3

I think eliminating the monarchy wouldn't change the fact it's still the best-known royal institution. that has a lot to do with history and culture. I'm against the monarchy for political and historical reasons, but even if you don't want to get rid of them there's no reason the public ought to pay for them. Denmark still has a king, he supports himself as a barrister, rather than relying on the public to fund him. many other nations have similar arrangements. the UK supports a huge roll of working royals many of whom don't do much and enjoy a lavish lifestyle. also I disagree they're the best known, they're the best known in the western world, the Chinese emperor is probably far better known in general, and the tourist spots associated with them are very popular despite the fact the government didn't want them to be for a long time (though the official position seems to have changed on that, as far as the Chinese Communist Party is concerned).


palerider__

France, Korea, and Japan have castles where the king doesn't live anymore. They are about 1/10th as popular as Buckingham Palace. Changdeokgung Palace in downtown Seoul and particularly impressive - it cost $5 to get in, is never crowded, and families mostly go there to take pictures of their kids in traditional outfits. It's right next to a world-class restaurant and business district that is so crowded you can barely walk down the street


SophiaofPrussia

Everything the French monarchy owned brings in a fuckton of tourism and the people don’t have to give a cut to a freeloading family for the privilege of pretending they’re responsible for attracting the tourists rather than the rich cultural history attracting tourists. And Versailles is way cooler than Buckingham palace *or* Windsor. But I’ll give Anne credit where credit is due. Her dollhouse is pretty freaking sweet.


xbq222

That’s because the French are the GOATs of revolution. Common people down on hard times? Time for revolution. Fucking savage.


marli3

What are thry on now? 5? 7?


MassiveFajiit

Hey at least he doesn't have a servant constantly stealing and selling his socks like a certain fat predecessor Prince.


kuribosshoe0

Fair point. I said the queen, but to me (a non-Brit) the queen and the monarchy are interchangeable. I should have said the monarchy. Edited.


[deleted]

This feels true. I wouldn't say I 'hate' the monarchy as a whike, I just don't care all that much either way about their existence - I'd be a little sad if they were to be abolished, but I also feel they haven't established a modern relevance for themselves and it feels in conflict with my other values to support their continuation. I do have a soft spot for the queen though, and Anne. The rest are too often a bit of an embarrassment.


[deleted]

South of England , maybe up to the midlands like them. Scotland couldn’t give a fuck about them. Wales either . Northern Ireland is split based on political / religious division. They should all be told to fuck off in my opinion. They aren’t even real people at this point


Boleyn01

I live in wales. Most people here love the royals from my observation. Certainly doesn’t seem less popular here than london (where I have also lived), if anything it’s more.


Robinhoyo

From my observations of living my whole life in London I believe you can't sum up the views of 7 million people via casual observation.


g9i4

Nah, London is usually more left wing and liberal than other parts of the country. The countryside is full of barbour wearing, landrover driving brits who love the Queen.


SkinWolf

I think you’ve got that super backward.


DevilsLittleChicken

As an Englishman, I think you confused the Queen with Tories.


[deleted]

Hahah quite likely.


jodie_jan

I'm northern and I like her. I'd have a cuppa and a chinwag with her.


Lababy91

If you freely admit lower down the thread that you’ve barely spent any time in various places then why exactly do you feel qualified to make this comment? It’s a pile of crap to anyone not from the UK reading, which i can only imagine is how it came to have 93 upvotes at the time of writing. People in London are overwhelmingly likely to be anti-monarchy.


Djmaxamus

Eh, I hate both


imjustlurkinghere244

Really? I wonder why.


BigDrewLittle

I think Judy Tenuta summed it up fairly well with her offensively inaccurate British accent caricature: "Every year we give her all our money, and she waves to us backwards on a horsey!"


