Monarchy debate/discussion

[Salt n Vinegar]

In a valiant attempt to get back on topic, I understand that His Most Britannic Majesty has appointed a pro-homeopathy doctor as head of the royal medical household. I confess that I was surprised that there was such a thing as the "royal medical household", but have been rather put off looking at the homeopathy angle because of the Wikipedia entry I found for it.  I know that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect source of information, and I am almost hoping there is a typo, (maybe something to do with the eyes?) but I was surprised at what I read about the royal medical household's membership...

"Current roles include a Personal Doctor to the King and Queen, Physician to the King, a Serjeant Surgeon, Apothecaries to the King, Occultist to the King, Dentist to the King, Orthopaedic Surgeon to the King and Surgeon Gynaecologist to the Queen."

IN THE 21ST CENTURY THERE IS AN OFFICIAL POST OF OCCULTIST TO THE KING? Info on the web is a bit sparse... please, please, can someone at least confirm that the post has been, and remains, unfilled?

[O'Kelly Isley III]

1 minute ago, BFTD said:

The one currently using some of his catchphrases.

Oh right, that doesn't help. The high-handed use of "these people" and pearl-clutching about "personal abuse".

The worrying thing about the monarchy isn't so much the ludicrous propaganda, but how many people genuinely don't want to hear about how much money they make from the rest of us, and how strenuously they fight to protect their personal interests at the expense of ours. There's a weird self-censorship going on where the fantasy of benevolence and pomp has to win out over the reality of the situation.

I agree entirely with that; the recent exposure of the arcane practice of claiming deceased estates in Lancashire being but one example.  I've reckoned for some time though that as the UK slides down every meaningful international comparator, far too many in the UK now cling to the two 'M's of monarchy and militarism, to the utter despair of the rest of us.

The French got it right in 1789.

 

[BFTD]

3 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

I agree entirely with that; the recent exposure of the arcane practice of claiming deceased estates in Lancashire being but one example.  I've reckoned for some time though that as the UK slides down every meaningful international comparator, far too many in the UK now cling to the two 'M's of monarchy and militarism, to the utter despair of the rest of us.

The French got it right in 1789.

Not quite; some of them escaped.

Ooh, so much for the tolerant left, etc!

[Arch Stanton]

5 minutes ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

I agree entirely with that; the recent exposure of the arcane practice of claiming deceased estates in Lancashire being but one example.  I've reckoned for some time though that as the UK slides down every meaningful international comparator, far too many in the UK now cling to the two 'M's of monarchy and militarism, to the utter despair of the rest of us.

The French got it right in 1789.

 

And the Russians in 1918.

[Steelly]

3 minutes ago, scottish tory said:

The Royal family bring in far more money than they get from tax payers. We would be so much worse off without them.

President Blair? Or Farage?

Constitutional monarchy may have its anachronisms, still better than any alternative for me. But that's just my opinion!

President Farage sounds good.

[Suspect Device]

3 minutes ago, scottish tory said:

The Royal family bring in far more money than they get from tax payers. We would be so much worse off without them.

President Blair? Or Farage?

Constitutional monarchy may have its anachronisms, still better than any alternative for me. But that's just my opinion!

Do you have the facts to back up your first statement?

And don't just count every tourist as a direct benefit of having a royal family. Paris has more tourists than London for a start.

Italy is another republic with a thriving tourism industry.

And the ridiculous comparison with an elected head of state always cites the worst possible person being voted in. Even then we'd be able to get rid of them at the next election. We have no democratic method of getting rid of the monarchy.

[Miguel Sanchez]

To be fair to the, ahem, Heart of Midlothian fan, the "I googled politics forum" line has some history. We had lots of people joining the forum in the run up to the independence referendum because people were looking for a forum about that. I also think there were a few bots, but that was 2014 so not as bad as it is now.

Anyway, @scottish tory I'd cut your losses and try a new username. And don't complain about lefties.

[carpetmonster]

9 minutes ago, Suspect Device said:

Do you have the facts to back up your first statement?

 

Yes. They bring in twenty million pounds and if it wasn’t for them, we’d be like Ireland, sleeping on the streets because the giro is ten pounds. 
 

 

[Salvo Montalbano]

3 minutes ago, scottish tory said:

A lot of the money comes from visits to the iconic buildings themselves."

The Palace of Versailles of course, famously has no visitors at all.

[Miguel Sanchez]

20 minutes ago, scottish tory said:

What's wrong with my username, it describes me very well. I haven't been at a football match for at least 20 years.

While I believe your story and genuinely found it quite funny, as a neutral observer and advocate of The Forum I believe it will harm your credibility in political discussions. You'd fit right in on the Hearts thread though, I'd take up the football again.

[Billy Jean King]

I take it the Scottish Tory sock is the Steely red dotting alter ego (or vice versa) and probably both were DPB ???

[Jacksgranda]

6 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

In a valiant attempt to get back on topic, I understand that His Most Britannic Majesty has appointed a pro-homeopathy doctor as head of the royal medical household. I confess that I was surprised that there was such a thing as the "royal medical household", but have been rather put off looking at the homeopathy angle because of the Wikipedia entry I found for it.  I know that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect source of information, and I am almost hoping there is a typo, (maybe something to do with the eyes?) but I was surprised at what I read about the royal medical household's membership...

