About 30 years ago, I open an office in London. After hiring a very competent manager, who is of course, a subject of the British Empire, I asked her if she thought they would ever get rid of the crown. She had a very enlightening comment saying no, we never would because it’s good for business. I asked her what she meant and she said are you kidding, you Anglophile Americans spend millions of dollars every year traveling to England to get close to the royal family. It’s one of our greatest tourist attractions.
The French chopped off the heads of all their royals. Now all French palaces and castles are open to tourists and France attracts more tourists than the UK. That UK 'royal business model' is a grotesque mystification, at best ...
The ancestors of the current monarch decapitated many, think Anne Boleyn.
I go to London to visit my daughter and her family, buy cheese, and visit Stonehenge. We took her to the UK when she was 16 because she liked the Beatles.
As a result of our ancestry search my spouse and I have identified links to England although I am 75% German.
Victoria's children were Saxe-Coburg Gotha via Prince Albert, one of the most intelligent men to have been a British Royal; he introduced the idea of the primacy of science in British life. The Victoria and Albert Museum(s) are his legacy. The late Queen's grandmother (who stopped her car in Kensington Gardens for my Mother to cross the road pushing a pram!) was Princess Mai von Teck, later Queen Mary. She never lived in Germany but spoke German well. None of this is news to we Brits. The present arrangements grew out of the most turbulent period of English History between 1642-88; wars, coups, executions and more*. All the powers of the Crown are vested in Parliament i.e. the people. Crown Land means I can walk across it and the Royal buildings (barring Sandringham) and all the collections belong to the people not the Royals.
*Please read The Putney Debates (online). It will sound very familiar to you.
Rather more so; her diaries were destroyed in part because of her recording her liking for physical satisfaction. Her great, great grand daughter was rumoured to be au fond. Prince Phillip told Larry Adler he couldn't keep up with her, if you will pardon the expression!
Good point. What is confusing is that there were many Kings of England, going way back to the 10th and 11th centuries, basically to William the Conqueror, and actually even before this, there were a group of Norse Kings from 1013-1042, and before that, Anglo-Saxon Kings dating back to Alfred the Great in 871-890 but this tree actually overlaps in time, but is separate from the Norse King Tree which only included three or four. The modern royal lineage I think, really begins with the Norman and Early Plantagenets. I don't know that all of them are actually direct ancestors of the present royals, but they are still a part of their history and the greater overall lineage. I have a book on the Plantagenet, and it provides Dynastic Family Trees in the back. The Windsors are part of the House of Hanover and Windsor, which dates back to George I, 1714-1727. Before this, there were the Tudors and Stuarts, which date back to Henry VII, 1485-1509. In this family tree it shows George I as being a descendant of James I (also called VI of Scotland), 1603-1625; and his line traces back to Mary Queen of Scots, James V, James IV, and then to Henry VII, 1485-1509. Henry VIII was on a different branch of this same tree, but he was also a son of Henry VII, and Elizabeth of York. Henry VII's daughter Margaret, (who must have also been Henry VIII's sister), seems to have married James IV of Scotland, leading to James V their son, and then Mary Queen of Scots was his daughter. Mary's second husband was Henry Stuart, and then James I (also referred to as VI of Scotland) married Anne of Denmark, and their son was Charles I, (1625-1649). Ultimately, this tree does date back to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. So perhaps the current royal family really are related to Henry VIII, through his sister Margaret. Henry VIII's direct line led to Jane Seymour giving birth to Edward VI, 1547-1553, and on this same branch of the tree they are showing Anne Boelyn as having given birth to Elizabeth I. ) Continued in the next three replies below...
Before the Tudors and Stuarts there were the Later Plantagenets. That tree had several Henrys and Edwards as well as Richard III. Ultimately, Henry VII who is at the bottom of this tree, is a descendant of all of the Henrys, going back to Henry IV, and then to a branch that includes Edward I (1272-1307), Edward II (1307-1327), and Edward III (1327-1377). Finally the Edwards were the descendants of Henry III 1216-1272 and Eleanor of Provence. The Early Plantagenet Tree came before this one, and William the Conqueror was a part of this Early Norman and Plantagenet Family Tree, which begins with Richard I, Duke of Normandy, branching to Richard II, Aethelred the Unready in 978-1016. The Richard II branch, leads to a third Duke of Normandy named Robert, and then William the Conqueror was his son. William married Matilda of Flanders and then had William II Rufus, and Henry I who married Matilda and also gave birth to a daughter named Matilda in 1141, who married Geoffrey of Anjou, leading to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane, who had another Richard I, and John. John had two wives both anmed Isabella and they had Henry III, (1215-1272). Henry the III is at the bottom of this tree, and is also at the top of the Later Plantagenet Tree.
At the coronation today, they used the old wooden throne which belonged to one of King Edwards, although they did not specify if it was Edward I, II, or III. They just said it had belonged to King Edward, and it is kept up in Scotland at one of the castles there.
