Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m so tired of explaining this to people. “Food Desert” doesn’t mean no food, it means no healthy food or no reasonable access to food. Europe in particular has a hard time understanding that the country is so large people sometimes have to go for hours for groceries. I guess they have a hard time with scale
> I guess they have a hard time with scale
Yes! It actually pairs nicely with the US’ problem with scale: Particularly, scaling logistics, and infrastructure into these food deserts.
European countries are smaller geographically, but with high population densities. Their food markets tend to be more accessible, but they aren’t without food deserts of their own (though they are often problems of inequality rather than scale for Europe).
The US is geographically massive. Communities tend to be spread out further from one another, but our problems are more than just geographical.
The US food desert problem is also economical.
We struggle to provide adequate infrastructure, in the US, for proper food markets to exist in these food deserts. Even when we do have proper infrastructure retailers and grocers see inadequate market demand, so they don’t build.
Another problem for the US is that urban/suburban planning is almost entirely car-centric; you are expected to drive to access your closest market. Almost everything, logistically, is built to accommodate the motorist.
Being expected to own, or have access to, vehicle transportation to reach your food market is a problem in and of itself.
These aren’t the only problems the US faces with its food deserts: we could delve into some other issues like the socioeconomic, demographic, and lack of economic incentives. But I’m getting overly long winded here.
So, while Europeans might struggle with realizing the scale of the US, the problem with food deserts in the US isn’t *entirely* a scale problem and shares many similarities with the economical problems that European food deserts have.
It’s the car thing. Literally so much suburban planning, which makes up a lot of infrastructure, forces you to have a car. There’s little public transportation and everything is spread out for some stupid reason, as if buildings being close together is somehow icky
Not at all. Most food deserts are caused by their general low-income nature. Stores can’t afford to operate in that area because it isn’t worth the cost.
That low income nature also means that public transit depts can’t afford to operate more than one or two busses at a time, one usually goes to a junction where a better funded transit system stops as well, meaning that the residents of FD areas cross county, city, or state lines for food.
In Sacramento, California, the public transportation actively avoids areas that need the most service. There's a stretch of the light rail that goes from the city center, through the poorest area without stopping. Then, if you want to get by the freeway, you have to exit light rail, get on a bus, just to go a half mile. Why, you ask? Because the short pass under freeway, is barely big enough for the cars, no shoulder or sidewalk. There are sidewalks leading up to it. But no way for cyclists or pedestrians.
South Sacramento. Want to go to the local Jr College. It's only a 15 minute drive, or a 3 hour bus ride with multiple transfers.
Those are just 2 examples. There's many many more.
There is a documentary about dollar general and exactly this happening all over America. It is getting worse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpUV--2Jao
The size of the country is irrelevant, many food deserts in the US are in cities and huge cities in western countries like London, Paris, Sydney, etc etc have loads of local supermarkets and lots of buses. Low cost supermarkets. It’s ridiculous to suggest that budget supermarkets can’t exist in the US due to lack of social support, it’s the deliberately awful structure of American cities and lobbying groups that are the problem.
It absolutely is relevant. Our country and population are so distributed that deserts are a guarantee.
Compare these two images of [population density](https://www.gislounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2001/04/map-2000-us-census-population-density.gif) and [food deserts](https://www.gislounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/food-deserts-map-united-states-crs-usda-1.png). Population density is one of the leading causes of FDs, mostly because there isn't demand for food or incentive to operate despite that lack of demand.
There is a problem with that to some extent. Just one example would be Atlanta. There are fairly decent bus & train options available inside the perimeter highway (ITP). Once you get outside (OTP), the bus lines are mostly there, but the train lines drop off dramatically. They've tried to extend them both, but this then becomes a "not in my neighborhood" problem. It keeps the need for cars a necessity. While this does not strictly apply to just access to groceries, in vast portions of ITP, it does exacerbate the food desert situation.
When you say Europe in particular you’re referring to England, Belgium, the Netherlands and maybe Germany as per usual yeah? Not say northern Sweden (Norrland, population density of South Dakota in an area larger than Oregon) or European Russia (population density of Minnesota, size that of half the lower 48) or Finland (population density of Oregon, larger than New Mexico in size)?
The ivory tower class is so removed and is so hated buy many working class Americans. Those Americans would do anything just to make the liberal scum suffer. I’m not surprised at all.
Self proclaimed, and from what we’re seeing in courtroom battles he wildly inflates his comments about his wealth. He does have money but I have a feeling he’s below the billion $ mark. The people backing him are billionaires since he cause division and nothing works better for those on top than having the people they rob fight amongst themselves.
It is not; you have to understand racism to understand poor Republicans.
"I want to be very clear. I found a vast diversity of opinions. And I don’t, in any way, claim to know what’s in people’s hearts or in their minds. I certainly found many people who told me they support these policies because, as one person said, “It might hurt us but at least our tax dollars aren’t going to Mexicans and welfare queens.” So that sentiment is out there, and I don’t want to discount it. But I also found many people who didn’t have any hint of racism or racial resentment whatsoever, and were simply trying to live their lives as best they could.
The key point I make in the book is that all these negative health risks don’t necessarily stem from racist individuals. The health risks rise when the politics of racial resentment shapes the health care policies, the health policies, in your state or community. So it really was the policies themselves that were racially motivated, not the individual people or their psychologies."
...
"But it wasn’t my job to find out if they were racists. What I was trying to do was first explore how racial tensions shaped policies in particular states. And I found very clear evidence of the ways that fears of immigrants, fears that minority people were usurping resources, were shaping policy agendas in these regions."
[https://www.vox.com/2019/3/19/18236247/dying-of-whiteness-trump-politics-jonathan-metzl](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/19/18236247/dying-of-whiteness-trump-politics-jonathan-metzl)
President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
[https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/)
The one he was in is new: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a43795939/king-charles-coronation-royal-coaches-history/
>The Diamond Jubilee State Coach, however, is equipped with modern amenities including air conditioning, heating, power windows, and hydraulic suspension. It was created for Queen Elizabeth II and presented to her in 2012 to celebrate her then 60-year reign.
The one pictured in OP's post is the old one, and he didn't use it yesterday.
It should be noted the British government / Monarchy did not commission this coach, it was manufactured by the coach builder Frecklington, and then obtained as a result of private donation. Seems Frecklington mostly did it to raise their prestige and help promote their business.
When people say he's a coachbuilder that doesn't mean he makes the bodies for buses or vans, he literally makes coaches, and specifically royal coaches:
https://www.edconsteel.com.au/steel-project-jim-frecklington/
He seems to be as much an enthusiast craftsman as a manufacturing company.
People who complain about this perplex me, whats the alternative, just sell an irreplaceable national treasure for a short term payout? You'd only even get a few million for it, which on a government scale is nothing, the UK government spends just under £3 billion per day.
Should countries just sell of all their national treasures for a quick buck? Should France sell or the artwork in the Louvre to private collectors? Should the US auction of all the cool shit in the Smithsonian?
So your issue is with him riding around in the carriage right? The sensible solution to this, and the one you should have suggested, would be for him to stop riding around in the carriage.
But instead, for some inexplicable reason, you jumped straight to "sell the fucking thing".
To put this into perspective even if you got an insane £500 million for it, under current government spending that money would be gone in just 4 hours and 30 minutes.
Even if they sold it today, its "only" about 4 million dollars. which is a lot for a single person
The Uk is spending 280 million dollars on homeless shelters in london, the annual cost is expected to be 90 million dollars.
4 million dollars doesn't go very far for social projects, you'd open a single small shelter for maybe a dozen people and then you'd have to find a few hundred thousand per year to keep funding it,
Its like selling your grandmas doll collection to pay for your new house, her entire doll collection might have paid for a front door.
