Prince Andrew

[icowden]

How much would those charities have raised without royal patronage? It might well be less, but by how much? Nobody knows, but it won’t be the entire £1.4 billion.

Surprisingly (well to me, probably not to you) a recent study concluded that Royal Patronage adds no value to a charity in terms of giving. However the Charities Aid Foundation begs to differ, as their conclusion was that

The Queen has set an amazing example when it comes to her charitable support making an enormous difference to millions of people up and down the country; doing more for charity in the last 60 years than probably any other monarch in history.”

On the flip side:-

Brand Finance, which bills itself as the world’s leading brand valuation consultancy, estimated that the royals contributed 1.77 billion pounds ($1.95bn) to the UK economy in 2017 through a combination of the Crown Estate’s revenues and indirect benefits for tourism, trade, media and the arts.

A big slice of that is Crown Estate Revenues which would continue were there not to be a monarch (e.g. tickets to buck house etc), but there are slices of revenue around official events such as the Coronation which also contribute to the coffers.

Personally I wouldn't want to end the monarchy, but I would like to see a reform. We do have the most expensive monarchy in the world, and modernisation is needed. I think that will happen when William takes the throne, but that might be a while - I suspect Charles will want to stay in post for as long as possible, or at least until Williams kids are adults.

 

[multitool]

. However the Charities Aid Foundation begs to differ, as their conclusion was that

Well what do you expect them to say about the Queen's patronage?

"The Qween done Jack shît"?

 

[Pale Rider]

Well what do you expect them to say about the Queen's patronage?

"The Qween done Jack shît"?

Sour faced abolitionist nonsense.

You are faced with an uphill task, but for even a remote chance of success you will have to raise the argument above kindergarten level.

That you are incapable of doing so suits me, because you and all the other misguided revolutionaries on this thread will die with a monarch firmly in place.

 

[Ian H]

Sour faced abolitionist nonsense.

= I respectfully disagree with your position.

 

[multitool]

Sour faced abolitionist nonsense.

You are faced with an uphill task, but for even a remote chance of success you will have to raise the argument above kindergarten level.

That you are incapable of doing so suits me, because you and all the other misguided revolutionaries on this thread will die with a monarch firmly in place.

You didnt even understand the post you quoted. Not surprising since you are as thick as mud.

In some respects you are quite correct; it is an uphill battle. Not because the monarchists are on the side of the common good, but because it takes an above average intelligence to unpick decades and centuries of conditioning, myth and indoctrination, and recognise the monarchy for what it is.

It's a numbers game, if you like.

 

[Mr Celine]

I never met the queen and to the best of my recollection have only met one person who had.

At the time I was working for what is now the DWP where I was doing home visits. This particular visit was a 'centenarian visit', the purpose of which was to confirm that the person concerned was alive, well, going to be 100 (or 105+) and able to appreciate getting a birthday greeting from her maj.
This was to avoid any embarrassment to the palace, any such embarrassment to my good self in asking such questions apparently not being worthy of consideration.

Normally the biggest problem with these visits was diplomatically explaining to forelock tugging coffin dodgers that the queen was not omniscient, and someone had to tell her staff when to send the birthday card which she herself would never have been near or far less have personally signed.

On this occasion the impending centenarian was sharp as a tack and still lived alone, with only a little help from a great-niece.
She told me in no uncertain terms that she didn't want a telegram and wanted nothing to do with the queen.

I said this was fair enough, but as I might get a hard time about it could she tell me why?

She explained that she had met the queen once due to involvement with local charitable organisations.
She had been instructed in advance on how to curtsey when meeting the royal personage.
But what threw her was the queen not even looking at her, and despite her wearing white gloves had barely touched her hand and treated her 'as if she was a piece of dirt.'

She said that until this happened she was a fan of the royals but afterwards wanted nothing to do with them.

I duly filed my report. I had to field calls from the office manager, the district manager, the lord lieutenant of Berwickshire et al all demanding to know why this woman wasn't going to get a telegram.

She phoned me four days before her birthday to tell me that the pressure from her family and others was unbearable, so please just get the bloody thing sent to her anyway.

She phoned me again a month later to apologise for the bother that she'd caused and to say that she had got the card, but after the fuss had died down had chucked it in the bin.

 

[matticus]

View: https://www.tiktok.com/@rugbyworldcup/video/7276938865259121953

 

[BoldonLad]

I never met the queen and to the best of my recollection have only met one person who had.

At the time I was working for what is now the DWP where I was doing home visits. This particular visit was a 'centenarian visit', the purpose of which was to confirm that the person concerned was alive, well, going to be 100 (or 105+) and able to appreciate getting a birthday greeting from her maj.
This was to avoid any embarrassment to the palace, any such embarrassment to my good self in asking such questions apparently not being worthy of consideration.

Normally the biggest problem with these visits was diplomatically explaining to forelock tugging coffin dodgers that the queen was not omniscient, and someone had to tell her staff when to send the birthday card which she herself would never have been near or far less have personally signed.

On this occasion the impending centenarian was sharp as a tack and still lived alone, with only a little help from a great-niece.
She told me in no uncertain terms that she didn't want a telegram and wanted nothing to do with the queen.

I said this was fair enough, but as I might get a hard time about it could she tell me why?

She explained that she had met the queen once due to involvement with local charitable organisations.
She had been instructed in advance on how to curtsey when meeting the royal personage.
But what threw her was the queen not even looking at her, and despite her wearing white gloves had barely touched her hand and treated her 'as if she was a piece of dirt.'

She said that until this happened she was a fan of the royals but afterwards wanted nothing to do with them.

I duly filed my report. I had to field calls from the office manager, the district manager, the lord lieutenant of Berwickshire et al all demanding to know why this woman wasn't going to get a telegram.

She phoned me four days before her birthday to tell me that the pressure from her family and others was unbearable, so please just get the bloody thing sent to her anyway.

She phoned me again a month later to apologise for the bother that she'd caused and to say that she had got the card, but after the fuss had died down had chucked it in the bin.

Good story. No doubt all decisions should be based on the thoughts of just one 100yo “coffin dodger”.

 

[AndyRM]

Good story. No doubt all decisions should be based on the thoughts of just one 100yo “coffin dodger”.

Yeah, because that's totally what he said...

 

[newfhouse]

Good story. No doubt all decisions should be based on the thoughts of just one 100yo “coffin dodger”.

 

[Ian H]

Make that two abusive old codgers: the anti-monarchist mother of a friend of mine and retired head-teacher was similarly dismissive about receiving a letter from Liz the Second.

 

[Unkraut]

If she had made it to 100 would she have sent a letter to herself?

 

[icowden]

Make that two abusive old codgers: the anti-monarchist mother of a friend of mine and retired head-teacher was similarly dismissive about receiving a letter from Liz the Second.

It's almost like some people like the Monarchy and some don't. My grandma was very pleased to get her letter from the Queen on her 100th birthday. But then she was a former head teacher and staunch monarchist.

 

[Mr Celine]

If she had made it to 100 would she have sent a letter to herself?

More to the point would some hapless DWP executive officer have had to visit her at Buck Hoose to confirm her identity, age and state of health?

 

[Rusty Nails]

It's almost like some people like the Monarchy and some don't. My grandma was very pleased to get her letter from the Queen on her 100th birthday. But then she was a former head teacher and staunch monarchist.

No she wasn't, she was a forelock tugging coffin dodger.

Don't you understand the rules about the importance of binary stances on this forum?