Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

The Queen's Jubilee 2022

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

The Queen's Jubilee 2022

Old 21st Feb 2021, 16:46
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 2,501
But heights - every Head of State costs money - I don't think the UK overpays for what it gets

It's reasonably popular, helps with the tourist trade, makes some people proud............. as long as they're kept away from the actual levers of power I can't see the problem. You could have a Putin, a Trump, a Marcos after all
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 17:00
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Asturias56 View Post
But heights - every Head of State costs money - I don't think the UK overpays for what it gets

It's reasonably popular, helps with the tourist trade, makes some people proud............. as long as they're kept away from the actual levers of power I can't see the problem. You could have a Putin, a Trump, a Marcos after all
Can you explain what we actually get for the money?

Brexit was popular, it doesn't make it value for money.

Nobody visiting meets the queen, having no royal family will not stop visitors. Tourists can visit everywhere that the royals used to live. It will not affect the national income for years, decades.

Pride can cost, it is a silly notion to pay millions and millions so that people can buy a Jubilee mug and commemorative dinner plate. Most of which are bought by people of an older generation.

The reference to Putin et al is largely a red herring as the PM is the de facto ruler of the country as the Queen does nothing but keep the theatrics from 400 yrs ago continuing.


Last edited by heights good; 22nd Feb 2021 at 22:05.
heights good is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 17:00
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 18,912
Originally Posted by heights good View Post
I did not compare the US & UK political systems.

My point about "brutal murders" was meant to demonstrate that royals are nobodies, they were just descendants of whoever had the greatest luck in killing their way to the top and the greatest urge to be the boss.

No altruism, no service, no 'for the good of the people'.

Fast forward 1,000 years and we still have their descendants on the throne. We adorn them with an insane about of riches, privileges and treat them like they are special.

They are in no way special and have zero role
to play in a modern society.
i tend to agree with you, two things of late that have come out that reinforce that view is the Queens veto on disclosing her true worth, if I was on benefits which the royal purse is, I would have to disclose everything and so should she.
The same goes for the change in the law so those living in rented properties on the Dutch of Cornwall lost the right to buy. We should have stopped funding their lifestyles years ago and used the funds to house those homeless and to feed those in need.
NutLoose is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 18:06
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,189
More than high-time that this thread was consigned to JB (or elsewhere...)
Lyneham Lad is online now  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 18:07
  #65 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,739
Republicanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
Two's in is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 18:31
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 881
I have a great deal of sympathy with Heights Good and others who express their rage about the Royal Family, who are a fairly dim collection with anachronistic opinions about their worth and role.

I don't really buy the received wisdom that the Queen is, by virtue of her long service a wise adviser to the PM of the day. I suspect she has quite a shallow understanding of most issues. Neither do I buy the line that she works hard; when did she last open a door? As for the rest of them, words fail me; Charles is useless, a royal Rees-Mogg trying to caricature his great-uncle David with foppish clothes and manner. I won't go on about the others.

But that's just that particular Family. Of recent German descent, with a dash of Greek. But what about the constitutional Monarchy, as a way to organise how the UK is governed? Here we have a huge problem, aka The Alternative. Some kind of elected figurehead, perhaps? Or even, God help us, an active President, with real powers? Someone like Trump? Well, no, of course not, but think again. It's probably got to be a politician, because no-one else would be stupid and ambitious enough to offer themselves. This line of thought leads inexorably to the possibility that if we had already ditched the Monarchy, Tony Blair might now be President.

So ditching the Monarchy is absolutely, totally, finally out of the question. And since we cannot change the present Royal Family for a better Royal Family, we have to accept what we've got and carry on.

I'll put my Commission back on the loo wall. At moments of great stress, it is comforting to read that Elizabeth R reposed, once upon a time, especial Trust and Confidence in my Loyalty, Courage and Integrity. Even though I can think of quite a few in whom that was misplaced. Me, too, TBH.
old,not bold is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 18:42
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,040
heights good

When Wills and Kate got hitched a few years back, an additional 600,000 people came to London for the weekend, 60% from UK, 40% from overseas, spending £107m … The value to ‘brand Britain’ due to global media coverage was approximately £1 billion.