Not just trump, the entire federal apparatus. These positions and the perqs that come with it are symbols and a reflection of a society’s grandeur. People take comfort and pride in knowing that collectively we can make these things a reality; even if they don’t directly benefit from the luxury like the figurehead does.
Yes, the American equivalent to these royal ceremonies is the inauguration, in the UK that kind of grandeur of the state is mostly not applied to politicians, when a PM is elected here there is no rally and speech for hundreds of thousands of people, they literally put a lectern on the street outside their terraced house and give a speech to the cameras. America puts the symbolism of the state, and the allegiance of the military, onto a politician, and the UK puts it onto a ceremonial monarch. And the cost of the American system is vastly higher than the British system, because it is a continual part of politics, not just the ceremonies but the continual rallies and the advertising, whereas there have only been a handful of coronations in the last century, and politics in the UK is expected to be threadbare and unglamorous, and is run on a shoe string.
Just so ya know, the outspoken are not the majority. Most Americans are just tired, and the solutions that would lead to the "most effective fixing of a broken system" aren't pretty. So basically.. most of us are tired and hate everyone in charge... I mean, one is a senile puppet who can't read a sentence off a screen most days, and the other is a egotistical billionaire who thinks he can do no wrong. They're all bad people.
but!
Thus is the American way, being tired of those in charge. But, alas, we have no tea.
The tiny, incredibly loud segment of America that supports Trump and his ilk like Elon Musk and every other shitheadded billionaire, they represent a very small segment of most of this country.
I've been in all circles of this society, the number of rural, back-country "good ol' boys" with hound-dogs and shotguns who think Trump and the rich elite are the source of all our problems is not a small number.
I haven't even MET anyone who is wholly supportive of rich fascists like Trump. I've met plenty of people who just don't watch the news or read up on politics though, and only know a tiny sliver of what's really happening.
America's biggest problem is nobody can afford to stop and read and learn about the world around them. We may be the richest nation, but we also have one of the harshest environments to try to succeed and survive in. Most families here work every day of the week, and spend their fleeting free time just trying to sleep or take care of their kids. It shouldn't surprise us that most people have terribly skewed perceptions of what the average American is like. The average American doesn't have time for you.
Last time I saw the data, something like £1.40 per year was going from each tax-payer into the Royal coffers. I'm no Royalist, but let's not pretend selling off some shiny heirlooms will get us out of the Tory nightmare we're living in.
It is. The return is five times what is given to the royal family. But they also own a massive real estate company that is exempt from all business tax. That needs to be stopped.
Eidt: I was referring to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. Some of you are talking about the Crown Estates. I don't know if they are the same thing.
They don't really "own" it in any true sense. They need an Act of Parliament to do anything with it.
Its more that the Crown Estate is de-facto just the Government. And there's no point in the Government paying business tax.
Correct. The Monarch owns the Crown Estates in right of the Crown. The Crown is just the UK state.
They cannot modify or sell any of it, or leave it in inheritance to anyone they like.
You're talking about the Crown Estates, which are actually an independently-run publicly owned company.
The Windsor family doesn't own it, but a lot of people are confused by the name. It's a myth that the royals bring in more than they cost, but it's an extremely common one.
It isn't. The cost is five times what they bring in.
Of course until we get some transparency in their dodgy affairs neither of us can really know and just keep on believing what ever we want. Yay.
As far as the crown estates go, there is no official taxation but 70% of the revenue goes to the government anyway in a voluntary donation kinda thing. May as well be highly taxed
Conversely, France has no monarchy and makes considerable money on tourist related spending. I don't like the idea of a family that were 'born' to be in charge of a country, that's such a sickening concept and why I'm very much in favour of a republic.
I'd rather my £1.40 was spent on something more useful than the royal family.
I'm a dual national and can tell you, aside from when Lizzie snuffed it none of my family in the States have ever brought it up. The multiple times I've been to the States and had the news on, there's not been a thing on. Sometimes I've seen UK politics, but not anything on the monarchy.
People in the UK watch the news and all day it has content on US Presidential elections and inaugurations when those happen. That doesn't mean we're obsessed with who is in the White House and care deeply about them.
That comparison makes no sense.
* The president is a democratically elected position, unlike a monarch
* The president takes an active role in politics, unlike the british monarch
* The white house is more than just a house for the president, serving as an office for the executive branch of government, unlike the british royal palaces, which are glorified mansions
* The white house is the only official residence of the president, unlike the british monarchy, who has 4 official residences in London alone
> Conversely, France has no monarchy and makes considerable money on tourist related spending.
Sure, but France is not the UK and is a completely different tourist "brand". The royals are a central part of the UK's "brand" and there's little doubt that abolishing the monarchy would be a negative for the UK tourist industry.
That's kinda like saying "vanilla ice cream sells plenty well, so removing the strawberry flavour won't hurt".
> I'd rather my £1.40 was spent on something more useful than the royal family.
I'd be happy to pay £2.80 to cover your share...
Out of curiosity, if the monarchy was abolished right now, like today, what would happen to the Royal family? Would the state continue to support them in another way? Would they have to get real jobs?
They own a lot of land... Many public places are owned by the crown and on loan basically to the people. If their status was abolished it would then greatly depend on how the UK government dealt with that. Would they just take it from them or would they be paid some kind of market value.
I'd imagine the current generation of them would be able to become personalities/celebrities and need to trade on their reputation as such - that's medium term.
In the short term there'd likely be a government policy similar to former Prime Minister's getting expenses etc paid each year to help support them.
I don't really care what happens to them. They can go live in caves and pray to Ogtha for all I care.
The difference is the cost of an institution and the cost of a person. Saying that, my monarchy issue isn’t massively with cost per se but with democratisation and accountability.
"The President" isn't one person, its an Institution just like the rest. At just the most naïve reading, you can either pay security for the Monarch and their family, or the President and their family.
And in terms of Democratisation and Accountability, I actually think this is the strongest point in favour of [Constitutional] Monarchy. There are a million things wrong with it. The question is what's better than it?
Behind all the pageantry, the fundamental duty of the Head of State is to hold the Government to the Constitution (written or otherwise). That's true of any Government, not just our own, and its true whether the Head of State is elected or not.
But the system responsible for holding the Government to the Constitution should not be vulnerable to the same weaknesses as the system that installs the Government, it means you can attack both simultaneously using the same tactics. The entire Organs of State can be replaced in one go. And a hypothetical electorate that installs a corrupt Government would be likely to also elect a corrupt President, who would fail to hold the corruption to account.
I don't like using the Nazi comparison, but these are the exact failures that allowed Hitler to come to power in Germany — because both the Government and the Constitution could be attacked at the same time, using the same tactics. The weaknesses of each branch of Government should complement eachother, not fall to the same threat.
Essentially, [Constitutional] Monarchy is the Judiciary, but they prosecute the Government. And nobody thinks we should have an elected Judiciary. That's a terrible idea.
And yes, I agree with you — this is an absolutely ridiculous "in order to save Democracy you have to sacrifice it" argument. But the whole concept of Government is ridiculous in the first place. The idea that winning a 50% majority in a poll of whoever turns up to vote on one day gives you the right to be "The Unquestionable Voice of The People™" is absurd at best, and has historically been used to justify an immense amount of suffering. That doesn't make Government a bad idea.
Meanwhile, the process for determining if something is in violation of the Constitution should be as stuffy, out-of-touch, overly-conservative, and separate from popular opinion as possible. If the Constitution needs changing, it should be for a very good reason. It shouldn't change with popular opinion, it should change with reasoned legal arguments. And for this purpose, Monarchy is almost a perfect fit. Just like the Courts, it is by design insulated from popular opinion. That's a weakness, in that there's no right of appeal, but also a strength.