So indirectly, I think they really are related to the whole lineage, but there are these different branches on all of them. In modern terms, we think of them as belonging just to the more recent House and Family Tree, which is the House of Hanover and Windsor.
I'm not an expert on this, but am just looking at what is outlined in this book. The book is called, "The Kings and Queens of England by Ian Crofton.
I know this is like totally confusing. If you see it in the book, it is a lot clearer because it shows each tree on a separate page, but they all start with the same person at the bottom, and then again at the top of the later tree. I really don't know how the Windsors think of their lineage, plus there are other branches not included on these trees that pertain to their current family ties. Anyway, it is just something to know about.
Here's another great article about the lineage of the Edwards, during the Later Plantagenet Period, and how Richard III may have been involved in stealing the throne from Edward V - who was just a young boy, while he was their uncle. If you are a subscriber - or if not, it might be available to read as a free article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/04/30/edward-v-coronation-disappearance
My thoughts are the same, that tourists would still go see the historic castles, etc. The news said that less than 40% of young U.K. people support the monarchy. $123 million taxpayer dollars spent for the coronation (the numbers aren't in)? People poor, hungry, unable to keep their homes warm? I just don't get it. This may be the last king.
That is just the coronation. I don’t know the actual figure, but I once read an article on the cost of maintaining the royal family and all their homes. It was a staggering amount. “Harmless fiction”?
spot on, looks like £100m spent, maybe more, and people going with placards in the streets arrested and handcuffed. Neo-fascism is here... ( btw I have been living in Notting Hill since 1981 )
I am sorry but you are so full of ???? The UK is ahead or tied with France on the tourism industry & for your information Buckingham Palace & Windsor Castle & many other Royal buildings are open to the public & well worth visiting.
THIS WORD IS IN TERRIBLE PAIN & SUFFERING. We need to keep & protect the beautiful aspects/history of the past GOOD & BAD.
After reading the following comments, more amusement... IS IT ALWAYS ALL ABOUT MONEY EVERYWHERE?
But although Diana was beautiful and glamorous, it was the works of her heart and care for all human beings that inspired deep love and appreciation for her.
I would guess that a lot of the tourist money goes to pay tour guides, restaurant owners and workers, hotel people, janitors, taxi drivers, souvenir sellers, other shop-keepers, and the like. Tourist money gets pretty spread around -- maybe more than most.
Aside from the scenario that Kim cites, the money the Crown spends, lavishly, from its own income, benefits U.K. businesses. Charles and the family are patrons of many different enterprises.
That statement is quite common but how wonder if it's revenue negative when you consider the costs involved. I'm British by birth but have been in Australia for 40 years since Thatcher made me an economic refugee and find the attitude towards royalty slightly amusing. Yesterdays sights reminded me of a bad Peter Sellars movie I once saw called The Mouse that roared. Also Trump turned your presidency into a sick joke !!!
Yes. Celebrity is attractive, Camelot, the musical, “I wonder what the king, is doing, tonight,” Mundane life can be punctuated by interesting stuff not one’s own. Life, reflected in story of others (death, divorce, hard feelings, love), patterns in chapters of life—hope in a marriage (being alone, celebrity’s, an event), older people acknowledged their own youth died when a celebrity dies. Truth, history, is stranger than fiction. A city can be grey. Life is color.
The lady you spoke to was mistaken. Royals bring in nothing, their palaces and other historic sites do, just like Versailles, just like Angkor Wat, just like the Taj Mahal , just like The Valley of the Kings. The presence or otherwise of royals is completely incidental (how many tourists catch sight of a royal anyway?) No, what people really come to see is attractions like The British Museum, The National Gallery, The Tate Modern, The Natural History Museum, The Science Museum, The Victoria and Albert Museum, Whipsnade Zoo, The Tower of London, The National Portrait Gallery, Chester Zoo, Kew Gardens, Westminster Abbey, The National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh Castle, Royal Albert Hall, The Scottish National Gallery, St Pauls, The British Library, Scotland, Wales, the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales, The Cotswolds, Cornwall, Dartmoor, Devon, the Peak District, The Cairngorms National Park, Loch Ness with its monster mystery - to name but a few which are far more attractive than Buckingham Palace or its occupants.
A record 39.1 million tourists visited Birmingham in 2016 and not a single royal lives there. 20 million people visited the Lake District in 2019, they didn’t go there to see any of the Windsors.
This 'revenue from tourism' myth is just that...a myth, it’s been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. The Windsors bring in nothing, not tourism revenue, not tourists, nothing. If tourism was the deciding factor in a democracy’s constitutional arrangement, then the CEO of Merlin Entertainment, Alton Towers, Legoland etc, would be the Head of State.
We don’t need a king.. the Vice President should handle all ceremonial functions so that a President can govern.. not sure why anyone cares about any royals.. we fought hard and long to get rid of them.
