The HS2 train is costing between 72 and 98 billion compared to King Charles making 22.7 million. HS2 is the governments project, the same government that has had us under a decade of austerity and strict measures.
I don't envy King Charles III. Giving his whole life and autonomy to service. I would gladly take the freedom I have over his wealth and expectations. But an important cultural and national institution nonetheless. If it wasn't British, people would be begging UNESCO to try and save it. The self loathing of many British is very embarrassing.
@@internethardcase "Service?" You mean stuffing his face while waltzing about in luxury whilst making a speech or two which he himself didn't even write? Oh such an affluent humanitarian is he and his spoilt family... give me a break.
In all honesty, the people who are protesting, are probably on low incomes, and may not be paying tax; so would not necessarily be contributing to the monarchy through income tax.
oh no not 100 m estimated which i heard first as well . only 2 days ago it was written in places including in the d . mirror ( are you are sitting down ) is 240 m
Peaceful protest is fine, but obstructing events that other people are there to enjoy is not fine. Peaceful protest is also not really effective, so there is no point. The monarchy has survived through centuries with a proportion of the population opposed to their existence. They know how to survive. That is why they give out knighthoods and other honours. It effectively buys the loyalty of the most influential and powerful people in the country. None of them will want to give up their knighthoods and abolish the monarchy. There will be no benefit (nor any real loss) to anyone from abolition of the monarchy. It isn't worth arguing over!
I'm a republican, but at the very least the public shouldn't have to spend a penny on them. If the royal family want pomp and circumstance, they should pay for it themselves.
@@jrgboy Exactly, they can afford their own parades, security, upkeep etc, so there's no need for the public to fund it. If they don't want to pay for it, they can give up their titles.
Heavily agreed, not to mention the abundance of corruption deeply rooted within this country, and the London/Major city centric spending. That’s why the Welsh valleys, Costal North and Southwest have fell behind in development. It’s getting worse by the day. As a Young Cornishman, I have 2 choices. One, take a stand, and defy what this system of corruption wishes for me, or two, leave the country.
Totally agree. Don’t stop. They need to disband the monarchy. There is power in the people. With people not being able to pay their bills yet they are paying for a stupid coronation.
OK...cut the corontation.....will the 'people' be 'happy' for very long.... They would be back to square one before you knew it and then wonder who to protest about next....
If the uk took back all the hundreds of billions of pounds given to countries around the world the uk would be the richest country in the world and the countries around the world would still be living in MUD HUTS.
The cost of the coronation ..... yet food banks, no appropriate pay rise's for public servants etc. For me, the monarchy maintains the class system, which is pernicious.
The problem here is Capitalism, not the monarchy! USA has no monarchy, but has a bigger wealth divide than the UK. Something like 1% of Americans control 40% of the wealth. Food banks in USA are not overflowing with food. There is no monarchy to blame for this, just Capitalism!
I am Czech + Slovak dual citizen, so to me a ceremonial president + parliament-backed executive PM makes the most sense. I live in The Kingdom of Denmark, and I respect their tradition, since the country works very well, there is no nonsense such as House of Lords, and the Royals are scandal-free and unite the country. That cannot be said about the UK however.
Maybe they should explain how the Monarchy helped in creating and perpetuating the offshore paradise of millionaires and billionaires in the UK. And how it is basically in cahoots with the London City Financial Empire, with their laundering money and avoiding tax offshore schemes.
Let's not forget at how the queen rubber stamped a government scheme to throw the Chagossians off their own island of Chagos, each person only allowed on carrier bag of items and then all shipped off to a jetty on Mauritius, then sell Chagos off to the Yanks. John Pilger made a documentary about it, entitled The Stealing of a Nation.
More evidence of the clown world we live in. Disgusting inequality. And no shame or remorse from them. Charles could have opted for a small, private ceremony if anything, paid for by himself as he can afford it. Down with the Monarchy !
@@skycloud4802 no, they've stayed in power for a thousand years. and in their tenure there has been plagues, famines and wars that left their subjects in a pretty rubbish spot.