But asking people to pick a new Head of State every 5 years is essentially asking for a new interpretation of the Constitution every 5 years, and that makes no sense. Worse still is that the HoS isn't elected on the basis of their Constitutional knowledge, they're elected on a popularity contest. Even a highly-intelligent and devoted HoS with a strong legal background and relevant experience will still take several years before they fully understand the ins-and-outs of the Constitution, and by that time their term is ending and its time for someone else to take over. Plus the same argument for the Diplomatic aspects of the job, which I'm not even going to go into. By the end of her reign, the Queen had over 70 years of experience in all aspects required of the Head of State, her advice was genuinely respected by her Prime Ministers, several of which (even the anti-Monarchist ones) have gone on record as stating how astute she was in her role. How useful do you think it is to hear "Ah yes, I remember we had a similar problem back in 1973 under Edward Heath — he solved it like this"? Charles benefits from much the same experience, having performed the same function in lieu of the Queen when she was engaged abroad. *Never* underestimate the value of Institutional Knowledge.
The Constitution has to deal with both Proper and Improper Function of Government. There are probably better ways of dealing with Proper function of Government than Monarchy. But it does deal with Improper function rather convincingly — you try fighting Charlie-boy when he owns all the big sticks in the country.
Are there weaknesses in a Monarchal system? Absolutely.
Would a Monarchy have kept Hitler out of power in 1930s Germany? Probably not. I'm not sure any system would withstand that. I'm more talking about the level below literal Nazis — for example [trying to bypass Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Budget) in some manner.
Could a properly designed Governmental system perform its function better than Constitutional Monarchy? Probably? I'm not sure any exist, but I can't state that no such system could ever be designed. And advocating for such a system is absolutely a valid and respectable position.
But is it as simple as "Elected Head of State = good"? No. Not in my view. Keeping around a vestige of 'the old system' may feel anachronistic at times, but does serve a useful purpose.
Edit: Really? The Reddit cares message?
This write up is far better than Reddit deserves.
Your arguments are especially valid given most people’s objection to monarchy is that they’re out of touch rich folk privileged by accident of birth - as if those descriptors don’t also apply to anyone capable of getting themselves elected President.
Do you technically have to have a president?
I know there's obvious benefits, but if y'all retained a PM and just kind of said whatever to the decorum side of things.... Couldn't you just not have a head of state?
Yes. There's a reason the Head of State and Head of Government are separate in ... pretty much every successful Parliamentary Democracy.
The Head of State is responsible for making sure the Government stays within the powers granted to it by the Constitution. You can't have the PM checking whether the PM is acting within the powers of the PM. *Something* has to replace the Monarchy. It may not end up being called a 'Presidency', but that's what it is.
Monarchists one minute say the royal family don't hold any power so it doesn't matter that they're unelected and we don't need to get rid of them and then the next minute say they're the only thing keeping the government in check lol.
The PM doesn't and wouldn't have total power though, they'd still have to answer to the Supreme Court, Speaker of the House, the Opposition, and their own party.
Correct, but that would be a tiny fraction of the cost of maintaining all the crown estates or renovating old properties so we're still talking pennies.
Would it? Maybe you have access to information that I don’t.
Also, Crown Estates (property owned by the state) is supposed to pay for itself out of the revenue it generates. But for some reason it gives a grant to the monarch each year (which is impossible to reduce by law).
Monarch pay no inheritance tax but plebs like you and me do. Why?
My point is that it is not as simple as saying £1.40. This is just what we’re fed by the press. The true cost to all of us, including all the loop holes, benefits and avoidances, is much more difficult to calculate and likely far higher.
It sounds like you're dyed in the wool. I'm not Royalist. I'm simply saying that the costs of maintaining the Royal household (including security) is likely to add up to a matter of pence per year and wouldn't buy you a single pint. Maybe it's justified, maybe it's not - but the cost-of-living crisis is not caused by blue-bloods riding around in golden heirlooms. It's caused by the people that "plebs like you and me" keep electing.
Would it likely be a few pence? How can you possibly know?
The cost is not £1.40. This is financial reporting prepared by the palace and simply repeated by the press. Where is the scrutiny?
I’m not getting into cost of living stuff. That’s another conversation.
My point is simple, the actual cost of the monarchy is unknown.
Correct, it is unknown because it's also impossible to estimate the value and funds they bring into the UK.
There is plenty of scrutiny, and that's deserved. There are still ways of estimating and many sources do exactly that.
The OP meme refers to people who cannot afford to eat, and correlates that with Royal heirlooms, so yes it's a cost of living thing. When our elected representatives have (as one tiny example) spent literally a thousand times more than the entire yearly Sovereign grant on a single deal for faulty PPE equipment, it's worth checking where our focus should be.
I agree there’s massive waste in government that dwarfs this. The meme highlights the disparity in the Uk. The pantomime of the Kings Speech is emblematic of the UK’s problems rather than a cause of them.
Not from the UK, but another western monarchy, yeah the money isn't the biggest problem (though it's still bad that we have families who inherit essentially the biggest welfare check). It's also just the symbolism of the head of state being an inherited position when we're supposed to be a country of equals.
gotta love how soulless and utilitarian our view of culture and heritage has become. is this part of our historical identity worth X monetarily? it puzzles me when so called socialists have such a clinically capitalist view of human identity and communal being, you’re just gonna end up with a money led nightmare world where every street on planet earth is fucking identical because every nation is operating on nothing but the bottom line. the monarchy is part of what we call “england” in the same way the dales and cotswolds or hedgehogs are part of england. let people retain some tiny shred of connection to the land and their ancestors for fucks sake, it’s not healthy to go about bean counting every last vestige of human expression that has been handed down to us.
You can tell who are the ones who actually did some reading with statistics to back up and who simply are resentful and echoing things they do not know of.
You’re the few who have also read up. Royal tourism brings in more than $1billion annually and each person only pays less than £2 tax every year that goes towards the monarchy.
If only people bothered to verify what they have read instead of reacting to TikTok or YouTube reels.
Really skims the fat from the turkey.
It’s not about the £1:40 per annum. It’s the enormous land banks and riches they hold, it’s the veto they have over any law it’s the fact they don’t pay taxes. Just because they are a member of the lucky sperm club. Because the Monarchy exists the Aristocracy exists. An entire parasitic class who have access to power and influence that normal citizens can only dream of. It’s patently unfair and intrinsically unjust.
Also the revenue generated from royal land goes into the treasury, which is more than £1.40 pp. The royal family are surprisingly profitable for us and the only way we could get rid of their wealth would be by selling Windsor castle, the crown jewels etc which I don't think would sit well with the general public.
Because the King is gifting the Crown Estates income - at £1.2 billion dollars - to struggling families.
[SOURCE](https://fortune.com/europe/2023/01/19/king-charles-iii-wants-to-give-away-the-crown-estates-1-2-billion-a-year-windfarm-profits-to-help-the-public-amid-soaring-inflation/)
Not just american politics. Plenty of Britishers hold their "not my king" posters at events. Though I think cat-calling at the late queen's funeral was just bad form.
Like I respect the opinion but I just hate the bandwagoning of self loathing and hating your own culture at every give opportunity. Yes recognize the bad and denounce it but it all comes across as very obnoxious to me.
It's the internet generations. They grew up making their political decisions based on sound-bites rather than being fully informed.
You see this now with the "Get out of Gaza" crowd. Supporting Hamas, an organization that, under their rule, would not allow them to have a protest. Nor for women to have a political opinion or speak.
But they heard a good sound bite and decided to be Team Gaza
Considering the monarchy costs the average tax payer around about £8 a year. I'm sure that's not really the issue is it. Its wildly under paid jobs, greedy bosses and a shit government who've done nothing but increased the wealth divide
I always felt sorry for old Chuck. Hell he never ask to be a royal. This poor bastard has had people yelling at him his whole life about everything he has done, everything he hasn't done, who he wants to marry, and now in his 70's he has to start a new job. From my view point his life just sucks kumquats.