Brilliant! Having the VP take charge of all ceremonial functions would at least provide an answer to the question, "What does the Vice President do, anyway?"
I'd rather our Vice President HAVE actual, important, impactual duties that get actual media coverage so we can see their potential to step into the presidency if necessary...
I have found many areas that our vice president is involved in. I find this information on websites and on television programs such as CNN. Seek and you shall find!
I prefer the U.S. version of royalty, often empty-headed celebrities who strut their moment upon the stage, then move on as revered, disgraced, or forgotten has-beens. At least the people make the current choice freely and U.S. royalty do not have a lifelong purchase on the public treasury as do the Brit parasites.
Except, we can’t work our butts off hard enough if the Republicans succeed in gerrymandering enough states to make it impossible for Dems to ever win an election. We have to end the electoral college and have many substantive wins in court to halt this extremist takeover of our country.
All the bad stuff crawled out of the Electoral College ooze. You can't get rid of the EC if you can't even control gerrymandering. We simply must get enough people to vote to knock over their towering roadblocks. We have the numbers. Do we have the will?
I have been watching Leonard Leo closely and categorize him as the most dangerous domestic terrorist in this country along with those who belong to The Federalist Society who knowingly participated in and perpetuate this insidious plot to maintain Republican Power and control. Don’t believe for one minute that Mitch’s 40-year plan for control was designed without the input of and assistance by many of these same people. Despite control, we must amass Democratic votes and clean house from local school boards on up. Excellent article.
Actors' pay?! That's something I never thought about. Their pay is between them and their employers. What business is it of mine? I'll honor any picket line I see. Since you ask, I don't think that I get paid anything..
My big question is: in the “Treasure of Sierra Madre,” did the kitchen worker who uttered the sentence “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges” get actors’ equity pay?
Exactly, Stan. I thought of him. His reality tv show had failed, so he ran for the presidency as an audacious publicity stunt, one.that turned him into a two-time loser. But unlike any other compound has-been he just won't go away.
Phil, try watching some of the excellent offerings on PBS that are made in England. You don’t have to be a Royalist to enjoy well-made murder mysteries or historical drama.
And don’t overlook the closer-to- home locally- produced shows.
I’ve been an avid supporter since my adult children watched Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. Donations well spent !
At this point, I should say I really enjoyed the probable last such ceremony, the real star being the Abbey. Hats off, in both (or is it four) senses, to the King and Queen for their fortitude in making it through what would have been grueling for those half their age. In no other place could this have happened ..
Maybe a person appointed with role of social convenor—made famous by being sour, silent, powerful around formal traditions, and celebrity at the same time. Blame it all on “them,” instead of distraction to political stuff. A time limited, arms length, 9-year term, just to be different. NO formal goodbye at end, just usher in another. No mystery about life of such a public servant, or trio that serves as lightning rod for a role of too many galas. A real person(s) with minimal backstory, serious-side and, above all, unknowable political views. Festive stuff belongs to celebrity social conveners, not overworked social visionaries.
I think the monarchy is the symbol of a very real elitism that has been the foundation of British society and values - or at least the foundation of their still large aristocracy's claim to superiority. As long as their 1% are held in veneration, the 99% are not. It is a vestige of the ancient feudal past that should be put to rest, with a vengeance.
I concur (said with an Oxbridge accent). European aristocracy maintains in general a network of privilege that allows it to increase their lot’s fortunes while trying to look austere and modest. In the meantime, within the walls of their social circles, they laugh at what they call “les petites gens” or the 99%. They use their influence to traffic favors and access to power. I hope one day a journalistic team will shame them in public and hopefully put some in prison for their white glove crimes. I have had the displeasure of working in their midst and understood the nature of evil.
Except, Marisa, for Prince Randy Andy, who actually committed “black glove crimes” with the help of Jeffrey Child Molester Epstein. He should definitely go to jail.
Not just the symbol, but the very foundation of an anachronistic layer cake of privilege, wealth, class, racism, inequality, and associated suffering of the underclass. Monarchy is the opiate of the people, especially the seniors.
That class structure in the UK that has a certain % of people thinking they are definitely 'superior' by way of birth is something that is clung onto desperately by the ones who benefit from it. The 'lower working class' just tolerate the whole thing simply because it's easier than having a painful revolution, and after all there's all that pretty stuff like the Coronation to watch. I don't think the Brits have the stomach to go thru a revolution that took the country into a socialist framework. They dabble with it to get more rights which they definitely do want, but all that nasty fighting in the streets business is not something most Brits want - they would rather just negotiate for better conditions, altho a strike or 2 goes down quite well ! While there were plenty of people in the streets for the coronation, the vast majority stayed home & watched the goings on on TV - nice to watch, but time to discuss all those people getting paid just because they are 'Royals' - hence Charles is trying to slim it all down - he knows what the public mood is !!