What more evidence do you need chum?

HM The Queen’s official residences also attract significant numbers of visitors: 2.8m people in 2016, with the top three being Windsor Castle (1,432,260 visitors), Buckingham Palace (576,995 visitors), and the Palace of Holyroodhouse (392,260 visitors).

Although VisitBritain does not collate statistics on the royal family as an attraction, in a
2012 response to a freedom of information request under its former name as the British Tourist Authority, it estimated that those visitors to the UK who are attracted by British culture and heritage spend in the region of £4.5 billion annually, out of a total overseas visitor spend of £17 billion. Approximately £500m of that £4.5 billion is attributed to attractions and events connected to the royal family, past and present.
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 19:32
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,818
More than high-time that this thread was consigned to JB (or elsewhere...)
Indeed - and 'heights good', who I cannot believe was ever a commissioned officer of the Royal Air Force should be consigned to the Tower!
BEagle is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 20:02
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post
heights good

When Wills and Kate got hitched a few years back, an additional 600,000 people came to London for the weekend, 60% from UK, 40% from overseas, spending £107m … The value to ‘brand Britain’ due to global media coverage was approximately £1 billion.

What more evidence do you need chum?

HM The Queen’s official residences also attract significant numbers of visitors: 2.8m people in 2016, with the top three being Windsor Castle (1,432,260 visitors), Buckingham Palace (576,995 visitors), and the Palace of Holyroodhouse (392,260 visitors).

Although VisitBritain does not collate statistics on the royal family as an attraction, in a
2012 response to a freedom of information request under its former name as the British Tourist Authority, it estimated that those visitors to the UK who are attracted by British culture and heritage spend in the region of £4.5 billion annually, out of a total overseas visitor spend of £17 billion. Approximately £500m of that £4.5 billion is attributed to attractions and events connected to the royal family, past and present.
I think you have missed the point, Not a single person that visits, actually speaks to the queen or any other royals.

They visit buildings.

If the entire royal family disappeared tomorrow then the tourists would still flood in regardless.

Lets factor in costs of the Royal Protection Group, security, Royal Sqn, transportation, ceremonial units, lost opportunity of utilising the Crown Estate.

None of that takes into account the £15,000,000,000 worth of land and property that the Queen owns... perhaps that could be used by the country at large?

In addition, there is the Duchy of Lancaster (name may be wrong) and Duchy of Cornwall which have a combined 160,000 acres (from memory, the exact figure may be more).

At an average cost of a UK acre being around £7,000 for farmland that is a cool £1,200,000,000... that doesnt take into account the fact that most of the land would be WAY more expensive to buy.

The royals also pay their staff a pittance and live a bizarre and charmed life and do very little to receive this great wealth.

I would happily wave at people and kiss babies for a thousandth of that money.




Last edited by heights good; 22nd Feb 2021 at 22:11.
heights good is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 20:04
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
Indeed - and 'heights good', who I cannot believe was ever a commissioned officer of the Royal Air Force should be consigned to the Tower!
And I will absolutely use that Queens Commission to aggressively defend your right to voice that opinion.

Its interesting how I have a difference of opinion to you, and you want me locked up.

Very open-minded

Last edited by heights good; 21st Feb 2021 at 22:01.
heights good is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 20:20
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by NutLoose View Post
i tend to agree with you, two things of late that have come out that reinforce that view is the Queens veto on disclosing her true worth, if I was on benefits which the royal purse is, I would have to disclose everything and so should she.
The same goes for the change in the law so those living in rented properties on the Dutch of Cornwall lost the right to buy. We should have stopped funding their lifestyles years ago and used the funds to house those homeless and to feed those in need.
Totally agree
heights good is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 20:24
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bar to Bar
Posts: 756
Originally Posted by dctyke View Post
its not unknown for people to purchase medals, have the edge skimmed and put new service details on the edge!
WW2 medals were issued unnamed, WW1 were named. Gallantry weren’t named the date of award was inscribed.
Sloppy Link is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 20:42
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,040
heights good

Sorry chum, I disagree. Those 600,000 came to see Kate and Wills, HRHs Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and most definitely not Westminster Abbey. Also, those that tuned in to watch didn’t tune in to watch Becks put his OBE on the wrong lapel either. Those tens of thousands of folks that stand at the gates of Buckingham Palace during HMTQ’s Birthday Flypast do so to see HMTQ and her family, not to gaze at the building or the odd aircraft (fewer and fewer these days).