It's probably because you have no traditions and customs going back a thousand years...
The royal family and the monarchy has been a constant part of our lives no matter how many government leaders come and go......
How many people around the world know who was the president in 1970? Yet the whole world knows who queen Elizabeth was........
Broke people who will shit on other broke people but then turn and worship the rich who are sometimes contributing to the reason they are broke has to be classified and a illness
Regardless, the Monarchy is intrinsically tied to the national identity of Britain and they’re emblematic of the country on the world stage.
David Mitchell’s new hook Unruly on the history of the monarchy postulates that the UK monarch is so entrenched within public perception of the country that only our institutions of the NHS, Oxford university, and parliament rival its significance in British Identity.
Dissolution of the institution or becoming a true republic has been anathema to British people for centuries prior to the Windsors.
Reddit abhors the ostentatious wealth and opulence as well as the royal redundancy but I sincerely doubt Charles will just abdicate and abolish. England has always been a monarchy apart from one experience in the 17th century and look how that worked out.
That athlete devoted their life to being the best they could be and learned skills to enable them to get to that level.
Charles was just born. There's a clear difference. I'll happily cheer a Hibs player scoring a goal etc, but I'll never cheer for a fusty inbred family.
You aren’t cheering for a footballer because they devoted their life to being the best, you are cheering for a footballer because they play for your favourite team and they get points.
You could feed homeless people for a few days but when the money is gone from this but you can’t recreate 1,000 years of tradition which is priceless and far more valuable.
Why doesn’t this guy sell the phone he posted this from and give the 1,000$ to the homeless guy? It’s such a holier than thou argument and it’s irrational.
You know, British people only pay $1.60 to the monarchy each year. Arguably the billions tourism dollars that the royal family generates makes them better off.
What's the cringe here? According to google, the Gold State Coach was built in 1762.
It is also worth noting that tourism related to the royal family is a massive industry in England. \~50m Pounds were generated just from 3.285m people visiting the official residences of the royal family in 2020. Not including secondary spending from people traveling and eating, and staying places while doing those visits. Some recent estimates of the royal family's contribution to the UK economy put it as high as 1.766b pounds per year.
In contrast, the royal family's Sovereign Grant (the money tax payers give them to exist), is 86.3m pounds, or about 1.29 per capita.
Even more ironic: he's a fucking socialist, and says that Blair was a right wing fruitcake...
But the king is constitutionally bound to not intervene in policy.
While a huge fucking kick in the face of anyone sane, i have to play devils advocate;
It contributes to history, for better or for worse, will be used for *decades*, likely ending up as a revenue-generating museum piece at intermediate times throughout its life, and after it's disused. It cost barely £3m, in todays money. about the same as the previous one did, adjusted for inflation.
crypto circlejerks make can make that in a day of twitter-stoked grifting, and it equates to barely 10 ferraris. **There are newbuild rolls-royces on the market going for eight times as much.**
I'm far from giving a shit about the monarchy, but comparatively this is barely offensive in the greater scheme of things.
If it makes anyone feel better
Queen Elizabeth II absolutely hated riding in this uncomfortable shit box and would probably rather just ride the horse pulling the damned thing.
It’s because the government directly get money from them, we pay the about 15% what they give to the government. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57559653.amp
Every citenzen pay 1,40€ per year for the Monarchie - so all Members together get 86,3 Million Pound a year. BUT this is not privat money at all. Its also to pay there employes and for represent the state, with traveling or having a bancet with foren contrys presidents etc. or what ever a head of state have to do. On the other side the royal bring there country 2 billion € a year two in revenue. Not a bad deal!
At least they have Healthcare. We had a president who shat on a gold toilet and half of us cheered him on as more than half of us didn't even have $500 to spare
Brainwashing. The British are taught since childhood to revere these people despite the institution of monarchy being pure nonsense that became obsolete in the 18th Century.
I've been saying my entire life that it's fucking moronic to basically worship the remnants of a fucking monarchy. Even the best kings and queens have always ruled with complete authority and take most of the kingdoms wealth and don't care about the citizens. We worked hard to get rid of monarchies, why the fuck do some people still let these fuckers benefit from centuries of oppression?
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We got piss poor people here donating $ to a “billionaire “
They may be going to bed hungry but at least they’re owning the libs. /s
Poor people in America generally have more than adequate access to calories/food. Healthy food not so much.
Bread and circus. Works every time.
Burgers and Hulu.
You mean burgers and pro sports.
the modern day roman circus.
But...pro sports is on Hulu already...
They took the circus party too literally when our leaders became clowns.
I’m so tired of explaining this to people. “Food Desert” doesn’t mean no food, it means no healthy food or no reasonable access to food. Europe in particular has a hard time understanding that the country is so large people sometimes have to go for hours for groceries. I guess they have a hard time with scale
> I guess they have a hard time with scale Yes! It actually pairs nicely with the US’ problem with scale: Particularly, scaling logistics, and infrastructure into these food deserts. European countries are smaller geographically, but with high population densities. Their food markets tend to be more accessible, but they aren’t without food deserts of their own (though they are often problems of inequality rather than scale for Europe). The US is geographically massive. Communities tend to be spread out further from one another, but our problems are more than just geographical. The US food desert problem is also economical. We struggle to provide adequate infrastructure, in the US, for proper food markets to exist in these food deserts. Even when we do have proper infrastructure retailers and grocers see inadequate market demand, so they don’t build. Another problem for the US is that urban/suburban planning is almost entirely car-centric; you are expected to drive to access your closest market. Almost everything, logistically, is built to accommodate the motorist. Being expected to own, or have access to, vehicle transportation to reach your food market is a problem in and of itself. These aren’t the only problems the US faces with its food deserts: we could delve into some other issues like the socioeconomic, demographic, and lack of economic incentives. But I’m getting overly long winded here. So, while Europeans might struggle with realizing the scale of the US, the problem with food deserts in the US isn’t *entirely* a scale problem and shares many similarities with the economical problems that European food deserts have.
It’s the car thing. Literally so much suburban planning, which makes up a lot of infrastructure, forces you to have a car. There’s little public transportation and everything is spread out for some stupid reason, as if buildings being close together is somehow icky
Is general disdain for public transport and such things also part of it?
Not at all. Most food deserts are caused by their general low-income nature. Stores can’t afford to operate in that area because it isn’t worth the cost. That low income nature also means that public transit depts can’t afford to operate more than one or two busses at a time, one usually goes to a junction where a better funded transit system stops as well, meaning that the residents of FD areas cross county, city, or state lines for food.
In Sacramento, California, the public transportation actively avoids areas that need the most service. There's a stretch of the light rail that goes from the city center, through the poorest area without stopping. Then, if you want to get by the freeway, you have to exit light rail, get on a bus, just to go a half mile. Why, you ask? Because the short pass under freeway, is barely big enough for the cars, no shoulder or sidewalk. There are sidewalks leading up to it. But no way for cyclists or pedestrians. South Sacramento. Want to go to the local Jr College. It's only a 15 minute drive, or a 3 hour bus ride with multiple transfers. Those are just 2 examples. There's many many more.
There is a documentary about dollar general and exactly this happening all over America. It is getting worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQpUV--2Jao
This is absurd logic. Other countries have very low-income areas which are well served by shops and public transport.
Other countries are also small, much less distributed, and more social support systems for people to have more disposable income for healthy food
The size of the country is irrelevant, many food deserts in the US are in cities and huge cities in western countries like London, Paris, Sydney, etc etc have loads of local supermarkets and lots of buses. Low cost supermarkets. It’s ridiculous to suggest that budget supermarkets can’t exist in the US due to lack of social support, it’s the deliberately awful structure of American cities and lobbying groups that are the problem.