The monarch, under the British constitution (yes there is one) has three main political rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. The late Queen, by virtue of her longevity and her weekly meetings with every prime minister while that person was in office, had a deep knowledge of the political process and of its likely repercussions in Commonwealth countries, which she also knew very thoroughly. Prime ministers have acknowledged how helpful her perspective was, which owed nothing to electoral requirements and sprang from a lifetime of service to the country. We can only hope that Charles has acquired something of that same depth of perspective. No elected politician is bound by the monarch’s opinion on any issue, but it is certainly an educated one that deserves attention even if not followed.
I admired Queen Elizabeth the second. I understand that during her reign she was actually cutting down on the amount of money that she was getting from the people via their taxes.She stopped using the Royal Air Force and got rid of the royal yacht. Jenny - I agree with your comment about Queen Elizabeth II. Charles has always been concerned about the environment. I have a copy of the book he wrote on this topic. I admired his first wife, nuff said on that topic.
Doesn't the Monarch have the power to suspend Parliament in the U.K. and Canada? I thought Queen Elizabeth used that power at least twice during her reign.
It is a very limited and murky area. The queen's agent, the Governor-General, has the discretion to refuse to dissolve parliament when the PM instructs them to, if in their opinion the opposition can cobble together a viable government. This power was used once, in the 1920's, when the GG (Lord Byng) refused to call an election when PM MacKenzie-King quit, and instead allowed the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen to attempt to form a government. That died fairly early, and MK campaigned loud and long that the GG had acted in an anti-democratic fashion against the command of the government. MK won the subsequent election in a landslide. Ever since then the GG has avoided being in a similar bind, and nobody has touched it. The only near exception has been Stephen Harper, who, upon learning that he was about to be defeated on an non-confidence vote and thrown into an election he was likely to lose, instructed the GG to 'prorogue' Parliament, which essentially means to close the session and all bills and business, and start it all over again. After frantically consulting in all directions, the GG agreed to carry out the PM's instruction, which was widely criticized as a partisan way to short-circuit the probable will of parliament. But they were all wary of repeating some version of the King-Byng Crisis.
So, while the power exists in theory, it is so limited as to be virtually useless. And recent trends have been to treat the GG as the head of state in practice.
Try reading about the Whitlam era in Australian politics where clearly the Crown was involved in downing a socialist government and it's PM at the time. Records between Buck House and Australia have never been released !!
About 30 years ago, I open an office in London. After hiring a very competent manager, who is of course, a subject of the British Empire, I asked her if she thought they would ever get rid of the crown. She had a very enlightening comment saying no, we never would because it’s good for business. I asked her what she meant and she said are you kidding, you Anglophile Americans spend millions of dollars every year traveling to England to get close to the royal family. It’s one of our greatest tourist attractions.
The French chopped off the heads of all their royals. Now all French palaces and castles are open to tourists and France attracts more tourists than the UK. That UK 'royal business model' is a grotesque mystification, at best ...
The ancestors of the current monarch decapitated many, think Anne Boleyn.
I go to London to visit my daughter and her family, buy cheese, and visit Stonehenge. We took her to the UK when she was 16 because she liked the Beatles.
As a result of our ancestry search my spouse and I have identified links to England although I am 75% German.
King Charles’ ancestry has a sizeable German chunk. He recently addressed the German parliament in German
Apparently Queen Victoria spoke German much better than she spoke English.
Yes, her family descended from Hanovers. The name change to Windsor was due to political reasons ("optics") during WWI.
Apparently the UK’s royal family is more German than English.
Victoria's children were Saxe-Coburg Gotha via Prince Albert, one of the most intelligent men to have been a British Royal; he introduced the idea of the primacy of science in British life. The Victoria and Albert Museum(s) are his legacy. The late Queen's grandmother (who stopped her car in Kensington Gardens for my Mother to cross the road pushing a pram!) was Princess Mai von Teck, later Queen Mary. She never lived in Germany but spoke German well. None of this is news to we Brits. The present arrangements grew out of the most turbulent period of English History between 1642-88; wars, coups, executions and more*. All the powers of the Crown are vested in Parliament i.e. the people. Crown Land means I can walk across it and the Royal buildings (barring Sandringham) and all the collections belong to the people not the Royals.
*Please read The Putney Debates (online). It will sound very familiar to you.
I was aware of that.
True of George II, no monarch since. But she did have a German husband, whom she adored.
Rather more so; her diaries were destroyed in part because of her recording her liking for physical satisfaction. Her great, great grand daughter was rumoured to be au fond. Prince Phillip told Larry Adler he couldn't keep up with her, if you will pardon the expression!
thank you
Actually, Henry VIII was not an ancestor of the Windsors, whose family name was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. https://www.royal.uk/saxe-coburg-gotha#:~:text=The%20name%20Saxe%2DCoburg%2DGotha,British%20dynasty%20was%20short%2Dlived.
