[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

since when is 75% NOT incredible popularity?

What you have to think here is if 1 in 4 people had such a hard-line attitude to the royals, what were the rest of the population thinking? The statistics don't imply the country was divided into those that wished for the dissolution of the monarchy 0R those that were perfectly content.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Glice

Personally, I find the political benefit of sovereign monarches to be the most spurious of arguments, but then, if we don't have our strange customs (not just the Queen, the whole of Whitehall) and Britishness then we kind of disappear into the bay of France.

my point exactly. and that sense of britishness is so powerful it extends across the globe..

I mean, as I said, I am not particularly pro-monarchy, just commenting on what I see.

I am a Rastaman, and the folks I deal with are Rastamen, and we Rastafari people are blatant anti-colonialists, and we burn fyah on British colonial govt for a long time, so I do not necessarily support it here, but I am just commenting on its obvious popularity and role in identity formation.

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

What you have to think here is if 1 in 4 people had such a hard-line attitude to the royals, what were the rest of the population thinking? The statistics don't imply the country was divided into those that wished for the dissolution of the monarchy 0R those that were perfectly content.

now you are inferring more than i am!

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by Glice

Hey hey - statistics lesson - if a quarter don't want them, three-quarters do. Granted, that's not quite 'most people' but it's certainly the sort of majority that's seen Mugabe run his country into the shit for a few decades.

Yes I realise, doesn't mean these 3/4s beleived the monarchy was a moral, useful or plausible institution. However, this country has been a republic for 16 years in the past millenia and a half, it's a big step, and hard line attitude to adopt...

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by Glice

If a 500,000 tourists spend £300 while they're here (that is, slightly less than it'd cost to stay in London for a week except in hostels) then you've put £150m into the economy. I'd say the number of tourists coming for buck-ing-ham palace is slightly lower, and the amount put into the British economy per visit is slightly higher.

I'm not particularly a royalist, or a Tory (the above is a classic Tory argument) but I suspect weight cost/ benefit is much more intrangible than just positing the explicit cost and assuming there's no benefit.

"The argument that the monarchy brings in tourism revenue is not only irrelevant to a debate about our constitution, it is also untrue. There is not a single bit of evidence to back this up. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes it, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). Royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue. Indeed, the success of the Tower of London (number 6 in the list) suggests that tourism would benefit if Buckingham Palace and Windsor castle were vacated by the Windsor family. The British tourist industry is successful and robust - castles and palaces would remain a part of our heritage regardless of whether or not we have a monarchy (look at Versaille). Other attractions, such as the London Eye, Trafalgar Square, the west end, Bath, Stonehenge, Britain's beautiful countryside and so on, will continue to attract tourists in the same numbers as they do today"

from Republic.org.uk

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by Glice

but then, if we don't have our strange customs (not just the Queen, the whole of Whitehall) and Britishness then we kind of disappear into the bay of France.

I find it really sad that you attribute Britishness, our national identity and eccentricities too a family who've never experienced this and have precisely nothing to do it being present. I think you'll only realise how brilliant 'Britishness' is when you realise where it really comes from.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

now you are inferring more than i am!

Its not inference it's common sense. It there were the statistic that 1/4 of Brits are married, then common sense dictates that the 3/4s remaining aren't neccesarily single.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

I find it really sad that you attribute Britishness, our national identity and eccentricities too a family who've never experienced this and have precisely nothing to do it being present. I think you'll only realise how brilliant 'Britishness' is when you realise where it really comes from.

It is more complicated than that. The monarchy, as a long-standing institution, play a pivotal role, even as background noise, in British identity. I may not be a patriotic american, but Uncle Sam and the bald eagle are definitely part of my identity as an American, even is solely in opposition, they still are factor. This is same with the monarchy, it is a major part of existence, whether it has any direct responsibility in this or not, millions share the common experience of the monarchy, and this is the solidifying aspect, whether in favor of, opposed to, or indifferent, the monarchy is part of British identity.

[terriblecanyons]

I think what TINH is trying to say is the Royal Family is not a CRUCIAL PART in "britishness". They don't really make any difference to what is and what isn't british, they're just there. They are not the epitome of britishness, nor are they the opposite. They just exist, and the world would be just as happy without them.