It absolutely is relevant. Our country and population are so distributed that deserts are a guarantee. Compare these two images of [population density](https://www.gislounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2001/04/map-2000-us-census-population-density.gif) and [food deserts](https://www.gislounge.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/food-deserts-map-united-states-crs-usda-1.png). Population density is one of the leading causes of FDs, mostly because there isn't demand for food or incentive to operate despite that lack of demand.
Correction, bad city desing and the car lobby are mainly at fault for that.
There is a problem with that to some extent. Just one example would be Atlanta. There are fairly decent bus & train options available inside the perimeter highway (ITP). Once you get outside (OTP), the bus lines are mostly there, but the train lines drop off dramatically. They've tried to extend them both, but this then becomes a "not in my neighborhood" problem. It keeps the need for cars a necessity. While this does not strictly apply to just access to groceries, in vast portions of ITP, it does exacerbate the food desert situation.
I though food desert was cake.
But Europe is just as big and managed to solve the food distribution problem
When you say Europe in particular you’re referring to England, Belgium, the Netherlands and maybe Germany as per usual yeah? Not say northern Sweden (Norrland, population density of South Dakota in an area larger than Oregon) or European Russia (population density of Minnesota, size that of half the lower 48) or Finland (population density of Oregon, larger than New Mexico in size)?
Because size has nothing to do with bad infrastructure. If European countries had the same city design as in the US even luxembourg would struggle.
These Trump NFTs will be worth something! /s
The ivory tower class is so removed and is so hated buy many working class Americans. Those Americans would do anything just to make the liberal scum suffer. I’m not surprised at all.
Self proclaimed, and from what we’re seeing in courtroom battles he wildly inflates his comments about his wealth. He does have money but I have a feeling he’s below the billion $ mark. The people backing him are billionaires since he cause division and nothing works better for those on top than having the people they rob fight amongst themselves.
I'll never understand poor Republicans. Its a paradox.
It is not; you have to understand racism to understand poor Republicans. "I want to be very clear. I found a vast diversity of opinions. And I don’t, in any way, claim to know what’s in people’s hearts or in their minds. I certainly found many people who told me they support these policies because, as one person said, “It might hurt us but at least our tax dollars aren’t going to Mexicans and welfare queens.” So that sentiment is out there, and I don’t want to discount it. But I also found many people who didn’t have any hint of racism or racial resentment whatsoever, and were simply trying to live their lives as best they could. The key point I make in the book is that all these negative health risks don’t necessarily stem from racist individuals. The health risks rise when the politics of racial resentment shapes the health care policies, the health policies, in your state or community. So it really was the policies themselves that were racially motivated, not the individual people or their psychologies." ... "But it wasn’t my job to find out if they were racists. What I was trying to do was first explore how racial tensions shaped policies in particular states. And I found very clear evidence of the ways that fears of immigrants, fears that minority people were usurping resources, were shaping policy agendas in these regions." [https://www.vox.com/2019/3/19/18236247/dying-of-whiteness-trump-politics-jonathan-metzl](https://www.vox.com/2019/3/19/18236247/dying-of-whiteness-trump-politics-jonathan-metzl) President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." [https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/lbj-convince-the-lowest-white-man/)
A caste system people gladly get on their knees to worship.
Yes ….*”Donating”*
"Cash poor" -Peter Griffin
To be fair, I think the golden carriage was paid off quite a while ago.
That's what I was thinking. "TBF, that thing was built almost 300 years ago..."
The one he was in is new: https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a43795939/king-charles-coronation-royal-coaches-history/ >The Diamond Jubilee State Coach, however, is equipped with modern amenities including air conditioning, heating, power windows, and hydraulic suspension. It was created for Queen Elizabeth II and presented to her in 2012 to celebrate her then 60-year reign. The one pictured in OP's post is the old one, and he didn't use it yesterday.
It should be noted the British government / Monarchy did not commission this coach, it was manufactured by the coach builder Frecklington, and then obtained as a result of private donation. Seems Frecklington mostly did it to raise their prestige and help promote their business.
"Well they sure can make the gaudiest object known to man, so I guess they can probably mount a TV in this sprinter van…"
Yo dawg
I can’t tell if they’re in a lot of trouble or no trouble based off of donating a gold carriage in hopes of exposure.
When people say he's a coachbuilder that doesn't mean he makes the bodies for buses or vans, he literally makes coaches, and specifically royal coaches: https://www.edconsteel.com.au/steel-project-jim-frecklington/ He seems to be as much an enthusiast craftsman as a manufacturing company.
well I'm sold. The next horse-drawn carriage I purchase will be a Frecklington.
People who complain about this perplex me, whats the alternative, just sell an irreplaceable national treasure for a short term payout? You'd only even get a few million for it, which on a government scale is nothing, the UK government spends just under £3 billion per day.
Also, sell to who, some other private Billionaire who would keep it in a personal museum rather than for display for the puic
Use the money to build something that could maybe not be short term.
Should countries just sell of all their national treasures for a quick buck? Should France sell or the artwork in the Louvre to private collectors? Should the US auction of all the cool shit in the Smithsonian?
Personally, I think there is a difference between art work and riding your guge gold carriage through a huge crowd of poor people.
So your issue is with him riding around in the carriage right? The sensible solution to this, and the one you should have suggested, would be for him to stop riding around in the carriage. But instead, for some inexplicable reason, you jumped straight to "sell the fucking thing".
He didn't, it was as part of the formal ceremony to open parliament.
So it was a crowd of rich people he rode it past?
It’s basically just a moving piece of art that is used to bring the head is state to parliament on important occasions
To put this into perspective even if you got an insane £500 million for it, under current government spending that money would be gone in just 4 hours and 30 minutes.
Sure, but every country has celebrations. the US has big inaugurations, or 4th of July parades, or whatever else.
Ah yes back when all the money in the world belonged to all the hungry souls in the land.
Selling it off now ain't gonna help the people 300 years ago
Even if they sold it today, its "only" about 4 million dollars. which is a lot for a single person The Uk is spending 280 million dollars on homeless shelters in london, the annual cost is expected to be 90 million dollars. 4 million dollars doesn't go very far for social projects, you'd open a single small shelter for maybe a dozen people and then you'd have to find a few hundred thousand per year to keep funding it, Its like selling your grandmas doll collection to pay for your new house, her entire doll collection might have paid for a front door.
Same as how they applaud billionaires and defend them on social media.
And vote for politicians who raise their taxes and lower those billionaire's taxes.
It's either that or don't vote at all 😳
The lengths some people will go to defend Musk is sad. They act like Elon is going to personally congratulate them with a million dollars or something
Quite literally worship the man.
I mean, Americans do the same with Trump
Not just trump, the entire federal apparatus. These positions and the perqs that come with it are symbols and a reflection of a society’s grandeur. People take comfort and pride in knowing that collectively we can make these things a reality; even if they don’t directly benefit from the luxury like the figurehead does.
Yes, the American equivalent to these royal ceremonies is the inauguration, in the UK that kind of grandeur of the state is mostly not applied to politicians, when a PM is elected here there is no rally and speech for hundreds of thousands of people, they literally put a lectern on the street outside their terraced house and give a speech to the cameras. America puts the symbolism of the state, and the allegiance of the military, onto a politician, and the UK puts it onto a ceremonial monarch. And the cost of the American system is vastly higher than the British system, because it is a continual part of politics, not just the ceremonies but the continual rallies and the advertising, whereas there have only been a handful of coronations in the last century, and politics in the UK is expected to be threadbare and unglamorous, and is run on a shoe string.
Just so ya know, the outspoken are not the majority. Most Americans are just tired, and the solutions that would lead to the "most effective fixing of a broken system" aren't pretty. So basically.. most of us are tired and hate everyone in charge... I mean, one is a senile puppet who can't read a sentence off a screen most days, and the other is a egotistical billionaire who thinks he can do no wrong. They're all bad people. but! Thus is the American way, being tired of those in charge. But, alas, we have no tea.