Good point. What is confusing is that there were many Kings of England, going way back to the 10th and 11th centuries, basically to William the Conqueror, and actually even before this, there were a group of Norse Kings from 1013-1042, and before that, Anglo-Saxon Kings dating back to Alfred the Great in 871-890 but this tree actually overlaps in time, but is separate from the Norse King Tree which only included three or four. The modern royal lineage I think, really begins with the Norman and Early Plantagenets. I don't know that all of them are actually direct ancestors of the present royals, but they are still a part of their history and the greater overall lineage. I have a book on the Plantagenet, and it provides Dynastic Family Trees in the back. The Windsors are part of the House of Hanover and Windsor, which dates back to George I, 1714-1727. Before this, there were the Tudors and Stuarts, which date back to Henry VII, 1485-1509. In this family tree it shows George I as being a descendant of James I (also called VI of Scotland), 1603-1625; and his line traces back to Mary Queen of Scots, James V, James IV, and then to Henry VII, 1485-1509. Henry VIII was on a different branch of this same tree, but he was also a son of Henry VII, and Elizabeth of York. Henry VII's daughter Margaret, (who must have also been Henry VIII's sister), seems to have married James IV of Scotland, leading to James V their son, and then Mary Queen of Scots was his daughter. Mary's second husband was Henry Stuart, and then James I (also referred to as VI of Scotland) married Anne of Denmark, and their son was Charles I, (1625-1649). Ultimately, this tree does date back to Henry VII and Elizabeth of York. So perhaps the current royal family really are related to Henry VIII, through his sister Margaret. Henry VIII's direct line led to Jane Seymour giving birth to Edward VI, 1547-1553, and on this same branch of the tree they are showing Anne Boelyn as having given birth to Elizabeth I. ) Continued in the next three replies below...
continued from my post above....
Before the Tudors and Stuarts there were the Later Plantagenets. That tree had several Henrys and Edwards as well as Richard III. Ultimately, Henry VII who is at the bottom of this tree, is a descendant of all of the Henrys, going back to Henry IV, and then to a branch that includes Edward I (1272-1307), Edward II (1307-1327), and Edward III (1327-1377). Finally the Edwards were the descendants of Henry III 1216-1272 and Eleanor of Provence. The Early Plantagenet Tree came before this one, and William the Conqueror was a part of this Early Norman and Plantagenet Family Tree, which begins with Richard I, Duke of Normandy, branching to Richard II, Aethelred the Unready in 978-1016. The Richard II branch, leads to a third Duke of Normandy named Robert, and then William the Conqueror was his son. William married Matilda of Flanders and then had William II Rufus, and Henry I who married Matilda and also gave birth to a daughter named Matilda in 1141, who married Geoffrey of Anjou, leading to Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitane, who had another Richard I, and John. John had two wives both anmed Isabella and they had Henry III, (1215-1272). Henry the III is at the bottom of this tree, and is also at the top of the Later Plantagenet Tree.
At the coronation today, they used the old wooden throne which belonged to one of King Edwards, although they did not specify if it was Edward I, II, or III. They just said it had belonged to King Edward, and it is kept up in Scotland at one of the castles there.
Continued again, below...
So indirectly, I think they really are related to the whole lineage, but there are these different branches on all of them. In modern terms, we think of them as belonging just to the more recent House and Family Tree, which is the House of Hanover and Windsor.
I'm not an expert on this, but am just looking at what is outlined in this book. The book is called, "The Kings and Queens of England by Ian Crofton.
Thank you for this.
I know this is like totally confusing. If you see it in the book, it is a lot clearer because it shows each tree on a separate page, but they all start with the same person at the bottom, and then again at the top of the later tree. I really don't know how the Windsors think of their lineage, plus there are other branches not included on these trees that pertain to their current family ties. Anyway, it is just something to know about.
Here's another great article about the lineage of the Edwards, during the Later Plantagenet Period, and how Richard III may have been involved in stealing the throne from Edward V - who was just a young boy, while he was their uncle. If you are a subscriber - or if not, it might be available to read as a free article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2023/04/30/edward-v-coronation-disappearance
Isn’t the British monarchy bloodline mostly German as well?
The English are a Germanic people. Saxon.
The English are a Germanic people. I'm English.
My thoughts are the same, that tourists would still go see the historic castles, etc. The news said that less than 40% of young U.K. people support the monarchy. $123 million taxpayer dollars spent for the coronation (the numbers aren't in)? People poor, hungry, unable to keep their homes warm? I just don't get it. This may be the last king.
That is just the coronation. I don’t know the actual figure, but I once read an article on the cost of maintaining the royal family and all their homes. It was a staggering amount. “Harmless fiction”?
spot on, looks like £100m spent, maybe more, and people going with placards in the streets arrested and handcuffed. Neo-fascism is here... ( btw I have been living in Notting Hill since 1981 )
Apples and oranges.
I am sorry but you are so full of ???? The UK is ahead or tied with France on the tourism industry & for your information Buckingham Palace & Windsor Castle & many other Royal buildings are open to the public & well worth visiting.