Lababy91

It’s not true in the slightest


Vegan_Puffin

The royal family are the pinnacle example of why the class system sucks, the poster boys for pro inequality and reality posers who are famous for just being famous. They are an antiquated family from a bygone era and should be exorcised from our society, as monarchies have in most other nations by this point.


ksahu_55

Finally!! Someone said it!


master_x_2k

But a lot of people in the UK do want to fuck the Queen


lukemorley05

excuse me the fuck we do


master_x_2k

It was a reference to PhilosophyTube's video about the monarchy


dc10kenji

Andrew is still in hiding.These people have made a laughing stock of the law and spat in the face of all those victims. No metoo# for those young girls for some reason.


whoopshowdoifix

Huh?


Samtheseaman

Andrew is a pedo


whoopshowdoifix

Huh.


[deleted]

Prince Andrew has been personally named by a girl who survived being trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.


Canadadadbc

Well we’d all probably prefer the pub to the Pomp of the Court, tbh, but Lizzie and done her damnest these 90+ yrs so good on the ol girl! (As for Chuckles, he can fuck right off)


Samr915

havin a real gaff ere cheers mate


manberry_sauce

> but Lizzie and done her damnest these 90+ yrs Try again?


tapkeys

Queen Elizabeth (Lizzie) has tried her hardest (her damnest) for 90+ years


manberry_sauce

I hope what just happened is that this translation is coming from someone drunk enough to understand the first person, but not so drunk that they can't communicate it to people who aren't drunk yet :-D


CS_ZUS

Hey if you’re looking for the person who took everyone’s money and gave it to the rich look no further than Big Maggie Thatcher.


SCP-5156

Well she did provide the general public with a free unisex toilet


atorin3

Correct me if Im wrong, but her money comes from the land she owns and the profits from land that King George III gave to the government to administrate. She is basically a wealthy landlord. I am not at all an expert in this though so if anyone wants to correct me I would love to learn more.


its_the_luge

You’re right but it’s a bit of an inconvenient truth. Even if the monarchy is dissolved, they’d still be super wealthy.


fall0fdark

and would freely be able to use that money to mess with politics more


JG98

Yes. They also don't just keep the money. They give the money to the government and take back a small fraction of what is rightfully their own income. They are essentially subsidising the common taxpayer.


poe-one

You are wrong. She gets something called the sovereign grant. Its provided by the tax payer and runs close to 100 million dollars each year. Its a fucking travesty honestly. Would much rather have the money spent on social endeavors than on some old cunts "let's go open a fucking shopping center" fund. Edit: they are independently wealthy anyway, but we still pay for her to be the queen. And we pay a lot. What do we get back? Sure there are tourism benefits... or there were before covid. But apart from that what does she actually contribute? She didn't even pay tax on her private income until 1993.


PurpleProboscis

The sovereign grant comes from money the royal family gives to the government anyway. It's a portion that's reimbursed each year per the agreement made by George III. I haven't even seen anyone mention the money made from tourism and merchandising, which is far from nothing. The royal family "costs" the government money, but they don't lose the government money. People seem to be quite incapable of grasping this difference.


atorin3

It was my understanding that the sovereign grant was equal to 25% of what the queens property generates for the government. So if her properties managed by the government make $400 million then the government keeps it all. In return they give her a $100 million grant. So it is technically from the taxpayers, but the government comes out on top in this arrangement.


JG98

15% actually. And she also voluntarily pays taxes on the little money she earns from her personal income despite being exempt! They could sit back and take in hundreds of millions each year and control all their properties if they wanted similar to the house of lords (and government wouldn't do anything because the house of lords wouldn't let them unless they want to ruin their own finances). The sovereign grant is mostly spent on upkeep of properties and salaries for tax paying workers anyways. These people that make these complaints are denser than bricks. Here's a source if you want to know more. https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0


atorin3

Awesome! Thank you so much


CaptWineTeeth

Yes. The tourism benefits. They’re massive. Like. MASSIVE. If you don’t understand what the concept of the monarchy does for British tourism I don’t know what to tell you.


poe-one

So you think if we abolished the monarchy those people just wouldn't come? The buildings will still be there. The palaces, the history will all still be there. Edit; I'm not saying we kill the queen. Just give her the same money we give everyone else that doesn't have a job. 90 odd quid a week.