It was on the news few months back that he has given 85% of the Estate’s earnings back to the public. Maybe the government needs to explain where that money went
@@justonecornetto80 they do not lad, they're embarrassing. 8 million pound put aside for fucking portraits of "King Charles" for the national public and the cost of the coronation, you know he didn't have to pay any inheritance tax on the billion's of pounds his mother left him too, ask the local joe when his mother dies and leaves 2'000 in the bank the government had their hand out, they're scum. I'm Irish. I'm telling you now a monarchy would not last In my country. You're fools
I live in the USA, a democratic Republic. No kings, queens or aristocracy. However, the troubles in society at large, hungry children, homelessness, sickness, and so on, do not seem to have been alleviated with no money going to a monarchy. I think that British Republicans think the money saved on doing away with a Constitutional Monarchy would all go to helping the dispossessed. It would not. It would go to support the replacement government. And I heard a young lady assume that GB does t have a Constitution. How can such ignorance exist? How can such people have solid opinions when they know seemingly very little? People can believe what they want, but be careful what you wish for.
Exactly! Your comment makes so much sense. They believe without a monarchy, there’ll be no homeless people, everyone will be a millionaire and sleep in golden beds lmao
I agree… 🇲🇾I live in a Country with 9 Sultans from 9 States which goes on rotations every 5 years to be the Paromunt King for the Whole Country. The pass few years have seen us having Political uncertainties and after the Election, did not have enough votes to form a Government from either political parties. The Confrence of Rules ( consists of all the 9 Sultans) that help solved the Problem as per the law. .. therefore It does matter in our Country situation. I cant speak for other Countries with Monarchy but the situation is diffrent for every country..For My Country I disagree.
It’s no different here, and it’s getting worse by the day via the current government me currently have in the UK. The Monarchy does naff all and don’t have any real POWER. It’s the government of the day who rules the roost and they are slowly chipping away at our rights, and causing people to be more financially worse off. Standards of living has dropped dramatically here under the Conservative Party.
America is differant...People are too dumb to spend any time in life on learning about how the banking system really works...Most poor people in the states instead choose to watch tens of thousands of hours of stupid tv shows throughout their lives and kids they cant afford...
Charles promised he wouldnt make Camilla the Queen. He broke his promise cleverly. He had no intention of ever honouring it. He had always wanted to make Camilla his queen. Why make false promises then? Peoples feelings dont matter for him? Who is he representing? Himself? Or the people?
Charles did not make Camilla Queen. It was Queen Elizabeth who in a change of heart said that Camilla should have the royal of Queen Consort when Charles ascended to the throne.
@@Jen222287 Incorrect. The law of the Uk makes the wife of the ruling king, Queen. There would have had to have been an act of parliament to change that ans there wasn't. What they had originally said is that she wouldnt use her title of Queen Camilla, but she is still the queen and was always going to be, thats the law, The late Queen was just asking for acceptance of Camilla, from the public.
No, even they had issues with current unified system with many still enthusiastic to return into more loose confederation in the past, literally fragment of what the HRE looks like.
Its interesting to hear that the anti monarchy crowd in the UK is fragmented. From the outside looking in you would think it would be a strong youth movement. Perhaps people are just so used to the monarchy it creates divisions? In the US most people think a majority of monarchy supporters are older, traditional and conservative in nature. These Guardian videos are always interesting to get some perspective.
The anti monarchy crowd are united by ignorance and lack of understanding about how the world works! They seem to think that problems in society will be fixed by abolition of the monarchy, even though USA has those same problems (worse) and yet no monarchy! The problems are a result of Capitalism, not a result of monarchy!
It’s not necessarily fragmented in a divided way - it’s just not organised on a large scale. There are a lot of anti monarchists, but they don’t necessarily band together.
@@east_coastt Because the U.K. as a whole doesn’t want a republic. For any negative press or criticism it’s seen as the last vestige of old England still alive and untouched. The more British culture gets attacked from outside forces the more people will band around the monarchy and that’s the end of the debate.
@@manmaje3596 not really. It’s just this person is viewing us from an American perspective with the idea that people are very divided. We’re not like America and so we aren’t super divided. I think you’re wrong and I think the monarchy will have to evolve if it is to survive. The criticism of the UK is coming from within, not ‘being attacked from the outside’ 🤣 and that criticism is very valid. The British public are struggling and don’t sympathise or empathise with the royal family as they once did. The tide is turning. I don’t think we’ll see huge changes in the monarchy in our life time, but it will change. Nothing lasts forever.
Very naive and idiotic stance. The monarchy brings far more to UK than the 'costs'. We are not just talking about money here....... You are welcome to wallow.