THIS WORD IS IN TERRIBLE PAIN & SUFFERING. We need to keep & protect the beautiful aspects/history of the past GOOD & BAD.
LOL!
After reading the following comments, more amusement... IS IT ALWAYS ALL ABOUT MONEY EVERYWHERE?
But although Diana was beautiful and glamorous, it was the works of her heart and care for all human beings that inspired deep love and appreciation for her.
She is the only royal that I have ever loved.
What about King Zog of Albania?
No more than Czar Stan of Stanistan
Hear-hear!
No more. I can't Stan it!
Like everything else, the monarchy is a commodity. Does the income from tourism exceed the expense of the monarchy?
Yes.
Wonder if the income trickles down to benefit the taxpayers? Bah, humbug.
I would guess that a lot of the tourist money goes to pay tour guides, restaurant owners and workers, hotel people, janitors, taxi drivers, souvenir sellers, other shop-keepers, and the like. Tourist money gets pretty spread around -- maybe more than most.
Exactly.
Aside from the scenario that Kim cites, the money the Crown spends, lavishly, from its own income, benefits U.K. businesses. Charles and the family are patrons of many different enterprises.
That statement is quite common but how wonder if it's revenue negative when you consider the costs involved. I'm British by birth but have been in Australia for 40 years since Thatcher made me an economic refugee and find the attitude towards royalty slightly amusing. Yesterdays sights reminded me of a bad Peter Sellars movie I once saw called The Mouse that roared. Also Trump turned your presidency into a sick joke !!!
Yes. Celebrity is attractive, Camelot, the musical, “I wonder what the king, is doing, tonight,” Mundane life can be punctuated by interesting stuff not one’s own. Life, reflected in story of others (death, divorce, hard feelings, love), patterns in chapters of life—hope in a marriage (being alone, celebrity’s, an event), older people acknowledged their own youth died when a celebrity dies. Truth, history, is stranger than fiction. A city can be grey. Life is color.
True.
The lady you spoke to was mistaken. Royals bring in nothing, their palaces and other historic sites do, just like Versailles, just like Angkor Wat, just like the Taj Mahal , just like The Valley of the Kings. The presence or otherwise of royals is completely incidental (how many tourists catch sight of a royal anyway?) No, what people really come to see is attractions like The British Museum, The National Gallery, The Tate Modern, The Natural History Museum, The Science Museum, The Victoria and Albert Museum, Whipsnade Zoo, The Tower of London, The National Portrait Gallery, Chester Zoo, Kew Gardens, Westminster Abbey, The National Museum of Scotland, Edinburgh Castle, Royal Albert Hall, The Scottish National Gallery, St Pauls, The British Library, Scotland, Wales, the Lake District, the Yorkshire Dales, The Cotswolds, Cornwall, Dartmoor, Devon, the Peak District, The Cairngorms National Park, Loch Ness with its monster mystery - to name but a few which are far more attractive than Buckingham Palace or its occupants.
A record 39.1 million tourists visited Birmingham in 2016 and not a single royal lives there. 20 million people visited the Lake District in 2019, they didn’t go there to see any of the Windsors.
https://www.business-live.co.uk/economic-development/record-visitors-boost-birminghams-tourism-12843996
This 'revenue from tourism' myth is just that...a myth, it’s been thoroughly and comprehensively debunked. The Windsors bring in nothing, not tourism revenue, not tourists, nothing. If tourism was the deciding factor in a democracy’s constitutional arrangement, then the CEO of Merlin Entertainment, Alton Towers, Legoland etc, would be the Head of State.
It is fine with me. The Celebration was quite tasteful. My Northern Irish relatives living in Belfast may have a different opinion.
We don’t need a king.. the Vice President should handle all ceremonial functions so that a President can govern.. not sure why anyone cares about any royals.. we fought hard and long to get rid of them.
Brilliant! Having the VP take charge of all ceremonial functions would at least provide an answer to the question, "What does the Vice President do, anyway?"
I'd rather our Vice President HAVE actual, important, impactual duties that get actual media coverage so we can see their potential to step into the presidency if necessary...
Exactly. What we need is a separate "Master of ceremonies" to take the burden. Unless the Pres enjoys it.
Well, Lyndon Johnson took over when we lost JFK .. and went on to get us Medicare and The Voting Rights Act.
I have found many areas that our vice president is involved in. I find this information on websites and on television programs such as CNN. Seek and you shall find!
I prefer the U.S. version of royalty, often empty-headed celebrities who strut their moment upon the stage, then move on as revered, disgraced, or forgotten has-beens. At least the people make the current choice freely and U.S. royalty do not have a lifelong purchase on the public treasury as do the Brit parasites.
Unless, difny, you are a corrupt, christofascist Supreme Court justice. On the take from us AND the billionaire class. Talk about parasites!
Indeed! We can do something about that: Work our butts off to elect a congress that will take on scotus outrages effectively.