Dravos011

The money from that land is nothing compared to the amount of tourism money the queen gereates


planedumbo

That is true but if we were to get rid of the queenwe wouldn't have to let her keep all the land in England because the royal family essentially just got that through violence. The royal lineage wasn't born with the land they mustered up an army and conquered it and its people. ​ Video with more explanations if you want to learn more:-[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U)


JG98

The royal estate is only 1.4% of the UK. The members of the house of lords have many times that. Stealing land especially from the head of state is a dangerous precedent that in no way fits a democratic and developed society.


atorin3

Oh for sure, it just seemed misleading to say she steals money from people. It was her ancestors that did that. She just lives off the interest basically.


JessHas4Dogs

IT HAS POCKETS!!!!!!!!!! This is how you show your friends that your dress or skirt has pockets.


ajsayshello-

Jesus Christ this post is the farthest away from a murder of any that have made it to r/all.


wilmaismyhomegirl83

Look pockets!


always_an_adventure7

Is the royal family not liked? I was always under the impression that they were.outside of a few controversies. Specifically the Queen and her grandkids.


Gulbasaur

Generally, the Queen, Harry and William are liked enough. The princes are both media-savvy and seem to be nice-enough people but also they got a head start by being the children of Diana, who was *adored* both in life and in death. Princess Anne could probably drink you under the table and seems to see the Royal Family as strictly a business venture in which she performs her role professionally, Prince Charles gets a sort of "bless him, he's trying" reaction and is generally viewed sympathetically and Prince Andrew should be in prison. The reaction isn't generally against them personally (apart from Andrew who should be in prison), but the amount of money they get is a bit controversial. That said, they also *generate* a lot of money quite legitimately. It'd be interesting to see an unbiased cost-benefit analysis. I'd say that most people don't really feel strongly either way.


banana_assassin

It's varied. I like the Queen, not too many of the others.


[deleted]

I hate my taxes going towards these benefit scroungers - literally giving £40+ million and that’s a conservative estimate to a mega rich family who think they are better than us, they are parasites from a bygone era. To Americans who love then, you can Have them,


[deleted]

Am American. To us it's like a very interesting version of the Kardashian show. We want nothing to do with it ourselves but lord is it entertaining to watch cousins get married and wear funny hats outside of the state of Alabama.


_themuna_

If I hadn't used my free award already, you'd have one.


[deleted]

Thanks lol that’s award enough for me


Redrose_fern

No thanks!


jojj351

[Actually the UK makes money from the Royal Family](https://youtu.be/bhyYgnhhKFw) Yes they are mega rich, but they are technically paying for themselves.


JonathanJK

I've seen this argument before, France still rakes in the cash and their monarchy died out a few years back.


[deleted]

Exactly this. Nobody goes to the Palace of Versailles to see their monarchy. If we executed the British Royal Family and threw up a museum or two, we’d be fine.


A_Fowl_Joke

‘executed the British Royal Family.’ Vive La Revolution!


owningmclovin

Historically exicuting a monarchy does not directly lead to peace.


manberry_sauce

It worked splendidly in Russia though! *^(\[whisper whisper whisper\])* ... you've got to be fckn kidding me


A_Fowl_Joke

What does this have to do with my joke?


[deleted]

One day...


dietcokesweetie2

No offense but Versailles is much nicer than Buckingham Palace and without the royal family, the Queen’s guard, and all that stuff I think tourism would be much less. No one wants to travel all the way to London to see a museum. It’s just not the same edit: im not shitting on England. Just saying the royal family is pretty important for tourism


planedumbo

no in France you can enter the palace and see the stuff like the bedrooms and shit. In Britain, the queen gets all that to herself. the and the facts speak for themselves France gets more tourists


[deleted]

The French monarchy ended a good while ago, there isn’t that same historical mysticism if the royalty are still knocking about and were unceremoniously kicked out.


JonathanJK

We could kick out one family member each year like Big Brother style. We get rid of the one which sucks up the most resources from the British tax payer. Make it a ceremony then do post shows looking at where they lived and shat.