The problem with the parliamentary system is a need for a titular head of state. Monarch or Presidents who do nothing is just a waste of taxes. There should be a one President and then power checks and balances to ensure the president doesn't turn into a dictator.
There will always be those who do not like power, this is life, people cannot please every person, but I do not respect such people. You are destroying the power system of a great country, as long as it is ruled by a monarchy, everything will be fine. How do you imagine a republic, or how it’s eternal disputes, and as I say, the monarchy will be eternal and I’m 18 years old, all my peers are for the monarchy and there are repulsed socialists, well, what can I do, this is life. God Save the King.
It is in place more so because of convenience rather than a choice, it just is easier as they are not causing any trouble and pm really runs the country
They don't literally mean no law enforcement whatsoever. They mean to disestablish and reform police forces, in order to avoid the corruption, negligence, and massive overreach we see today.
It's not cops we need, it's a security and justice system that is fit for purpose. Saying that we need cops, makes it sound to many that the only choice we have is to work within the current structure of law enforcement.
Plenty of people (meaning: a few) in France want the monarchy back. They're called royalistes. They don't agree on which family should reign though, between the "légitimistes", "orléanistes" and all the rest. Besides, French is a republic but is obviously not a democracy.
@@honghong8210 Britain became a republic about 400 years ago after a civil war. The King was beheaded. Then after about 20 years the people had enough of being in control and gave the King's son the throne, made him King and returned Britain back to a Constitutional Monarchy. Return can be done. Maybe one day it will happen in China too.
You need to look at the way Switzerland is being run because I never heard of their people protesting against their government. The politicians have normal jobs.
Yes, that defunding the police thing has gone really well in the states, leading to massive shoplifting so businesses have to relocate. I don't support monarchy, but the left are a billion times worse.
Over here in Ireland we have a president for head of state, as the role is largely ceremonial anyone can really run, so someone like Stephen Fry or Colin Firth could run in the UK if that happend... would be much more popular than any of the royal inbreds I think, and save a lot in taxpayer money
@@TheRajk2222 An honest un corrupted person at the helm would be marvellous but the truth sadly, is that only ruthless lying crooks ever get to the top. It’s a sad fact. Honest people never do well in anything, simply because they don’t play the game. We could end up with some idi amin type character.
I simply don't agree with being 'beneath' someone. I treat everyone I meet like how I'd like to be treated. If I approached Charles with the same attitude I'd be seen in the wrong. I don't care about what benefits they bring if the attitude of servitude exists. I spent some time in SE Asia and it was customary for the cleaners to act in a sick manner of overt respect towards me as they'd been 'trained'. I felt awful that these people were behaving like that to me. How dare another human think themselves so superior that this exists. It is sick.
The role is to leech money, pose constantly for photo ops, and go on jollies to the Commonwealth (inc. many countries that hate them.) Stop pretending they bring in tourists when Versailles income Royal free dwarves anything the Royals bring to the UK. Buckingham would generate far more if it was vacated.
@@OldQueer This is the point though, it is not about being beneath and individual it is about allegiance to the country which is represented by the Crown. It avoids the impossible problem of pledging allegiance to political activists that happen to be in power.
@@BANKO007 The king is also a political activist? He goes to different places on behalf of the country and represents the british people as a figure head. I'd much rather pledge allegience to someone I had the ability to vote for rather than some posh bloke who's never worked a day in his life.
Even leaving aside the thorny question of (arguably) deliberate cruelty to the late Princess Di, to have any value the monarchy must represent tradition - i.e. be at least a little rigid and uptight. It must be impressive with pageantry and colour - i.e. expensive and showy. It must also be noticeably “different”, hinting at inherently superior - i.e. secretive, removed and not in any sense merit-based. All that is hunky dory when the country is swimming in cash, but when money is tight, all the hats diamonds and crowns and tiaras and capes and gowns and sceptres and carriages and footmen and pageboys and horses and flags and standards and lords and ladies … almost make a mockery of the sufferings of ordinary people.
🎶Do you hear the people sing? Singing a song of angry men? It is the music of a people Who will not be slaves again! When the beating of your heart Echoes the beating of the drums There is a life about to start When tomorrow comes!🎶
What else would draw tourists by the millions to Great Britain? Oh, I forgot! Your wonderful weather? Your warm sunshine and ocean breezes? Your delicious haute-cuisine and fine wines? Fabulous resorts and sandy beaches? Cheap prices? Stunning scenery? The answer: nothing!!! PS I've been to GB 15 times - because of your history and The Royals ... and you put on a phenomenal show when it comes to The Royals. Tbe whole world is tuned in! No other country in the world comes close to you! Don't "kill the goose that lays the golden egg"!