"Current roles include a Personal Doctor to the King and Queen, Physician to the King, a Serjeant Surgeon, Apothecaries to the King, Occultist to the King, Dentist to the King, Orthopaedic Surgeon to the King and Surgeon Gynaecologist to the Queen."

IN THE 21ST CENTURY THERE IS AN OFFICIAL POST OF OCCULTIST TO THE KING? Info on the web is a bit sparse... please, please, can someone at least confirm that the post has been, and remains, unfilled?

Maybe it's something to do with eyes?

Edit : As you said! 

Edited December 12, 2023 by Jacksgranda

[Billy Jean King]

2 minutes ago, scottish tory said:

I don't know what any of that means?

You'll probably not believe this either but I'm new to all this Internet forum business! (I'm not far off my free bus pass)

Call my cynical but your posting style is very similar to a good few multi banned users on here hence my assertions. We will see how it goes but it's uncanny how many completely new users sign up, never post anywhere but politics threads, start off with the "I come  in peace, I know nobody " lines and yet within a couple of weeks they have had a total meltdown and end up banned.....rinse and repeat. 

To add to the coincidence they always are pro monarchy,  pro Tory, right wing and anti SNP so you can see how folk think how they do

[Jacksgranda]

1 hour ago, scottish tory said:

What's wrong with my username, it describes me very well. I haven't been at a football match for at least 20 years.

Here's a good bit of analysis of the impact of the Royal family:

 

"In terms of what they bring to the economy, valuation consultancy group, Brand Finance, estimated that the monarchy’s helped boost the economy with a gross uplift of £1.76billion in the year 2021/22.

This figure factors in ‘the Crown Estate’s surplus as well as the monarchy’s indirect effect on various industries’ into their valuations.

And this figure might even be a conservative one, when you consider the royal family indirectly keep other industries ticking along – like journalists, authors and even fashion dupes and inspiration.

A lot of the money comes from visits to the iconic buildings themselves."




 

That all seems a bit nebulous, tbh.

[Jacksgranda]

6 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

Call my cynical but your posting style is very similar to a good few multi banned users on here hence my assertions. We will see how it goes but it's uncanny how many completely new users sign up, never post anywhere but politics threads, start off with the "I come  in peace, I know nobody " lines and yet within a couple of weeks they have had a total meltdown and end up banned.....rinse and repeat. 

To add to the coincidence they always are pro monarchy,  pro Tory, right wing and anti SNP so you can see how folk think how they do

Cynical, you've hit the nail on the head...

[BFTD]

Just think, if it wasn't for the referendum in 2014, we would be reading this risible cosplay pish on the normal people subforums  

[DA Baracus]

9 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

In a valiant attempt to get back on topic, I understand that His Most Britannic Majesty has appointed a pro-homeopathy doctor as head of the royal medical household. I confess that I was surprised that there was such a thing as the "royal medical household", but have been rather put off looking at the homeopathy angle because of the Wikipedia entry I found for it.  I know that Wikipedia isn't always a perfect source of information, and I am almost hoping there is a typo, (maybe something to do with the eyes?) but I was surprised at what I read about the royal medical household's membership...

"Current roles include a Personal Doctor to the King and Queen, Physician to the King, a Serjeant Surgeon, Apothecaries to the King, Occultist to the King, Dentist to the King, Orthopaedic Surgeon to the King and Surgeon Gynaecologist to the Queen."

IN THE 21ST CENTURY THERE IS AN OFFICIAL POST OF OCCULTIST TO THE KING? Info on the web is a bit sparse... please, please, can someone at least confirm that the post has been, and remains, unfilled?

To (sort of) paraphrase Frankie Boyle, when the queen was alive they could have saved money by combining the gynaecologist and occultist roles.

[ClydeTon]

4 hours ago, scottish tory said:

The Royal family bring in far more money than they get from tax payers. We would be so much worse off without them.

President Blair? Or Farage?

Constitutional monarchy may have its anachronisms, still better than any alternative for me. But that's just my opinion!

I think it would make a lot more money if Buckingham Palace was fully open to the public similarly to Stirling or Edinburgh Castles - rather than having people at the gates while a rich c**t who's done nothing to earn his wealth waves at them once or twice, probably thinking the people outside are utter clowns for standing there.

Constitutional Monarchy is fine if it's done how Norway (or the likes) do it - don't pay them with taxpayer's money, make them earn it.

The Norwegian monarchy don't live in fancy palaces, it's just a (slightly larger than average) house. They receive little-to-no taxpayer money.

Meanwhile, King Chuck takes from the dead.

[Lurkst]

10 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

The French got it right in 1789.

 

10 hours ago, Arch Stanton said:

And the Russians in 1918.

TBF the English did it first.

 

[Boo Khaki]

Like Viz said - If this talk about the Monarchy being a net boon to the economy is true, then the obvious solution to the UK's financial troubles is to just turn the unemployed into Royals.