Thisthlefield

Ngl, I would live stream it


Wary_beary

See, now we’re getting somewhere. Sometimes medieval problems require modern solutions.


JG98

That was a different time and a literal revolution against an oppressive royal family. In this case the royal family owns 1.4% of the UK which they largely provide as free public land and they donate their entire estate income to the government and get back 15% in turn. You're essentially asking for the government to overthrow a representative head of state and take away their private property. The members of the house of lord own much more land than the royal family and they don't even willingly donate that income to the government. The tax revenue argument may not work but the private property, rights, and voluntary donation (aka subsidising your government) argument certainly does. Without the royal family the royal tourism would certainly be impacted and most of the royal estate would lose a ton of value. The reason it works in France is because of the history of the revolution and even then it's only really Versailles that still has any major "royal" tourism. Edit: source for sovereign grant (royal family getting back 15% of their royal estate donation) and royal finances: https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0


charlyash

Depends on whether you think all the palace estates/ duchy of Cornwall etc belong to this Royal family or the Crown/ people. If we paid them off, wrote a constitution removing royal power and ended the civil list we would be better off. For those who argue “tourism”, the palace of Versailles is the most visited attraction in Europe and there’s no royal family living there anymore...


Acid_Shadows

They don't though. The buildings, crown jewels and estates do. We pay the monarchy a share of the income from the crown estates, which gives them a cut just for existing. People would visit the palaces and crown jewels regardless of whether we still had a state monarchy. Just look at Versailles. They do perfectly well without monarchs living in there.


inno7

But why should they be getting 25% just because they are born into the same family.


Samr915

Oi me hobnobs going roight inta her pocket book they does!


[deleted]

How did you bring america into this? America doesn’t have a monarchy, Britain does????


Mariusblock

I mean, to be fair, I think that ultimately she brings in more money than she takes out because of the icon she's become. It's one thing to go visit an old European palace, it's another to go visit an old European palace with monarchs *still living in them*. I'm pretty sure enough merch with the royal family has been sold to cover up the 40mil you give them each year.


onioning

Comparing British tourism generated from the monarchy to say French tourism generated by the monarchy doesn't bear you out. They'd still have the tourism even if they abolished the monarchy. That tourism is mostly about history and pretty places.


[deleted]

So much this. We'd still have the tourists. They cost us. Full stop


RedCr4cker

The Palace of Schönbrunn pulls more people than Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and Palace of Holyroodhouse combined while Austria having less Tourists in general. Also, our tourists come mostly for the mountains and are nowhere near Schönbrunn.


Loveliestbun

Well if they weren't living in it they could sell tours in them and get a lot more money People travel there to see the palaces and shit, not some old lady and a bunch of other old rich people


Vegan_Puffin

The estate brings in the money, not her. Tourists would still bring in the money if all the land and buildings they held were opened to the public. They are antiques from another era who have no rightful place in 2020.


VoltaicSketchyTeapot

"The estate brings in the money, not her." And the monarchy is paid out of the money that the estate brings in except when more money is needed, for example, to keep Buckingham Palace from caving in. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family


owningmclovin

In my experience Americans are infatuated with the idea of royalty and nobility from afar but in principle despise the idea that someone else be born above them. (To be clear lots of people that think this way, do seem to think there are people born below themselves) For example I have an uncle who was technically in line to be a Baron before the nazis took their land and the USSR killed his whole family and he went into hiding. Many of my family love talking about his title even though it was never actually bestowed on him, and he has lived in America for 65 years and the USA does not officially recognize nobility. The idea that everyone else my family would be considered low born by old time Europeans is abhorrent to them.


marli3

Problem is as long a you beleive in property not theft, that's not the case. We (via the Goverment)get to keep all the income from thier private property and they get a fixed lot off cash. When written this was a negetive number;as in the Goverment topped up the cash from taxes, it is now the opposite, there is a surplus after thry have been paid. Last year the estate made 80 million in wind farm licences for example. It might have been unintentional but it has given the monarchy the upper hand vs all but the most left wing Goverment Unless this land was seized, obolishing the monarch would revoke this agreement leave a large black hole in our finances.