@@MrWilhelm1950 Lol nobody comes to see royals, the castles and stuff are what they come for. France gets more tourism and they got rid of their royals long ago. They still have the castles that people go to see. Stop bootlicking.
@@callummcintyre713 Of course they do work, most of the adult population do, but the Royal Family have a seemingly infinite pot of taxpayer cash, us normal people don't have that luxury.
It just baffled me in 2023. There are people who believe monarchy is relevant in today's world. Millions of pounds are going to be spent on a small family because of their genes, and the rest should celebrate their life's of this family. While there is an economic crisis, increase homeless and hunger in the country. The poor are taxed to celebrate the live of the king and his family while they struggle to feed themselves and pay their bills. It's just crazy.
It was the same with Queen Victoria ,spending the equivalent of £millions on a love nest on the Isle of Wight , while thousands/millions were on the verge of starvation. Charles Dickens spelt it out for us in his Novels and writings of the day.
@@internethardcase You don't need unity with a monarchy. Just because a monarchy has happened for hundreds of years doesn't mean we have to call it an 'intrinsic part of British culture'. It is an outdated institution for modern times. We're in a cost of living crisis and our hard working taxpayers had to foot the bill for two immoral people (Charles and Camilla) who were cruel to Diana and who cheated behind her back...Camilla also wiped her hand after shaking a black girl's hand. Charles is not God's kingly representative on Earth, he's just a flawed human...same with Camilla. At least with Prime Ministers and Governments they are democratically elected by the people...nobody chose Charles and Camilla to get all that underserved wealth, status and power. At least kings and queens in the past directly went to war...like Richard the Lionheart, Henry VII, Elizabeth I...Charles and Camilla do pretty much nothing. I know you will disagree with me, but let's be civil about this. All this pomp and ceremony is for nothing.
As long as it lures tourists, earns money, keeps the tabloids busy and deflects people from real issues every nation has the right to hold an adorable mascot.
@@xxsaruman82xx87 maybe bécasse Versailles is open to the public during all the year round unlike Buckingham Palace. Versailles is like a museum, it is purely touristic
The Revolution was initially a revolt against Parliament's egregious overreach into American affairs. George III was more popular in Boston than London. It was when the King refused to intercede on behalf of the colonists and sided with Parliament that Republicanism really took hold. So it's more accurate to say we had a war to stop government overreach, which is why the American government has historically had a system of arduous checks and balances.
You need a coalition. You need different parties rotating in power like in Germany and other European democracies. It is possible but got to get rid off the red and blue and realize there is a rainbow out there. You cant represent the true will of the people with only two parties. That's not democracy.
Those who love the late Princess Di should protest!! After all , millions of pounds will be spent for the coronation of these two adulterous !!its unfair !!
Yeah we know. That's why we had a revolution against the monarchy centuries ago and now have a constitutional monarchy. People aren't taught history in schools these days.
@@bakedbeans5494 so who do you think pays for all there privileges, There Royal Castle, There servants, The royal Drivers etc.? There plane trips abroad in a private plane? We do the British public.
He needs his dressing up day he has waited so long for, with all the sycophants bending over backwards to please him, so no way would he pass it to Willie, who, by the way, is almost as bad as his pa. Time for a republic!
But people are indifferent to William or contrary to Charles or Harry ( I know he not the heir), it all about perception not reality, the queen was not the nicest person but people perception was has a sweet old granny.
This types of many ideas convenience British minds that there is no uk without monarchy , and nation is first ( obvious for anyone), so they obvious cherish and promote their version of unity that is monarchy..
They've got some nerve , haven't they , rubbing our noses in it and then expecting us to be pleased for the privilege of paying for it all , by swearing allegiance ? ? Just how warped and Over the Top are they ?