Yes, yes, yes!
Except, we can’t work our butts off hard enough if the Republicans succeed in gerrymandering enough states to make it impossible for Dems to ever win an election. We have to end the electoral college and have many substantive wins in court to halt this extremist takeover of our country.
All the bad stuff crawled out of the Electoral College ooze. You can't get rid of the EC if you can't even control gerrymandering. We simply must get enough people to vote to knock over their towering roadblocks. We have the numbers. Do we have the will?
Since you bring it up, I'm going to take the liberty of linking to a new Substack on the subject. Be forewarned. It'll make you madder than you already are. https://luciantruscott.substack.com/p/the-reign-of-enterprise-rent-a-justice/
I subscribed! It was a great article and made the whole mess clear! Ugh!
Thank you, Liz!
Thanks for taking the trouble to say so, Elisabeth! Obviously, I agree. ;-)
I sgned up for free subscriber status; the photo illudtration of the Leo Gang alone was worth the Link. Thank you.
I'm pleased that you found that newsletter rewarding, Bryan. Yep—the painting gives new meaning to the "worth a thousand words" saying.
Ok, I am ready! I like Lucian Truscott….rent-a-justice, I see it in your link. More like “own-a-justice”….omg. I’ll let you know what I think.
I have been watching Leonard Leo closely and categorize him as the most dangerous domestic terrorist in this country along with those who belong to The Federalist Society who knowingly participated in and perpetuate this insidious plot to maintain Republican Power and control. Don’t believe for one minute that Mitch’s 40-year plan for control was designed without the input of and assistance by many of these same people. Despite control, we must amass Democratic votes and clean house from local school boards on up. Excellent article.
I couldn't agree more on all counts, Linda!
Do actors get paid too much money? What do they do to improve the world? How much do you think that you get paid?
Actors' pay?! That's something I never thought about. Their pay is between them and their employers. What business is it of mine? I'll honor any picket line I see. Since you ask, I don't think that I get paid anything..
My big question is: in the “Treasure of Sierra Madre,” did the kitchen worker who uttered the sentence “We don’t need no stinkin’ badges” get actors’ equity pay?
And the writer of that line?
Stan and difny, I certainly hope they get actors equity pay! That’s why we fought and died for unions….
Yes, Alfonso Bedoya got paid for his role as the Mexican bandit who uttered that famous line.
He appeared in over 40 Mexican movies, and numerous American ones as well. He was a professional actor.
Yes, according to your definition, Donald J. Drumpf is the US version of royalty. This sort of scandal was inevitable.
Exactly, Stan. I thought of him. His reality tv show had failed, so he ran for the presidency as an audacious publicity stunt, one.that turned him into a two-time loser. But unlike any other compound has-been he just won't go away.
Hopeful I wake and find Trump was a movie I watched before going to sleep. I would not watch it again.
Well, he has an insurrection to run….the party’s just getting started!
Tell it to PBS> How many programs about the British uppers do they run (without my $upport)? ..
Phil, try watching some of the excellent offerings on PBS that are made in England. You don’t have to be a Royalist to enjoy well-made murder mysteries or historical drama.
And don’t overlook the closer-to- home locally- produced shows.
I’ve been an avid supporter since my adult children watched Mr. Rogers and Sesame Street. Donations well spent !
Gotta love "Father Brown" and anything with Nicola Walker, "Unforgotten," "Annika," or the drama "Last Tango in Halifax."
As an adult I watched Sesame Street with our child. Loved it. Now she has two children and tells me Sesame Street is out of touch with today. Ugh.
At this point, I should say I really enjoyed the probable last such ceremony, the real star being the Abbey. Hats off, in both (or is it four) senses, to the King and Queen for their fortitude in making it through what would have been grueling for those half their age. In no other place could this have happened ..
It looked exhausting to me!
Amen. I've said this very often.
Too bad Biden didn't send Kamala Harris. Would have made a point.
Maybe a person appointed with role of social convenor—made famous by being sour, silent, powerful around formal traditions, and celebrity at the same time. Blame it all on “them,” instead of distraction to political stuff. A time limited, arms length, 9-year term, just to be different. NO formal goodbye at end, just usher in another. No mystery about life of such a public servant, or trio that serves as lightning rod for a role of too many galas. A real person(s) with minimal backstory, serious-side and, above all, unknowable political views. Festive stuff belongs to celebrity social conveners, not overworked social visionaries.
I agree 💯% h. I find the whole thing a crashing bore. It's easy to forget the bloody history of the British Empire. Not this Yank....
They think we are bloody with all our gun deaths and they would be right!
I think the monarchy is the symbol of a very real elitism that has been the foundation of British society and values - or at least the foundation of their still large aristocracy's claim to superiority. As long as their 1% are held in veneration, the 99% are not. It is a vestige of the ancient feudal past that should be put to rest, with a vengeance.
