Royal Families: useful somehow or just really stupid and gross?

[Cas Stark]

17 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So…doing okay but nothing to write home about?

The royal family's trick is that they live like Jeff Bezos, they're living a billionaire lifestyle, living in massive palaces and castles with near priceless art and fantastic antiques, world class security, world class advisors.  But, they don't own/pa for most of that.  They could not afford all of those homes and the upkeep, etc. on Charles $400M.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The royal family's trick is that they live like Jeff Bezos, they're living a billionaire lifestyle, living in massive palaces and castles with near priceless art and fantastic antiques, world class security, world class advisors.  But, they don't own/pa for most of that.  They could not afford all of those homes and the upkeep, etc. on Charles $400M.

Well, you know, the taxpayers would still be stuck with the homes.  Someone might as well live in them.  

[Varysblackfyre321]

11 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

The royal family's trick is that they live like Jeff Bezos, they're living a billionaire lifestyle, living in massive palaces and castles with near priceless art and fantastic antiques, world class security, world class advisors.  But, they don't own/pa for most of that.  They could not afford all of those homes and the upkeep, etc. on Charles $400M.

So you have to understand Charles is wealthier that 99. Something of the British public right? 
 

Are you really going to count billionaires as among the most wealthy?

[Cas Stark]

Just now, Varysblackfyre321 said:

So you have to understand Charles is wealthier that 99. Something of the British public right? 
 

Are you really going to count billionaires as among the most wealthy?

Of course.  That doesn't change the fact that the Queen fell out of the top 50? either 50 or 100 richest people in the UK in the last few years.  Or that most of the signifiers of their great wealth like Kennsington Palace and Windsor Castle or 'grannies chips' they do not own and cannot sell or make a profit from.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, RhaenysBee said:

Not everything has to be useful or clever. As for gross, picking your snot in public is gross, eating Nutella stuffed pickles with blue cheese is gross. But it’s hardly a word for royal families.  

Things that cost billions of tax payer money must have a public use.

Gross is when an Uber wealthy family gets hundreds of millions of money and political authority just because of their bloodline.

[Cas Stark]

9 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Things that cost billions of tax payer money must have a public use.

Gross is when an Uber wealthy family gets hundreds of millions of money and political authority just because of their bloodline.

What billions are you talking about?  The royal family costs about $120M a year, and that includes upkeep on the residences.  Maybe this is some kind of Trumpian accounting and the taxpayers are secretly on the hook for hidden billions in expenses, but is there some evidence of this?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-29/how-much-does-the-royal-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-the-key-figures

ETA..Presumably the soverign as head of state and conducting the various ceremonial duties are 'public use' enough, since the monarchy is still quite popular.

[DMC]

From a constitutional design perspective, ceremonial heads of state are a pretty good idea.  Should they be hereditary?  Ideally, no, but considering my country doesn't have one I really DGAF.  Obviously I'd say it's up for any country's people to decide.

[RhaenysBee]

1 minute ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Things that cost billions of tax payer money must have a public use.

Gross is when an Uber wealthy family gets hundreds of millions of money and political authority just because of their bloodline.

I suppose I might feel differently about it if it was my tax money. Or not. Because my tax money doesn’t go where I want it either and I’m okay with that because that’s just the social contract, I don’t get to decide what my tax money is spent on. And if I could it would be wasted on sugary Starbucks drinks so no hope for me anyway. 

I don’t find that gross. Each to their own. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Of course.  That doesn't change the fact that the Queen fell out of the top 50? either 50 or 100 richest people in the UK in the last few year

Not making it in the top 50-100 of extremely wealthy people doesn’t they’re not amongst wealthiest people in Britain.

 

[RhaenysBee]

20 minutes ago, Mlle. Zabzie said:

Well, you know, the taxpayers would still be stuck with the homes.  Someone might as well live in them.  

They can always bulldoze it all down and put malls with Apple stores and Starbucks in its place 

[Varysblackfyre321]

3 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

Because my tax money doesn’t go where I want it either and I’m okay with that because that’s just the social contract, I don’t get to decide what my tax money is spent on.

Forgive me but that’s incredibly lazy view of the functions of government especially a democratic one. A government can decide to simply divest money that could give funding its poor healthcare into building a big hole to dump money into. That choice would be bad.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

They can always bulldoze it all down and put malls with Apple stores and Starbucks in its place 

I came upon this terrible web site once that listed all of the 'great houses' that were demolished since WWII.  The 'rich' families could no longer afford them, sell them, and some times the upkeep was so expensive and/or the house wasn't sufficiently historical or grand and so the government wouldn't even take them.  They were just torn down.  I guess many people would cheer that, because fuck the rich, I thought it was incredibly wasteful and sad.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, RhaenysBee said:

They can always bulldoze it all down and put malls with Apple stores and Starbucks in its place 

Or open them to the public for tourists.