If the Royal family is so vital as they bring in so much tourism money, they should spend that amd their non inheritance taxed fortune on their party before coming to the public purse
Bro they make the UK economy 1-2 billion a year which goes towards the government and their staff, while they get 100 million a year from our taxes, (if cant do maths dw i got you) 100m - 1000million = -900m. They lose -900million yearly, but no poor old us have to spend £1.29 a year towards their fiances. if we abolish the monarchy thats jobs lost from the king guards, all the way to the tourism industry as our cultural tradition has been destroyed by a bunch of left-wing uneducated plebs
@@SorceressWitch all the more reason for the UK to stand out to tourists then and not be France 2.0. If France has everything the UK has like you just said, then why lose the only unique asset that UK has left going for it?
@@davis7099 What do I think? Well I think if you enjoy YOUR King that's up to you. He, or anyone else, would NEVER be my King. But you enjoy him if it makes you happy.
It's not the best question because it's not how our Monarchy works. The Royal Family are the Royal Family. They aren't voted in because they aren't Government and don't need to be. If we had a Monarchy with all the power and no Government...I'd be inclined to agree. But we do have a Government and the decisions that are made that effect our everyday lives come from the Government, not Buckingham Palace. The only time in my lifetime that I can ever think of a situation where the Queen should have stepped in, was when Boris was in power, and she should have sacked him, and I don't think for a second the public would have disagreed in the slightest. And she still didn't get involved. Other than that...their revenue far outweighs their cost.
Human Rights Watch slammed Saturday's arrest by UK police of protesters at the coronation of King Charles III as "incredibly alarming". "This is something you would expect to see in Moscow, not London," the campaign group said, attacking the UK government for its "increasingly averse" stance on public demonstrations.
Can’t be British without a king? It’s absolutely the opposite! Britain lost the war for this monarchy to occupy and reign over us- 1066 guys… come on- this is finally a revolution against the invading Normans
How are we supposed to welcome a man who abandoned his wonderful wife Diana and failed miserably to reach out and support her because he was too busy having an adulterous affair with Camilla , a bad , unfeeling and selfish example not befitting of a king ; William has noble attributes and would be far more suitable , the choice of the people , long live King William best wishes , Natasha
Sadly to get the message across it will take prominent figures to support the campaign to give it exposure, those figures won't come forward ,because they have comfortable lives and disparity doesn't effect them and its in their benifit to stay silent, they don't want to jeopardise their chances of Knighthoods etc.Not surprisingly not one M.P is vocally anti monarchy, so the common people are not represented in their communities.
@@tictoc5443 Fair distrubtion of Charlies stolen wealth... would do better helping the poor than making sure inbred Charlie has someone there to iron his shoelaces
That young woman is right, there is such a class segregated society in which, the people suffer to enable the RF keep their lifestyles. That is very unjust.
Nonsense! Look at the US. They have no RF, yet still have the same problems, not to mention having to pay big bucks for healthcare, which many Americans cannot afford.
It sounds like the British Monarchy needs to either operate more ethically, transparently and democratically, or a change to a Republic might be needed. New Zealand and Australia should become Republics. There are few reasons why they should have allegiance to the King in this day and age. Britain is a bit of a different story...
_"New Zealand and Australia should become Republics"_ They might want to consider getting their own flags first. It's a bit much telling Daddy he's not the boss of you anymore when you're still living in his symbolic basement. At least Canada got _that_ far.
As a New Zealander - no we don't. The majority of New Zealanders wish to remain under the British Monarchy according to a poll done shorty after Queen Elizabeth II's passing in 2022. 50% for the monarchy 27% for republic 23% neutral/undecided First of all, the founding document of this country, The Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi, is a binding legal contract between the Maori people and the Crown which was not upheld in full in the past BUT the fact that the Crown signed it means that they can be held accountable for the times when they did not uphold it such as when land was wrongfully taken from local Iwi (tribes) and the Waitangi Tribunal uses the agreements in the treaty to hear claims and restore stolen lands to Maori owners. If we are no longer a British Colony, that will make the Treaty null and void. The Treaty also promises Britains protection and allyship to New Zealand which most of us are not willing to throw away.
@@loneprimate it’s not hard to do that, just have the referendum first to get the ball rolling and if they vote to leave then make a decision on the flag in the transition process. Somehow I don’t think the voters of Australia and New Zealand are particularly hung up on a piece of cloth. If nothing else they can just replace the union jack with the seal of the commonwealth. As I suspect that institution they will remain in (Allegiance to the monarchy is not a requisite for a commonwealth membership).