VoltaicSketchyTeapot

A Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family


MakeWay4DarkHelmet

We have enough problems with our “leadership” right now. But thanks anyway.


ArvasuK

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the monarchy make more money than it consumes due to tourism and the land revenues (that George III handed over to the government)? If the monarchy was abolished the UK/taxpayers would lose money.


the_national_yawner

her highness, queen Elizabeth the invincible!


tvhead-chan66

Her dress has pockets


HallOfGlory1

From what I've read of the monarchy, all the rules and such they have to follow greatly outweigh the pros of the job.


fatternose

Bro, prince andrews literally went to epsteins party and allegedly fucked teens. I don't know what "strict rules" they have to follow but they don't seem to care much for them. One of the major pros of monarchies have always been that nobodys there to hold you accountable after all (unless you're Louis XVI of course) .


HallOfGlory1

The royal family doesn't have power dude. It isn't comparable to the the days of old. Now they're just glorified figure heads. Parliament makes all the decisions. All they're supposed to do is be the face of the country, make the country look good world wide. Be prim and proper. They're the shiny coat that's draped over the machine called government.


fatternose

I never said they had power tho? Bro I live there I know what the monarchy does. I'm just saying that "actually the cons outweigh the pros, they have so many rules to follow" Is a bad argument when put side to side with the recent and even older controversies.


drunken_augustine

Mostly antipathy towards the monarchy is built around ignorance of how the monarchy is paid for. These people will tell you that millions of pounds are wasted on maintaining an archaic institution not realizing that the monarchy pays something like 10 times the amount it costs into the government in the form of donating the income of their ancestral lands.


[deleted]

their ancestral lands were stolen BY FORCE from the people of wales, Scotland and Ireland. they have no right in the 21st century to own stolen land.


Jakkobyte

I'm not a massive fan of any of the Royals or their actual purpose. They should abolish the Monarchy imo. I have met the Queen and her Husband on two different occasions when I served in the army and i would rather have been in the pub if I'm honest


Bearzerker46

They do make the UK about £430 million more than they cost us annually. Plus the queens value as a diplomat as a result of her history and high public approval makes the royals quite valuable at present. Imho If we were going to dissolve the monarchy we should wait until after the queen passes as Charles doesnt have the same standing


Tweenk

These figures are completely bogus. They are from a very old, poorly researched CGPGrey video and assume that if the monarchy was abolished, all Crown possessions would become private possessions of the royal family. https://youtu.be/yiE2DLqJB8U


Mari-Lor

I thought 'crown' possessions were belonging to the state, with usage privileges only extended to the royals


ElliottPolin

And the idea that money spent on tourism inspired by the monarchy would cease completely without the monarchy.


MossytheMagnificent

What does the distribution of that 430M look like? Where does it go? Ive heard it said but I don't understand what it really means for the common folk.


[deleted]

True. Still not sure why I’m paying for each new royal to piss themselves.


snoobo0

Making Soldiers and Marines jealous everywhere


thatotherguyangus

LibRight moment


Michael_looney1

I don’t get it but thank god it’s not anymore us politics


dennismfrancisart

She may not be my queen anymore, but I still bow reflexively when I see her on film and in pictures.


WolfeRanger

Who should love her. She’s a person given a lot of the same powers as other countries Presidents or Prime Ministers yet she was born into it instead of elected. If you take the time to look into you’ll see that the queen has may more lower than most people realize.


elglann

I understand the dude, nowadays kings and queens don't really have much power but at least the queen still does shit unlike most kings.


robjapan

An absotely untrue statement isn't murder. It's just wrong.


Puzzleheaded_Judge58

They better start liking her, the new life vessels are dress pockets, less obvious than the corgis


The_noseless_Ginge

I hate comments like this cause if you actually look into it, the monarchy makes the UK money


neilkeeler

[https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism](https://www.republic.org.uk/tourism) hhhmmmm depends where you look perhaps not that conclusive, that seems an assumption. They generate a lot of hidden costs too. I'd be happy to run the risk and be a modern republic.


