Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Monarchy haters may want to imprison the royal family but that's because they don't do the math

I guess most of the world now knows that there's a new prince in Britain. For what it's worth, I don't understand the obsession most people have for this ancient organization that operates not as a meritocracy, but through strict nepotism and strategic alliances. That just seems like a relic of a bygone age, but hey, it's not my country.
Britain's royal family is literally the goose that laid the golden egg. Haters
of this institution are simply that and haven't bothered to do any of the math.
However, before I just blatantly condemn this millennia old institution, I decided to do some research and see what good the royal family does for Britain (you know...aside from existing as a family of "British Kardashians" that lives on luxurious estates making their number one responsibility to "look good" and sucking down a lavish lifestyle on the back of the taxpayer). The above video does a great job of explaining it. Hint: you should watch it.

In short (TL;DR):
Americans could compare the royal family to the Kardashians. But that
would be seriously insulting. The royal family makes the Brits a TON of
cash. The Kardashians make the U.S. a ton of embarrassment.
The Brits spend $40 million pounds a year maintaining them. However they make $160 million pounds off of their lands. This is enough to reduce the average taxpayer's burden by $2 pounds and 60 pence than it would otherwise be. I wish the president's family (Republican or Democrat) could say this about the impact of their family on the economy.

The golden goose tourists from America dump buckets of money on the UK every year to see the royals and everything they touch with magical "royal pixie" dust. It's a better attraction than Disneyland. Twelve million tourists spending $7000 million pounds is a good thing, right? Hell yes it is. In Chris Rocks words, that's a lotta money!
Cheap Pete from the 90's show, "In Living Color." He's best known for
saying "Good Lord that's a LOTTA MONEY!"
So how about you? Are you a hater of all things royal? Do you think this fabulously wealthy family sponges off the back of the people? If so, has the video changed your tune?

I (like the rest of the world) am curious as to the name of the new baby. I also kind of think it'd be cool if the prince was born gay. Wouldn't that be interesting? I wonder how the royals would react if their son said, "Um...I've been dating a guy that I met while playing polo..." William would probably look at Kate and say, "Why did you insist on wearing all that pink while you were pregnant? Sigh."

Oh my. The world would never be the same.

***** 

I'll be taking the rest of the week off. I'll see you guys next Monday.

33 comments:

Ted Cross said...

I see them as pointless, but sort of like an amusement park for Britain to attract certain odd tourists.

Donna Hole said...

I've never understood the role of the Royal family, other than as a symbol. Who am I to say another country's politics is skewed?

.....dhole

Hilary Melton-Butcher said...

Hi Michael - here comes a Brit and a royal loving Brit at that ...

It's the tradition and history - and the video's note of comparison between French castles and English castles (or palaces for both) .. I guess goes some way to explaining the interest - the pageantry is maintained as a historical record, and as a marketing ploy for the country .. bringing cash in ...

I'd hate to be without them .. thankfully the slate seems to have been turned around with William and life is much easier and happier for the older royals too ..

I'd hate to be one of them - constantly in the spotlight ...

I enjoyed the video - and the thought re a gay prince - now that would be interesting ...

Thanks for posting the video - cheers Hilary

Kellie @ Delightfully Ludicrous said...

I don't think I've ever considered how much money the Monarchy makes compared to how much they cost, but it's an interesting point.

Cindy said...

I was just hearing about how the royals bring in a lot of tourist money. I've always thought of them as diplomats for their country and also doing charity work as well. All this royal stuff seems to make England unique and it has some historical meaning for them.

I'm not really into this, but it would be cool to go over there and see a castle or something. Do they have tours of castles? lol.

The name could be little William. That's my guess.

Mark Koopmans said...

From a bloke who grew up in Oirland, my people are not supposed to like the Royals, but I remember how sad I was when Diana died. She really *did* feel like she was one of the family.

My vote for the name is: GEORGE.

(Remember you read it here first :)

DEZMOND said...

the riches of most of the royal families come from the treasure they had stolen and robbed from enslaved nations. Queen Victoria built their empire on the blood and sweat of so many enslaved colonies which still, mostly, live in poverty, while UK enjoys the rich life. Over in Belgium, for example, most of the royal riches come from enslaved nations in their old African colonies. Did you know that they killed 10 million out of 20 million people in Congo?

Pat Dilloway said...

As an American I don't see why we should care about British royalty. We fought a war to get rid of them! It's strange how we only care about British royalty too. I mean when was the last time anyone talked about the king and queen of Sweden or Norway or Zambisi or some place like that?

Really you're taking the rest of the week off? I'm going on vacation and I still have posts scheduled for every day, lazybones.

Julie Flanders said...

I don't understand the obsession people have with them but I feel the same way about the obsession some Americans have with celebrities & politicians. I just don't get the idea that some people are more special than others and worthy of adoration. I can't fault the royal family too much though simply because of those cute corgis.

Enjoy the rest of your week! :)

Adam said...