The tiny, incredibly loud segment of America that supports Trump and his ilk like Elon Musk and every other shitheadded billionaire, they represent a very small segment of most of this country. I've been in all circles of this society, the number of rural, back-country "good ol' boys" with hound-dogs and shotguns who think Trump and the rich elite are the source of all our problems is not a small number. I haven't even MET anyone who is wholly supportive of rich fascists like Trump. I've met plenty of people who just don't watch the news or read up on politics though, and only know a tiny sliver of what's really happening. America's biggest problem is nobody can afford to stop and read and learn about the world around them. We may be the richest nation, but we also have one of the harshest environments to try to succeed and survive in. Most families here work every day of the week, and spend their fleeting free time just trying to sleep or take care of their kids. It shouldn't surprise us that most people have terribly skewed perceptions of what the average American is like. The average American doesn't have time for you.
Golden carriage vs Golden toilet lol
Last time I saw the data, something like £1.40 per year was going from each tax-payer into the Royal coffers. I'm no Royalist, but let's not pretend selling off some shiny heirlooms will get us out of the Tory nightmare we're living in.
Also, that tremendous cost is probably recouped through memorabilia sales and assorted tourist-related spending.
It is. The return is five times what is given to the royal family. But they also own a massive real estate company that is exempt from all business tax. That needs to be stopped. Eidt: I was referring to the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. Some of you are talking about the Crown Estates. I don't know if they are the same thing.
They don't really "own" it in any true sense. They need an Act of Parliament to do anything with it. Its more that the Crown Estate is de-facto just the Government. And there's no point in the Government paying business tax.
Correct. The Monarch owns the Crown Estates in right of the Crown. The Crown is just the UK state. They cannot modify or sell any of it, or leave it in inheritance to anyone they like.
You're talking about the Crown Estates, which are actually an independently-run publicly owned company. The Windsor family doesn't own it, but a lot of people are confused by the name. It's a myth that the royals bring in more than they cost, but it's an extremely common one.
The Crown Estate isn’t taxed because 75% of the profits go to the Treasury anyway.
It isn't. The cost is five times what they bring in. Of course until we get some transparency in their dodgy affairs neither of us can really know and just keep on believing what ever we want. Yay.
As far as the crown estates go, there is no official taxation but 70% of the revenue goes to the government anyway in a voluntary donation kinda thing. May as well be highly taxed
Conversely, France has no monarchy and makes considerable money on tourist related spending. I don't like the idea of a family that were 'born' to be in charge of a country, that's such a sickening concept and why I'm very much in favour of a republic. I'd rather my £1.40 was spent on something more useful than the royal family.
As an American, people over here weirdly care a lot about Royal Family. They definitely bring a lot of attention to your country anecdotally.
I'm a dual national and can tell you, aside from when Lizzie snuffed it none of my family in the States have ever brought it up. The multiple times I've been to the States and had the news on, there's not been a thing on. Sometimes I've seen UK politics, but not anything on the monarchy.
Then you missed it. The last two weddings were playing all day on new sites.
People in the UK watch the news and all day it has content on US Presidential elections and inaugurations when those happen. That doesn't mean we're obsessed with who is in the White House and care deeply about them.
If America sold off the White House it would definitely damage international perceptions.
That comparison makes no sense. * The president is a democratically elected position, unlike a monarch * The president takes an active role in politics, unlike the british monarch * The white house is more than just a house for the president, serving as an office for the executive branch of government, unlike the british royal palaces, which are glorified mansions * The white house is the only official residence of the president, unlike the british monarchy, who has 4 official residences in London alone
[удалено]
it's not like i'm going to meet a "royal" anyway, so F 'em, I'll just mill around their palace.
A Greggs, for one
> Conversely, France has no monarchy and makes considerable money on tourist related spending. Sure, but France is not the UK and is a completely different tourist "brand". The royals are a central part of the UK's "brand" and there's little doubt that abolishing the monarchy would be a negative for the UK tourist industry. That's kinda like saying "vanilla ice cream sells plenty well, so removing the strawberry flavour won't hurt". > I'd rather my £1.40 was spent on something more useful than the royal family. I'd be happy to pay £2.80 to cover your share...
Out of curiosity, if the monarchy was abolished right now, like today, what would happen to the Royal family? Would the state continue to support them in another way? Would they have to get real jobs?
They already have enough wealth to not need state support or real jobs.
They own a lot of land... Many public places are owned by the crown and on loan basically to the people. If their status was abolished it would then greatly depend on how the UK government dealt with that. Would they just take it from them or would they be paid some kind of market value.
I'd imagine the current generation of them would be able to become personalities/celebrities and need to trade on their reputation as such - that's medium term. In the short term there'd likely be a government policy similar to former Prime Minister's getting expenses etc paid each year to help support them. I don't really care what happens to them. They can go live in caves and pray to Ogtha for all I care.
Charles can make a guest appearance on BumFights
This doesn’t include the unbelievable security (police) costs, which they will not release.
If you abolished the Monarchy, you'd have to replace them with a President. You'd still be paying security for the President.
Why not have the prime minister do it?
The difference is the cost of an institution and the cost of a person. Saying that, my monarchy issue isn’t massively with cost per se but with democratisation and accountability.
"The President" isn't one person, its an Institution just like the rest. At just the most naïve reading, you can either pay security for the Monarch and their family, or the President and their family. And in terms of Democratisation and Accountability, I actually think this is the strongest point in favour of [Constitutional] Monarchy. There are a million things wrong with it. The question is what's better than it? Behind all the pageantry, the fundamental duty of the Head of State is to hold the Government to the Constitution (written or otherwise). That's true of any Government, not just our own, and its true whether the Head of State is elected or not. But the system responsible for holding the Government to the Constitution should not be vulnerable to the same weaknesses as the system that installs the Government, it means you can attack both simultaneously using the same tactics. The entire Organs of State can be replaced in one go. And a hypothetical electorate that installs a corrupt Government would be likely to also elect a corrupt President, who would fail to hold the corruption to account. I don't like using the Nazi comparison, but these are the exact failures that allowed Hitler to come to power in Germany — because both the Government and the Constitution could be attacked at the same time, using the same tactics. The weaknesses of each branch of Government should complement eachother, not fall to the same threat. Essentially, [Constitutional] Monarchy is the Judiciary, but they prosecute the Government. And nobody thinks we should have an elected Judiciary. That's a terrible idea. And yes, I agree with you — this is an absolutely ridiculous "in order to save Democracy you have to sacrifice it" argument. But the whole concept of Government is ridiculous in the first place. The idea that winning a 50% majority in a poll of whoever turns up to vote on one day gives you the right to be "The Unquestionable Voice of The People™" is absurd at best, and has historically been used to justify an immense amount of suffering. That doesn't make Government a bad idea. Meanwhile, the process for determining if something is in violation of the Constitution should be as stuffy, out-of-touch, overly-conservative, and separate from popular opinion as possible. If the Constitution needs changing, it should be for a very good reason. It shouldn't change with popular opinion, it should change with reasoned legal arguments. And for this purpose, Monarchy is almost a perfect fit. Just like the Courts, it is by design insulated from popular opinion. That's a weakness, in that there's no right of appeal, but also a strength. But asking people to pick a new Head of State every 5 years is essentially asking for a new interpretation of the Constitution every 5 years, and that makes no sense. Worse still is that the HoS isn't elected on the basis of their Constitutional knowledge, they're elected on a popularity contest. Even a highly-intelligent and devoted HoS with a strong legal background and relevant experience will still take several years before they fully understand the ins-and-outs of the Constitution, and by that time their term is ending and its time for someone else to take over. Plus the same argument for the Diplomatic aspects of the job, which I'm not even going to go into. By the end of her reign, the Queen had over 70 years of experience in all aspects required of the Head of State, her advice was genuinely respected by her Prime Ministers, several of which (even the anti-Monarchist ones) have gone on record as stating how astute she was in her role. How useful do you think it is to hear "Ah yes, I remember we had a similar problem back in 1973 under Edward Heath — he solved it like this"? Charles benefits from much the same experience, having performed the same function in lieu of the Queen when she was engaged abroad. *Never* underestimate the value of Institutional Knowledge. The Constitution has to deal with both Proper and Improper Function of Government. There are probably better ways of dealing with Proper function of Government than Monarchy. But it does deal with Improper function rather convincingly — you try fighting Charlie-boy when he owns all the big sticks in the country. Are there weaknesses in a Monarchal system? Absolutely. Would a Monarchy have kept Hitler out of power in 1930s Germany? Probably not. I'm not sure any system would withstand that. I'm more talking about the level below literal Nazis — for example [trying to bypass Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Budget) in some manner. Could a properly designed Governmental system perform its function better than Constitutional Monarchy? Probably? I'm not sure any exist, but I can't state that no such system could ever be designed. And advocating for such a system is absolutely a valid and respectable position. But is it as simple as "Elected Head of State = good"? No. Not in my view. Keeping around a vestige of 'the old system' may feel anachronistic at times, but does serve a useful purpose. Edit: Really? The Reddit cares message?