I am immensely proud to have Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II as my Commander in Chief too. Not some voted in, trumped up, tangerine baboon like the US Forces have just recently had to endure. I am also proud to wear her commemorative medals to celebrate her incredible achievement as the UK’s longest serving Monarch ever. I am also immensely grateful for the opportunity that her ongoing allegiance to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces brings too. For what the Royal Family cost me, and what they give to my Country and fellow residents, then to me they are worth every Penny and more.

Like Beags and B Word have hinted, maybe a trip to the Tower is indeed on the cards...
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 20:55
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post
heights good

Sorry chum, I disagree. Those 600,000 came to see Kate and Wills, HRHs Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and most definitely not Westminster Abbey. Also, those that tuned in to watch didn’t tune in to watch Becks put his OBE on the wrong lapel either. Those tens of thousands of folks that stand at the gates of Buckingham Palace during HMTQ’s Birthday Flypast do so to see HMTQ and her family, not to gaze at the building or the odd aircraft (fewer and fewer these days).

I am immensely proud to have Her Majesty The Queen Elizabeth II as my Commander in Chief too. Not some voted in, trumped up, tangerine baboon like the US Forces have just recently had to endure. I am also proud to wear her commemorative medals to celebrate her incredible achievement as the UK’s longest serving Monarch ever. I am also immensely grateful for the opportunity that her ongoing allegiance to Her Majesty’s Armed Forces brings too. For what the Royal Family cost me, and what they give to my Country and fellow residents, then to me they are worth every Penny and more.

Like Beags and B Word have hinted, maybe a trip to the Tower is indeed on the cards...
600,000 people did not travel to London with the only intention of seeing a wedding.

My sister-in-law works inLondon and went along as she was there already, she is fairly ambivalent about the royals.

I watched Wills get married, I have zero interest in the royals every other day. There was not much else on the TV, so I had little choice.

HM is not an actual C-in-C, she hasn't commanded anything! She is a symbolic figurehead who has no actual role.

If you are proud of her and the royals, great. I don't understand it, but aggressively defend your right to do so.

Last edited by heights good; 21st Feb 2021 at 21:59.
heights good is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 21:57
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Northumberland, England
Posts: 226
Well, I've ignored the twerp, but people keep quoting him/her/it. Feed the ravens, not the troll!
Tocsin is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 22:26
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 4,040
heights good

Oh well, you had best dispute the figures with the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA):


Whilst you do, have a read of this whilst you wait for a reply...

https://theconversation.com/fact-che...l-family-88335
Lima Juliet is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 22:54
  #77 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 74
Posts: 3,415
To paraphrase Churchill. "The Monarchy isn't perfect; but it's better than all the other systems that have been tried."
Herod is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 23:15
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester uk
Age: 66
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Two's in View Post
Republicanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
No, the haunting contempt for the over privileged, few in a country that has the most inequality of almost any Western nation, ( just visit inner city Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds or Glasgow) and poverty on a level with little equal in the rest if Western Europe.
davidevans54 is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2021, 07:06
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 496
Originally Posted by Lima Juliet View Post
heights good

Oh well, you had best dispute the figures with the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA):

https://twitter.com/alva_uk/status/9...043123712?s=21

Whilst you do, have a read of this whilst you wait for a reply...

https://theconversation.com/fact-che...l-family-88335
Completely unbiased and no conflict of interest at all.

It must have been a tough year that year as the visitor numbers were exactly on the trend line but bizarrely dipped the following year after the wedding.

It's a stroke of luck that they had a royal wedding otherwise the numbers would have been down 600,000....

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...nited-kingdom/
heights good is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2021, 07:52
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 5,941
For those chucking visitor numbers around it might perhaps be worth bearing in mind that pre-pandemic Versailles was attracting around 8-10 million visitors a year without a "royal" to be seen or even in residence.
wiggy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.