11 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

What billions are you talking about?  The royal family costs about $120M a year, and that includes upkeep on the residences

Eh that’s a fair correction.

[mormont]

19 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Of course.  That doesn't change the fact that the Queen fell out of the top 50? either 50 or 100 richest people in the UK in the last few years.  Or that most of the signifiers of their great wealth like Kennsington Palace and Windsor Castle or 'grannies chips' they do not own and cannot sell or make a profit from.

I've said before, but Charles isn't worth £0.01. The stuff he 'owns' and the stuff he 'doesn't own' all comes from the same source: it's all Royal inheritance, not a penny of it earned. The only real difference is what governments long ago agreed to designate as family property and what they agreed to take over and pay for.

When we abolish the monarchy, not long now, we should seize the lot. Morally, it's all ours anyway.

[Larry of the Lawn]

8 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I came upon this terrible web site once that listed all of the 'great houses' that were demolished since WWII.  The 'rich' families could no longer afford them, sell them, and some times the upkeep was so expensive and/or the house wasn't sufficiently historical or grand and so the government wouldn't even take them.  They were just torn down.  I guess many people would cheer that, because fuck the rich, I thought it was incredibly wasteful and sad.

Yeah what's incredibly sad and wasteful is the idea that we should publicly fund the upkeep and maintenance rich people's homes. 

If you need to keep these buildings so so so badly turn them into homeless shelters or something, otherwise, send in the bulldozers.  Preceded by the guillotines or not I guess is up for debate.  

[Ran]

I rather like our royal family here in Sweden, but they are much, much less dramatic and scandalous than the royals in the UK and Spain, at least.

[Varysblackfyre321]

4 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

They were just torn down.  I guess many people would cheer that, because fuck the rich, I thought it was incredibly wasteful and sad.

It’s wasteful and sad to spend loads of public money that can be used to help real people to maintain something that’s just a really expensive estate

If the estate can be converted for housing the poor or any socially useful products(attracts tourists) I’d agree with you tearing down would be bad.

Hell I’d even agree somewhat with the for preservation of particular properties for historical reasons

But barring those reasons I see no good reason for society to be shackled with an estate’s upkeep. 
 

A strip mall replacing it would be moral.

[RhaenysBee]

8 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Forgive me but that’s incredibly lazy view of the functions of government especially a democratic one. A government can decide to simply divest money that could give funding its poor healthcare into building a big hole to dump money into. That choice would be bad.

Good. I have no spare energy to (want to) invest in viewing the functions of government. Sure it would be bad, could I do anything about it (other than vote for a different government)? No. So is it worth for me to get mentally and physically ill over it? Heck no. 

7 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I came upon this terrible web site once that listed all of the 'great houses' that were demolished since WWII.  The 'rich' families could no longer afford them, sell them, and some times the upkeep was so expensive and/or the house wasn't sufficiently historical or grand and so the government wouldn't even take them.  They were just torn down.  I guess many people would cheer that, because fuck the rich, I thought it was incredibly wasteful and sad.

It’s awfully sad.  

[Cas Stark]

15 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

It’s wasteful and sad to spend loads of public money that can be used to help real people to maintain something that’s just a really expensive estate

If the estate can be converted for housing the poor or any socially useful products(attracts tourists) I’d agree with you tearing down would be bad.

Hell I’d even agree somewhat with the for preservation of particular properties for historical reasons

But barring those reasons I see no good reason for society to be shackled with an estate’s upkeep. 
 

A strip mall replacing it would be moral.

Or, I know you will disagree with this, but the state could have not imposed punitive inheritance and estate taxes, designed specifically to kill the aristocracy, that caused the houses to be unaffordable.  There are also many of those houses that were turned over to the government, but the goverment let them fall into disrepair and ulitmately they had them torn down.  Gross.  

Putting a strip mall in the middle of acres of parkland and farmland?  Interesting. Sounds kinda capitalistic to me.  But, I guess beauty is expensive so it is to be shunned.

ETA...This is the web site, or a close proximity anyway.

http://www.lostheritage.org.uk/featuredhouses-lostheritage.html

[RhaenysBee]

And this whole thread is becoming awfully sad and upsetting and radical for my unstable little psyche. Take deep breaths, y’all. Have toffifee and love and respect and sweet dreams or a great day depending on your time zones.