@@tinyfreckle 27% plus 23% is equal to 50% so your contention that the majority of New Zealanders wish to remain under the British Monarchy is not correct and I would suggest from my knowledge of New Zealand that it will likely be a Republic before Australia and even Canada. New Zealand has not been a British colony since 1907 and since the latter part of the 20th century it has more so than other past British colonies pursued a very independent path for itself.
@Sean F That respectfully Sean F is a nonsense comment!. A modern sophisticated and democratic Parliamentary Republic with a clear and written constitution will prevent the rise of any potential dictator. The head of state of a Parliamentary Republic is an elected representative and all citizens of a Republic are equal regardless of birth, faith, wealth or race. Inherited titles and birth rights are a legacy of a different era when ordinary people were subservient to often brutal monarchs and lords, it is well past the time when these titles and all the associated nonsense was confined to history.
I was completely anti monarchy in my early 20s ……… but slowly over the last 20 years I’ve slowly become more neutral on the subject …… why? Because I’ve seen countless uk/us and other countries democratic elected politicians almost constantly misuse their power with constant semi-corruption and lies …… with their “animal farm” Inspired gravy train(s) for themselves and their friends in high business etc etc …… And going back to the monarchy as mad as a concept as it is ……it’s rare for any industry that brings more income into a nation then it costs to not continue regardless if we like it or not …… all I would add is it would at least be a start if all royals were at least taxed like their subjects the same amount off money as a commoner who was on 20k per year more then them… ( I’ll only giving them 20k extra non tax band only for all the hassle they have to endure from the media then a non -royal) and also limit the number off properties and amount off land they own …… should easily give half off it back to the British public …… still keeping the majorly needed bits for their jobs like Buckingham palace in their hands etc etc …
Except it’s a complete myth that they bring in more money than we spend on them. They are exempt from many taxes. We spend money from both the policing and military budget on their protection. We straight up give them tax money. Tax money is used to heat their enormous palaces. You seriously think they make up for that in tourism? Not a chance. All of the supposed tourist attractions that people say wouldn’t make money without them, undoubtedly would make money without them. The Palace of Versailles in France brings in far more money than any royal tourist attraction in the UK, and we all know what France did about their monarchy. To add to this, places like Buckingham Palace are currently closed to the public whereas the Palace of Versailles can be toured. What do you think would make for a better tourist attraction? A palace you can just look at from the outside or one you can tour and explore and witness rooms of historical significance? Your point about corrupt politicians. Sure, politicians can be corrupt. But so are the royals and at least you can get rid of politicians. Many republics have their president be a figurehead too. Take Ireland for example. Their president is a poet who is largely a figurehead but is well loved. Nothing stopping us doing something similar. Difference is, with an elected figurehead, you don’t get the nastiness that comes with a family with centuries upon centuries of inherited wealth with zero inheritance tax.
I like your reasoned position on this. Compromise, even where a bad taste remains, lies at the heart of progress. I'm all for a more holistic view of institutions such as the monarchy and its relationship to the system as a whole. If the prevailing, pragmatic argument for the monarchy is that it ultimately "brings in more than it costs", then OK, let's look at cultivating that transactional concept further with more modern, egalitarian principles. If everything is ultimately transactional, let's push for an even more lucrative bargaining position that serves even more of the "subject" population. At some point in history, an absolute monarchy became a constitutional monarchy. There is no reason to draw an eternal line under what was a move from a wholly undesirable system to a merely more desirable one.
250 million pounds for throwing on a party for someone who has got his first job after living 74 shiftless years on earth sponsored by mummy and daddy.
so he should and some say . even if he paid it would still be a huge waste of money because it could or rather should be shared amongst real needy people . many also say they have long been fed up with royals because of having to pay them while they are so very rich let alone the cost of this .
@@marcl3763 if the monarchy falls soon it’ll be about time. A sign that we’re moving in the right direction. Prince Andrew is a royal. Do you think he’s a good guy?
Human Rights Watch slammed Saturday's arrest by UK police of protesters at the coronation of King Charles III as "incredibly alarming". "This is something you would expect to see in Moscow, not London," the campaign group said, attacking the UK government for its "increasingly averse" stance on public demonstrations.