If the Kardashians are America's royal family, then it's time to revoke their citizenship.

Munir said...

Coming from a country full of Rajas and Maha Rajas, I can certainly understand the importance of Monarchy. Even today some old timers of my hometown miss the Kingship and say that Democracy has been a curse. How ever I still believe that we have a right to elect our leaders.
Great Britain likes to keep the name sake Monarchy and the rest of the world should not be bothered about that( I expressed the best I can).

Sarah Ahiers said...

I really don't give much thought to it one way or another. But I am interested in hearing the baby's name. But that's my favorite part of anyone having a baby

Elise Fallson said...

"The royal family makes the Brits a TON of cash. The Kardashians make the U.S. a ton of embarrassment." That so cracked me up! :D

I hope you get to enjoy your time off. Take care and "see" you Monday.

Andrew Leon said...

Are you going on baby-spotting trip?

mshatch said...

I'd rather have the Royals than the Kardashians.

Stephen Hayes said...

Long ago I did the math and I've known for a long time that the British monarchy was profitable. I wouldn't want a monarchy here in the States but I do enjoy watching all the pomp on TV, or should I say the "tellie?"

D.G. Hudson said...

There is no comparison between the tacky Kardashians and the English Royals.

I wish much happiness to the new little prince, as I'm sure many do. It gives the rest of the world something other than depressing subjects to discuss.

Hilary said it well.

Tara Tyler said...

first, re your last 2 posts

ah! b&n! amazon is too big! i smell monopoly! and it stinks!

and the simpsons did a good job with inception! ha! love that movie!

as for the royal pooper, love hearing about the last fantasy reality around! its tradition and heritage, and we are footing bills for our presidential extravagance...

Sheena-kay Graham said...

The Royal Family comes from a wonderful history and their ancestors did a lot for their people. I've never been a hater and never will be. I love what you wrote about the Kardashians.

Jess said...

Fun and educational post! I never thought of the monarchy bringing in loads of tourism, but you're right!... Magical "royal" pixie dust~ love it :)

M Pax said...

Actually our caste/cash based system has us neck and neck with the UK as to social mobility.

I'd like to see them go celeb with the naming, like Mack Truck or something. :)

Madeline Jane said...

I still don't understand the whole fascination with the royal thing. But at least I hate the Kardashians, right? ;)

Yolanda Renee said...

Don't understand the hype, or the role except if you say it's all financial. But the Kard's - that one really baffles me and sometimes sickens me. No accounting for taste.

But I'm also a person who doesn't understand screaming fans - for anyone or anything - maybe the reason I've been referred to as a 'stick in the mud'! :)

Cally Jackson said...

Australia is still part of the monarchy but I don't really "get" the royal family either. That said, it's been really nice to have a positive story dominate the news for a change.

If the new prince does turn out to be gay, here's hoping his parents become a shining example of love and acceptance for the rest of the world. :-)

Jay Noel said...

I don't get it either, but that's probably because I'm an ugly American to them.

Helena said...

I kind of like how the royal family's main members are so freaking famous they can bring attention to important causes. Diana highlighted landmine removal, Prince Charles has been years ahead of his time with sustainability issues, and Prince Phillip champions world wildlife. But that said, Prince Andrew is pretty much just a spoiled twit and embarrassment. Of course ultimately there's the Queen, who's in her late eighties and still working full-time.

I definitely respect William and Harry for serving in the military and Harry especially for going to Afghanistan. Prince Charles and twit Andrew also served. How many rich families' kids in this country have done the same?

Brooke R. Busse said...

I find Helena's comment interesting...

Anyway, your speculation about the baby's sexuality. Sometimes I find it amazing what your mind thinks of. And how it sparks such imagination in mine. 0.o

Michael Ignacio said...

I’ve recently seen the Kings Speech, and I highly recommend it if you have not seen it. One thing that the main character says is that the King is the voice of the British People. Granted, that referred to a time of uncertainty when Hitler was on the horizon, but I still wonder if the British people see their monarchy that way. Maybe it’s a tie to their ancient glories and the king represents what Britain wishes to be.

Catherine Stine said...

Hhahaha, or what if the royal babe was ultimately a transgender, who wanted to dress like Kate?
As far as the Royals, they kind of bore me. But those Brits do love a queen, including their Lord Elton.

Michael Pierce said...

And they went with the name George. What a cliche royal name. I'd like to know what other names were on the table. The video was interesting...so they bring a lot of money in for the country, but they still don't do anything. Must be nice.

Susan Oloier said...

I've never paid attention to the royals. They, and the Kardashians, don't interest me.
If the new prince is gay--well, that would make for an interesting royal story. If he gets married, what title would his husband receive?

Morgan said...

LOL to the Kardashians being America's royal family...

And I do love the royals as far as history is concerned--I've always found European history fascinating!

mooderino said...

We're sort of stuck with them. It's the media that obsess over them. Got to fill up those pages with something.

mood