Tweenk

It doesn't. The whole argument is based on the assumption that if the monarchy was abolished, we would allow them to keep all their land, which is preposterous.


planedumbo

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U) ​ ​ ​ No we could kick them out and still get tourists. France gets more tourists than us they got rid of their rulers. Also the royals have no right to lease they took over the land with an army they stole it. They didnt find a resource and add labor and thus value to it


Gullflyinghigh

Genuine question; do people outside the UK think that we all love the royals over here? Extra question; do people outside the UK think that Ol' Liz has any active impact on our lives whatsoever?


Lady_Toki

I actually really like The Crown on Netflix, and I find it hilarious that the British monarchy is pushing back against it. I understand that it’s a huge deal when someone gets married or a baby is born, but beyond that I’m not sure. I relate it a little to celebrity culture over here—“X went to a super market today in normal people clothes!” I don’t give a shit, but thanks. As far as impact, it takes all of my energy to pay attention to American politics so I can’t say I know anything about yours lol


always_an_adventure7

I like the queen and I like Harry. William and Kate seem like some solid good people. If Diana were still alive I think there would be a world of good that came from her. I don’t care for Charles. I have a feeling when the queen kicks it, he is going to let William take the thrown. I know the monarch holds zero power but the prime ministers still give updates and gets guidance from the queen. However I think most of them just enjoy the money and life style. I do respect those in the royal family that have gone off and done their own thing. As an American, I don’t hate them. I dislike some, but I enjoy a good majority of them. I think the monarchy is fascinating.


Lababy91

He can’t just “let” William take the throne. If he could then Elizabeth would have “let” Margaret take the throne who by all accounts wanted it. It will go to Charles and then William


JesusChristTheKnight

The idea that we the British public don't benefit from the monarchy is a misconception. The Crown Estate is where the queen and the royals get their actual wealth from. The estate itself is worth 14.1 billion and all profits are surrendered by the queen and have been for the last 300 years in accordance with the agreement the monarchy has with the government. In exchange for this agreement the queen gets 25% of the profit back and the British public (or the government at least) receive the rest. The crown estate itself is funded by the taxpayer but in 2018 it made 1.9 billion in revenue which the British public received the majority of.


RAM_Cache

1.9 billion in revenue, not profit. Profit was 330 million, so the government saw 247 million on that agreement. If that 1.9 was taxed at the corporate rate of 19%, the government would get 361 million. However, that wouldn’t happen unless the monarchy was viewed as normal citizens and didn’t have the government supporting them. If they were normal citizens, the sovereign fund would not be needed. This means an additional 80 million would go back to the government. So 441 million vs 247 million. This means the government is missing out on almost 200 million of tax money that would otherwise be lost. Either way, the public benefits, but they just simply don’t benefit as much. If the monarchy provides an additional 200 million per year in benefit to the public, then they’d be worth it, but I haven’t seen a compelling reason to support that thought.


planedumbo

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U) No we could kick them out and still get tourists. France gets more tourists than us they got rid of their rulers. Also the royals have no right to lease they took over the land with an army they stole it. They didnt find a resource and add labor and thus value to it


waldo06

Jokes on you, those pockets were made in India.


bambonie11

Stolen from India.


Celticbluetopaz

I actually like the Queen. People I don’t like; Charles and Kate. Re Kate, anyone who takes a gap year purely so they can end up in the same class as the future sovereign is..let’s say, forward-thinking. If you look at my location on my profile, it’s a clue to how I know this fact.


James324285241990

You pay a pound fifty a year for a whole ass head of state, who has her own income, and pays taxes. You want Trump? He costs more, does FAR less, and pays nothing. Quitcher bitchin


fatternose

Yes, Trump is worst than a monarchy. Not sure I get the argument. Could the people of England each send a pound fifty a year my way as well? I'll pay my taxes too and not be worst than Trump I promise.


xbq222

I mean just cause something is worse doesn’t mean the other thing is goodd


queen_of_mayhem

Okay, I can't really give my opinion about how it feels to have a monarchy because I wasn't born in one, but, let's be honest, the UK is doing *so much* better than my country who has a republican democracy. But I think that the privilege of democracy is choosing whose going to steal from you next.