I concur (said with an Oxbridge accent). European aristocracy maintains in general a network of privilege that allows it to increase their lot’s fortunes while trying to look austere and modest. In the meantime, within the walls of their social circles, they laugh at what they call “les petites gens” or the 99%. They use their influence to traffic favors and access to power. I hope one day a journalistic team will shame them in public and hopefully put some in prison for their white glove crimes. I have had the displeasure of working in their midst and understood the nature of evil.
Inbred descendants of the Hapsburgs
Remember the Tudors including Henry VIII!
As a child, I admired Josip Broz Tito, who kept a drill-press in the basement of palatial home.
I am unsure of Tito, however, as a general rule I think well of anyone who owns a drill-press as it is a very handy tool.
Except, Marisa, for Prince Randy Andy, who actually committed “black glove crimes” with the help of Jeffrey Child Molester Epstein. He should definitely go to jail.
Right, he’s just the one that got caught, that’s all. All of it, the product of impunity.
Not just the symbol, but the very foundation of an anachronistic layer cake of privilege, wealth, class, racism, inequality, and associated suffering of the underclass. Monarchy is the opiate of the people, especially the seniors.
Well said. I think in a hundred years time people will see the monarchy in a similar way as they do slavery.
That class structure in the UK that has a certain % of people thinking they are definitely 'superior' by way of birth is something that is clung onto desperately by the ones who benefit from it. The 'lower working class' just tolerate the whole thing simply because it's easier than having a painful revolution, and after all there's all that pretty stuff like the Coronation to watch. I don't think the Brits have the stomach to go thru a revolution that took the country into a socialist framework. They dabble with it to get more rights which they definitely do want, but all that nasty fighting in the streets business is not something most Brits want - they would rather just negotiate for better conditions, altho a strike or 2 goes down quite well ! While there were plenty of people in the streets for the coronation, the vast majority stayed home & watched the goings on on TV - nice to watch, but time to discuss all those people getting paid just because they are 'Royals' - hence Charles is trying to slim it all down - he knows what the public mood is !!
"I don't think the Brits have the stomach to go thru a revolution that took the country into a socialist framework"
Maybe not the English, but I think the Scots are getting close.
Alfred E. Neuman as king, leading the royal garter? It will put itself to rest.
https://twitter.com/fox5dc/status/1651262437230780416
Inbred descendants of the Hapsburgs
How are they descended from the Hapsburgs.
Try some research. It's easy
Rubbish
Ian, Here, here! With a vengeance.
The monarch, under the British constitution (yes there is one) has three main political rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, and the right to warn. The late Queen, by virtue of her longevity and her weekly meetings with every prime minister while that person was in office, had a deep knowledge of the political process and of its likely repercussions in Commonwealth countries, which she also knew very thoroughly. Prime ministers have acknowledged how helpful her perspective was, which owed nothing to electoral requirements and sprang from a lifetime of service to the country. We can only hope that Charles has acquired something of that same depth of perspective. No elected politician is bound by the monarch’s opinion on any issue, but it is certainly an educated one that deserves attention even if not followed.
I admired Queen Elizabeth the second. I understand that during her reign she was actually cutting down on the amount of money that she was getting from the people via their taxes.She stopped using the Royal Air Force and got rid of the royal yacht. Jenny - I agree with your comment about Queen Elizabeth II. Charles has always been concerned about the environment. I have a copy of the book he wrote on this topic. I admired his first wife, nuff said on that topic.
Seems to work as well in Japan
Doesn't the Monarch have the power to suspend Parliament in the U.K. and Canada? I thought Queen Elizabeth used that power at least twice during her reign.
It is a very limited and murky area. The queen's agent, the Governor-General, has the discretion to refuse to dissolve parliament when the PM instructs them to, if in their opinion the opposition can cobble together a viable government. This power was used once, in the 1920's, when the GG (Lord Byng) refused to call an election when PM MacKenzie-King quit, and instead allowed the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen to attempt to form a government. That died fairly early, and MK campaigned loud and long that the GG had acted in an anti-democratic fashion against the command of the government. MK won the subsequent election in a landslide. Ever since then the GG has avoided being in a similar bind, and nobody has touched it. The only near exception has been Stephen Harper, who, upon learning that he was about to be defeated on an non-confidence vote and thrown into an election he was likely to lose, instructed the GG to 'prorogue' Parliament, which essentially means to close the session and all bills and business, and start it all over again. After frantically consulting in all directions, the GG agreed to carry out the PM's instruction, which was widely criticized as a partisan way to short-circuit the probable will of parliament. But they were all wary of repeating some version of the King-Byng Crisis.
So, while the power exists in theory, it is so limited as to be virtually useless. And recent trends have been to treat the GG as the head of state in practice.
Try reading about the Whitlam era in Australian politics where clearly the Crown was involved in downing a socialist government and it's PM at the time. Records between Buck House and Australia have never been released !!
Thank you for this interesting and educational a part of history that you provided for us!