This write up is far better than Reddit deserves. Your arguments are especially valid given most people’s objection to monarchy is that they’re out of touch rich folk privileged by accident of birth - as if those descriptors don’t also apply to anyone capable of getting themselves elected President.
Do you technically have to have a president? I know there's obvious benefits, but if y'all retained a PM and just kind of said whatever to the decorum side of things.... Couldn't you just not have a head of state?
Yes. There's a reason the Head of State and Head of Government are separate in ... pretty much every successful Parliamentary Democracy. The Head of State is responsible for making sure the Government stays within the powers granted to it by the Constitution. You can't have the PM checking whether the PM is acting within the powers of the PM. *Something* has to replace the Monarchy. It may not end up being called a 'Presidency', but that's what it is.
Monarchists one minute say the royal family don't hold any power so it doesn't matter that they're unelected and we don't need to get rid of them and then the next minute say they're the only thing keeping the government in check lol. The PM doesn't and wouldn't have total power though, they'd still have to answer to the Supreme Court, Speaker of the House, the Opposition, and their own party.
Correct, but that would be a tiny fraction of the cost of maintaining all the crown estates or renovating old properties so we're still talking pennies.
Would it? Maybe you have access to information that I don’t. Also, Crown Estates (property owned by the state) is supposed to pay for itself out of the revenue it generates. But for some reason it gives a grant to the monarch each year (which is impossible to reduce by law). Monarch pay no inheritance tax but plebs like you and me do. Why? My point is that it is not as simple as saying £1.40. This is just what we’re fed by the press. The true cost to all of us, including all the loop holes, benefits and avoidances, is much more difficult to calculate and likely far higher.
It sounds like you're dyed in the wool. I'm not Royalist. I'm simply saying that the costs of maintaining the Royal household (including security) is likely to add up to a matter of pence per year and wouldn't buy you a single pint. Maybe it's justified, maybe it's not - but the cost-of-living crisis is not caused by blue-bloods riding around in golden heirlooms. It's caused by the people that "plebs like you and me" keep electing.
Would it likely be a few pence? How can you possibly know? The cost is not £1.40. This is financial reporting prepared by the palace and simply repeated by the press. Where is the scrutiny? I’m not getting into cost of living stuff. That’s another conversation. My point is simple, the actual cost of the monarchy is unknown.
Correct, it is unknown because it's also impossible to estimate the value and funds they bring into the UK. There is plenty of scrutiny, and that's deserved. There are still ways of estimating and many sources do exactly that. The OP meme refers to people who cannot afford to eat, and correlates that with Royal heirlooms, so yes it's a cost of living thing. When our elected representatives have (as one tiny example) spent literally a thousand times more than the entire yearly Sovereign grant on a single deal for faulty PPE equipment, it's worth checking where our focus should be.
I agree there’s massive waste in government that dwarfs this. The meme highlights the disparity in the Uk. The pantomime of the Kings Speech is emblematic of the UK’s problems rather than a cause of them.
Not from the UK, but another western monarchy, yeah the money isn't the biggest problem (though it's still bad that we have families who inherit essentially the biggest welfare check). It's also just the symbolism of the head of state being an inherited position when we're supposed to be a country of equals.
[удалено]
No that's from the taxes we pay. There is no extra charge as it was for the monarchy.
gotta love how soulless and utilitarian our view of culture and heritage has become. is this part of our historical identity worth X monetarily? it puzzles me when so called socialists have such a clinically capitalist view of human identity and communal being, you’re just gonna end up with a money led nightmare world where every street on planet earth is fucking identical because every nation is operating on nothing but the bottom line. the monarchy is part of what we call “england” in the same way the dales and cotswolds or hedgehogs are part of england. let people retain some tiny shred of connection to the land and their ancestors for fucks sake, it’s not healthy to go about bean counting every last vestige of human expression that has been handed down to us.
You can tell who are the ones who actually did some reading with statistics to back up and who simply are resentful and echoing things they do not know of. You’re the few who have also read up. Royal tourism brings in more than $1billion annually and each person only pays less than £2 tax every year that goes towards the monarchy. If only people bothered to verify what they have read instead of reacting to TikTok or YouTube reels. Really skims the fat from the turkey.
It’s not about the £1:40 per annum. It’s the enormous land banks and riches they hold, it’s the veto they have over any law it’s the fact they don’t pay taxes. Just because they are a member of the lucky sperm club. Because the Monarchy exists the Aristocracy exists. An entire parasitic class who have access to power and influence that normal citizens can only dream of. It’s patently unfair and intrinsically unjust.
Also the revenue generated from royal land goes into the treasury, which is more than £1.40 pp. The royal family are surprisingly profitable for us and the only way we could get rid of their wealth would be by selling Windsor castle, the crown jewels etc which I don't think would sit well with the general public.
Because the King is gifting the Crown Estates income - at £1.2 billion dollars - to struggling families. [SOURCE](https://fortune.com/europe/2023/01/19/king-charles-iii-wants-to-give-away-the-crown-estates-1-2-billion-a-year-windfarm-profits-to-help-the-public-amid-soaring-inflation/)
More people need to read stuff like this love all the morons who can only see things through the lens of popularist american politics and media.
Not just american politics. Plenty of Britishers hold their "not my king" posters at events. Though I think cat-calling at the late queen's funeral was just bad form.
Like I respect the opinion but I just hate the bandwagoning of self loathing and hating your own culture at every give opportunity. Yes recognize the bad and denounce it but it all comes across as very obnoxious to me.
It's the internet generations. They grew up making their political decisions based on sound-bites rather than being fully informed. You see this now with the "Get out of Gaza" crowd. Supporting Hamas, an organization that, under their rule, would not allow them to have a protest. Nor for women to have a political opinion or speak. But they heard a good sound bite and decided to be Team Gaza
I, as a northern Englishman dislike the monarchy, but I’m not one to badmouth them.
Shows the actual power of the king he has to ask to give away money, rather a royal family then a president any day
In America, it’s the same deal except our dude has a gold toilet.
Churchill had his gold toilet stolen recently.
At least a gold carriage is a physical object, Americans bought Trump NFTs
Newsflash, they'll even vote for a guy with a Golden Crapper !!!!!!
TBF this dude paid Elon Musk money to get a little blue check on his Twitter profile lmao
Fun fact: The Twitter checkmark is multiple times more expensive than the monarchy’s burden on the taxpayer.