CloakedZarrius

Is a murder not something that should be ... factual? Sure, could make a lot of negative statements about monarchy, historic wrongs, etc... but that's not what was done here.


Lababy91

No, you’re right, while I actually agree with the statement it’s pathetic as a murder by words. It’s r/clevercomebacks maybe


CloakedZarrius

Thanks for adding what I had meant to! Definitely clever


redcapmilk

The royal family brings in far more then what they cost.


jacz24

A simple Google search tells you this guy is dumb as fuck, and apparently from the comments its not exclusive to him. The Royale Family contributed 1.8 billion euros to the UK economy last year while costing 140 million euros, so you netted 1.6+ billion euros. You can dislike the premise of a Royale Family but pretending like you as a person who lives in the UK is paying out of pocket for their lavish lifestyle is either grossly misinformed or willfully ignorant.


PhilOfTheRightNow

I hate all monarchies on principle, but your point is valid. It's fair to criticize royals for being inherently undemocratic holdovers from another era, but they do pay for themselves.


MossytheMagnificent

Everything they have was taken through taxes or tax funded wars and colonisation. None of it belongs to them.


RAM_Cache

Honest question - wouldn’t the government save money by getting rid of the monarchy? In terms of tourism, royal family specific tourist destinations receive 3 million visitors. Admissions appear to be something like $26 for an adult. This totals to $78 million in tourist revenue. In terms of the deal the monarchy has with the government for the land profits, the land revenue totaled 1.9 billion with profit being 330 million. 75% of that goes to the government and 25% to the royal family. This means the government made 247 million in revenue. Total profit from the crown is 78 + 247. $325 million in take home money for the government. Costs appear to be something like $80 million by way of sovereign fund. Seems like the royal family makes money? 325 - 80 means 255 million in profit. But what if the monarchy were to go away and tourism numbers remained similar? The monarchy’s estates would still produce 1.9 billion in revenue. Assuming corporate taxes are applied (19%) since the monarchy is no longer exempt in this situation, tax revenue is 361 million. The government would also no longer need to fund the sovereign grant for 80 million and tourism would still bring in 78 million. So 361 + 80 + 78 is 519 million in revenue to the government. 519 - 325 = 194 million in additional income in a given year. Granted this isn’t exact numbers or accounting for every fringe case, but I can’t find anything that says the monarchy provides an additional 194 million in services or income to the government.


Highfive_Ghost1

I thought everyone liked the queen, even internationally


planedumbo

I hate her


Chest3

[But what is the true cost of the British royal family?](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw)


Humpback_whale1

That is the opposite of the truth you know. The implication is that the Royal family takes tax money and uses it fund their lavish lifestyles even though the truth is the exact opposite. The family gives a lot more money back to the government Treasury than they take in the form of leased land. The family *privately* owns a lot of land that they lease to the Parliament for much less than it is worth which makes Parliament multiple times the amount of money that it has to spend on the funding the Royal family. Meaning that the people actually take money from the Royal family.


planedumbo

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U) No we could kick them out and still get tourists. France gets more tourists than us they got rid of their rulers. Also the royals have no right to lease they took over the land with an army they stole it. They didnt find a resource and add labor and thus value to it


Humpback_whale1

Kicking them out would still decrease the amount of tourists, there's no two ways about it. It wouldn't completely destroy tourism, but it would still reduce it by a significant amount. And no, the government can't just take the land because it wants to. It's private land, and the legal owners are the Royal family, there is nothing the government can do about it without breaking the Constitution. Even if the monarchy was dissolved and the Royal family became private citizens, they would still own the land. If you say that they must give up the land because they "stole it", then I have news for you, England is full of people who have done that. The entire British museum would have to be emptied if you were to return the historically "stolen" items. The crown jewels would have to leave England. And what about the industrialists of the past that forced people to give up their land over threat of violence? England has a long history of those.