The argument I often hear is that the British monarchy brings in money to the economy through tourism. This argument is completely ridiculous, and reminds me of one we tend to have here in the US; Trickle-Down Economics (or Reganomics). The whole concept is that if the government decreases taxes on the rich, they’ll be incentivized to spend more and the economy will grow - Here’s the thing with that, there is no concrete way to make sure that those millionaires and billionaires who have to pay hundreds of thousands less in taxes will spend more and boost the economy, it doesn’t happen. It’s a deeply flawed idea that is used to camouflage politicians just wanting to give their donors tax breaks. When Reagan first tried to use Trickle-Down Economics it failed horribly, the government had to spend the most it ever had to prevent a complete economic failure since the Great Depression. Even with this outcome, politicians still try to use this policy (i.e. the Trump Tax Cuts). As for the Monarchy-Tourism argument, there is no concrete way to say that the individuals themselves are what drives the tourism money; if the British monarchy is abolished Buckingham palace will still be open to visitors, but now you can tour all of it. Feel free to take this as a grain of salt; after all, it is from the mouth of a freedom loving American.
I listened to the words of that girl from Oxford who never really worked in her life, only participated in political rallies, that's not real work. If they want the Republic they should see the conditions of other countries that now live in the Republic, full of corrupt politicians who sell their people's interests to anyone. Also the British Monarchy is different than all the other Monarchies, young people wokes want to overwhelm everything just for political ideas... I sincerely hate politics, it's just a lie and when they come to power they forget about the people... Change one good Monarchy for a Government full of power-hungry politicians I don't know if it would be the best choice for the British people.
What does the girl at Oxford having no work got to do with anything? Doesn't make What she's saying any less valid. She's very young and probably studying there. Your comments don't add to the debate.
172,000 in the U.K..that are homeless..it’s fucking despicable…we are all equal in law and in life…no one should be putting these people on a pedestal....
Russia must do referendum on total democracy, freedom, and civilians' sovereignty, not neo-Soviet state, same with China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea's union with South Korea.
If the UK became a Republic, the British economy would lose around 2Billion per year in tourism alone. I feel that although most of these people's hearts are in the right place, they are kidding themselves to think that an elected head of state would bring them satisfaction regarding any of the clearly important social & climate issues they are discussing here. Hierarchy & bloodlines being fair or not, is another story & one I would say is definitely not fair, however personally, IMO we need the stability of the Monarchy & I do worry about the alternative. For all those that are about to reply & cry about the cost to we, the tax payers; to keep the Sovereign Grant going, it's approximately £1.30 (right now in 2023) per person, per annum. That's around approx just 11p per month for every tax payer. It's a truly tiny amount compared to what we get in return & I fear this ever growing Republican talk could lead the UK into a truly dark age for our country. The Monarchy is one of the fundamental things that keeps Britain Great & I don't see it going anywhere any time soon, thankfully!
tourists come to britain regrdless and many even say they dont come because of the rf its just a lot of polony . countries that gave up their royals have loads of tourists just the same .
@@sweeta17 The Royals do absolutely bring in 2Billion per annum in tourism (people from other countries that come to the UK specifically to see the Monarchy & their heritage). This is 2Billion per year, every year, to the British economy. Please Google it, Instead of replying with comments that aren't coherent.
@@TrebleSum How do they bring in 2bn in tourism, Camilla organising tour groups or something 🤣🤣 People will visit the castle and palaces with or without the royals, like in France or India. Not the mention the moral argument of holding up a system that says some people are better than other based on birth. Charles doesnt even pass for a decent person let alone someone chosen by God 🤣🤣
As an Irish person I agree with the Polish man interviewed, just let them stay, but I'd add, ''tax them!''. We had gerry adams run for president a few years ago. That's the problem with democracy, to paraphrase Socrates. Gerry Adams didn't win, the decent socialist but trinity educated (and very old) michael D higgins won. He has earned his stripes as a socialist but now he is sitting in luxury aras an uchtarain. I'm glad it's him and not the other candidates. The Royal Family exists and abolishing them will not remove poverty, or dependency on benefits. I was on benefits for a while in a country that has no monarchy. We have poverty. We have benefits. Abolishing the monarchy won't solve these problems. I would vote for charles if he was running against the awful boris johnson or nigel farage, or Dominic raab or, or, or, or
The problem is not the person but the system of government. In all government systems there can be good and bad, they all have their dark side. The dark side of Democracy is Demagogy and the dark side of Monarchy is Tyranny. But the problem when there is a bad president, the people have the (limited) possibility of choosing, in the case of the Monarchy, if there is a tyrant as monarch, the people can do absolutely nothing.