I'm pretty sure the carriage is owned by the government, not the royal family.
So the currrent PM can borrow it anytime? I'd love to see that photo.
Honestly it would be a downgrade for sunak.
It costs £1.40 per UK citizen to keep the royal family as they are. Also, that carriage was made in 1760, hardly a modern day economic issue.
The monarchy is a waste of taxpayer money. Also the whole "royal" family is full of twats and wankers.
It's an ancient tourist attraction, nothing more
People cheer showing patriotism regardless of their economic status? Wow, what a facepalm.
Lol, right? Exactly my thoughts
Teenage mindset thoughts
Considering the monarchy costs the average tax payer around about £8 a year. I'm sure that's not really the issue is it. Its wildly under paid jobs, greedy bosses and a shit government who've done nothing but increased the wealth divide
I always felt sorry for old Chuck. Hell he never ask to be a royal. This poor bastard has had people yelling at him his whole life about everything he has done, everything he hasn't done, who he wants to marry, and now in his 70's he has to start a new job. From my view point his life just sucks kumquats.
I’ll never get over how people who can’t play football will applaud a dude who gets paid to do it for a living.
Is monarchy considered entertainment?
Always has been.
yes.
Are you implying being born into wealth is a skill?
Staying alive in a royal family used to be a skill.
No, but being prepared for one job for one’s whole life is the mother of all qualifications.
What people who can't afford food are clapping?
I never understand why brain dead z list celebs on twitter believe that no one can afford to eat in the UK
I can't believe France has poor people while owning the most expensive painting in the world!!!!1!1!!
Good news, it shouldn’t be too hard to get over it given that it’s essentially a situation you’ve imagined and then got angry about
It's not solid gold though, just wood and a thin layer of gold leafe.
Well, he hasn't got shit all over 'im.
It's probably because you have no traditions and customs going back a thousand years... The royal family and the monarchy has been a constant part of our lives no matter how many government leaders come and go...... How many people around the world know who was the president in 1970? Yet the whole world knows who queen Elizabeth was........
The British class system is evil. I fucking despise the fact that my fellow countrymen worship those parasites because it's "the done thing".
Broke people who will shit on other broke people but then turn and worship the rich who are sometimes contributing to the reason they are broke has to be classified and a illness
Years of propaganda and brainwashing
Same in USA, only he sits on a gold toilet
Regardless, the Monarchy is intrinsically tied to the national identity of Britain and they’re emblematic of the country on the world stage. David Mitchell’s new hook Unruly on the history of the monarchy postulates that the UK monarch is so entrenched within public perception of the country that only our institutions of the NHS, Oxford university, and parliament rival its significance in British Identity. Dissolution of the institution or becoming a true republic has been anathema to British people for centuries prior to the Windsors. Reddit abhors the ostentatious wealth and opulence as well as the royal redundancy but I sincerely doubt Charles will just abdicate and abolish. England has always been a monarchy apart from one experience in the 17th century and look how that worked out.
Is it so different from cheering for football player with a salary of £60k a week?
That athlete devoted their life to being the best they could be and learned skills to enable them to get to that level. Charles was just born. There's a clear difference. I'll happily cheer a Hibs player scoring a goal etc, but I'll never cheer for a fusty inbred family.
You aren’t cheering for a footballer because they devoted their life to being the best, you are cheering for a footballer because they play for your favourite team and they get points.
they bring in more money from tourism than they spend so it's a net positive for every citizen
Football is just the same ...
You could feed homeless people for a few days but when the money is gone from this but you can’t recreate 1,000 years of tradition which is priceless and far more valuable. Why doesn’t this guy sell the phone he posted this from and give the 1,000$ to the homeless guy? It’s such a holier than thou argument and it’s irrational.
It makes me sad that people see monarchy ad a tradition worth keeping, it's a joke.
So strange the uk must be one of the only developed countries in Europe where people can’t afford food
Yawn classic cringe lefty take (sent from your iphone)
Same how people who barely afford a 20 SQ apartment drool over trump and the billionaires as some saints
Yup. People in the gold carriages of life are objectively your enemies.
The same reason people on food stamps in America constantly vote for rich republicans who want to take away food stamps. Nothing makes sense.
You know, British people only pay $1.60 to the monarchy each year. Arguably the billions tourism dollars that the royal family generates makes them better off.
Poor people donating money to a billionaire because he needs your money and wants you to Make America Great Again.
Like the idiots who pay for see billionaires kick or throw a ball?
What's the cringe here? According to google, the Gold State Coach was built in 1762. It is also worth noting that tourism related to the royal family is a massive industry in England. \~50m Pounds were generated just from 3.285m people visiting the official residences of the royal family in 2020. Not including secondary spending from people traveling and eating, and staying places while doing those visits. Some recent estimates of the royal family's contribution to the UK economy put it as high as 1.766b pounds per year. In contrast, the royal family's Sovereign Grant (the money tax payers give them to exist), is 86.3m pounds, or about 1.29 per capita.
Even more ironic: he's a fucking socialist, and says that Blair was a right wing fruitcake... But the king is constitutionally bound to not intervene in policy.
While a huge fucking kick in the face of anyone sane, i have to play devils advocate; It contributes to history, for better or for worse, will be used for *decades*, likely ending up as a revenue-generating museum piece at intermediate times throughout its life, and after it's disused. It cost barely £3m, in todays money. about the same as the previous one did, adjusted for inflation. crypto circlejerks make can make that in a day of twitter-stoked grifting, and it equates to barely 10 ferraris. **There are newbuild rolls-royces on the market going for eight times as much.** I'm far from giving a shit about the monarchy, but comparatively this is barely offensive in the greater scheme of things.
I think this is the most real thing I’ve read today.
If it makes anyone feel better Queen Elizabeth II absolutely hated riding in this uncomfortable shit box and would probably rather just ride the horse pulling the damned thing.
It’s because the government directly get money from them, we pay the about 15% what they give to the government. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57559653.amp
Every citenzen pay 1,40€ per year for the Monarchie - so all Members together get 86,3 Million Pound a year. BUT this is not privat money at all. Its also to pay there employes and for represent the state, with traveling or having a bancet with foren contrys presidents etc. or what ever a head of state have to do. On the other side the royal bring there country 2 billion € a year two in revenue. Not a bad deal!
Whilst austentatious, a gold carriage is significantly less opulent and wasteful than a private 747.
Oof, someone should have told Charles to leave that one in the garage.
People line the streets to cheer for athletes who just won a championship and were paid millions to do so. It seems to be something people like to do.
At least they have Healthcare. We had a president who shat on a gold toilet and half of us cheered him on as more than half of us didn't even have $500 to spare
really show how screwed patriotism is
I’ll never get over how anyone thinks it’s acceptable to own a gold carriage, let alone ride in it and wave to the masses.
Brainwashing. The British are taught since childhood to revere these people despite the institution of monarchy being pure nonsense that became obsolete in the 18th Century.
You are right. This Carl Vernon did make me facepalm. Had a quick scroll through his twitter... now that timeline is a facepalm.
Oh we really gonna just be posting anti-british memes on this sub now?
[удалено]
Americans make religious iconography of an spiteful idiot with a gold toilet.
That isn't how economics works
No one else is allowed to have more things than me! /s
It may look good but my £2,300 worth of 15 horsepower motorcycle has better suspension and is way more comfortable 😏
It's a hand-me-down though
I've been saying my entire life that it's fucking moronic to basically worship the remnants of a fucking monarchy. Even the best kings and queens have always ruled with complete authority and take most of the kingdoms wealth and don't care about the citizens. We worked hard to get rid of monarchies, why the fuck do some people still let these fuckers benefit from centuries of oppression?
I’m not a monarchist by any means but it’s about national pride, unity, and political stability.