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

We have both.

Ha ha!

I figure it's very annoying to see an old lady bragging like in 1800, once or twice a year, in a modern country that has nuclear power.
Feel sorry for you, also I'm glad I don't have to endure it.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

my point exactly. and that sense of britishness is so powerful it extends across the globe..

I mean, as I said, I am not particularly pro-monarchy, just commenting on what I see.

I am a Rastaman, and the folks I deal with are Rastamen, and we Rastafari people are blatant anti-colonialists, and we burn fyah on British colonial govt for a long time, so I do not necessarily support it here, but I am just commenting on its obvious popularity and role in identity formation.

Look dude, okay so you're better qualified to speak for members of the commonwealth than me, but I speak as a citizen of England, and I attest strongly to the monarchy influencing national identity in no way at all, and I am totally apaulled to pay taxes to support such a redundant and excessive institution. I'm going for some food now, seeya.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by terriblecanyons

I think what TINH is trying to say is the Royal Family is not a CRUCIAL PART in "britishness".

yeah, that was obvious, and I was refuting his point.

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

Look dude, okay so you're better qualified to speak for members of the commonwealth than me, but I speak as a citizen of England, and I attest strongly to the monarchy influencing national identity in no way at all, and I am totally apaulled to pay taxes to support such a redundant and excessive institution. I'm going for some food now, seeya.

its not about being better qualified, my entire point is simply this, you are claiming the monarchy is not part of british identity, but I call bullshit, cuz clearly it is, or people would not line up to see the bitch parade down the street, and they certainly wouldn't give a shit to line up in Kenya when she comes to visit if she was not a major part of their british identity. I am not trying to one-up you, just call it as I see it.

[terriblecanyons]

It was obvious, but you disagree despite the fact you don't even live there? That's kind of odd, don't you think?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by terriblecanyons

It was obvious, but you disagree despite the fact you don't even live there? That's kind of odd, don't you think?

I don't have to live there to see people support the queen. He doesn't have to live in the US to know that people believe in the constitution and the bill of rights, even though they are all bullshit? I am not saying the monarchy is right or wrong, I am commenting on its socio-political powers, which are obvious to any observer, outside or in..

[terriblecanyons]

Hah. Well, despite whether or not they support the Queen, I think the majority of british citizens would not be happy to find out that 150m of their taxpaying dollars is going to sustain the royal family. That's like finding out it costs that much for Sarah Palin's wardrobe. OH WAIT...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

that shit is chump change, in the US that much gets spent much worse bullshit than national unity and creating a sense of common identity.

[terriblecanyons]

You can call it "chump change", but I think that money can go towards something better than the monarchy. They're already rich as fuck, why don't they just use their own money? Do they really need to suck that cash out from the taxpayer's wallet?

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

but I call bullshit, cuz clearly it is, or people would not line up to see the bitch parade down the street, and they certainly wouldn't give a shit to line up in Kenya when she comes to visit if she was not a major part of their british identity..

1. What about the people who AREN'T at the side of the street?
2. My arguement does not refer to or make any claims about Kenyans.
3. Don't call my view bullshit.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by terriblecanyons

why don't they just use their own money? Do they really need to suck that cash out from the taxpayer's wallet?

For the most part it's the local councils (with my council tax) facilitating the royal family on visits on other occasions, which, ironically are supposed to benefit the local area - instead, as the data in my original post details, is always vastly expensive.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

I find it really sad that you attribute Britishness, our national identity and eccentricities too a family who've never experienced this and have precisely nothing to do it being present. I think you'll only realise how brilliant 'Britishness' is when you realise where it really comes from.

Look, 'dude', fuck off. I'm British, English in fact, and I do not attribute Britishness to a single factor. I'm not going to detail precisely what Britishness is, because it's very precisely too many things to detail. I'm not a monarchist (can't stress this enough) but the Royal Family are one aspect of Britishness that I happen to enjoy, in much the same way as your people enjoy that misanthrope parade you call 'Eastenders'. I also enjoy Morris dancing, conversations about the weather and whinging, or Eid in Easton, or Purim etc etc.

[This Is Not Here]

"your people"?! Piss off buddy.