Homebrewers Association | AHA Forum

Other than Brewing => The Pub => Topic started by: beerocd on June 26, 2010, 01:10:19 pm

Title: Royalty
Post by: beerocd on June 26, 2010, 01:10:19 pm
It's time has come and gone; why do these people carry any importance today? Why is prince harry important enough to take up air time on the news? He can't raise taxes, start a war, or have anyone beheaded - what kind of king would that be?

Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: majorvices on June 26, 2010, 01:16:23 pm
Because they sell tabloids.  ;)
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: dean on June 26, 2010, 01:33:43 pm
Yeh.... and all girls still want to be kissed by a prince.   ::)   :D  Did you ever notice that there isn't much fuss about a princess, most guys figure they're too stuckup to bother with even if they were a knockout.   ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: nicneufeld on June 26, 2010, 05:18:11 pm
I've always considered British royalty to be their equivalent of a flag.  A symbol, granted, not much more these days.  Their view of the flag of the Union or St Georges Cross is much less reverent and worshipful as American's average view of the stars and stripes.  Their royalty are walking, breathing, rather costly flags, essentially.

I do consider the tabloid rubbish to be a bit annoying...and I'm hoping that E II outlives her git of a son, maybe the arguably lesser gits of his progeny will be better than Charles.
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: hopfenundmalz on June 26, 2010, 05:59:30 pm
Because they sell tabloids.  ;)

That, and the Queen is on the money.

Here we have our tabloid royalty, that are famous for just being famous.  Paris, Kim, etc.
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: euge on June 26, 2010, 06:29:47 pm
The British royalty are symbolic to be sure but the Queen has some real clout in Parliament as well as billions of $$$.

Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: hopfenundmalz on June 26, 2010, 08:26:33 pm
Some of the trappings of the Monarch are not personnal property, but are property of England.  The Crown Jewels are not for sale, or Buckingham Palace, they belong to the nation.

Her wealth is considerable but less than $1 Billion in most estimates.  Could be more, could be less today.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/queen-elizabeth-birthday-cx_cz0418queen.html

Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: capozzoli on June 26, 2010, 09:34:00 pm
If she dies and one of those kids abdicate it will be over.

Who is next after her royal majesty? Charles?
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: akr71 on June 27, 2010, 01:59:01 am
Some of the trappings of the Monarch are not personnal property, but are property of England.  The Crown Jewels are not for sale, or Buckingham Palace, they belong to the nation.

Her wealth is considerable but less than $1 Billion in most estimates.  Could be more, could be less today.
http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/queen-elizabeth-birthday-cx_cz0418queen.html

How much of it did she earn herself?  Next to none.  Of course there's nothing wrong (IMO) with inheriting gobs of money, but I don't see what contribution the monarchy adds, except for tourist money.

I'm speaking as a Canadian (of English decent) here - Price Charles & Camilla toured Canada last fall - the media made a huge deal out of it and all I could think of was 'how much of my tax dollars are going to feed and house them and drive them around.'  Bunch of friggin nonsense, if you ask me...

If she dies and one of those kids abdicate it will be over.

Who is next after her royal majesty? Charles?

Yes, Charles, then William
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: hopfenundmalz on June 27, 2010, 02:32:51 am
How much of it did she earn herself?  Next to none.  Of course there's nothing wrong (IMO) with inheriting gobs of money, but I don't see what contribution the monarchy adds, except for tourist money.
Who is next after her royal majesty? Charles?

She is said to have inherited the family estates, art, and investments.

Was looking at the list of the world richtest women.  Down to #11, and all got the money from inheretence, or divorce settlements.  Not trying to be sexist here, some family fortunes are huge.

It is much more lucrative to have family names like Walton, Quandt, or Heineken (to keep it a little beer related) than to be Queen of England.
 
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: akr71 on June 27, 2010, 11:47:45 am
She is said to have inherited the family estates, art, and investments.

Was looking at the list of the world richtest women.  Down to #11, and all got the money from inheritance, or divorce settlements.  Not trying to be sexist here, some family fortunes are huge.

It is much more lucrative to have family names like Walton, Quandt, or Heineken (to keep it a little beer related) than to be Queen of England.
 
And all those estates, works or art, etc were probably given as gifts or built as royal estates.  At least with (most) other family fortunes someone did some work to amass all that wealth somewhere along the line.  I doubt that's the case here.
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: thirsty on June 27, 2010, 11:59:35 am
It's time has come and gone; why do these people carry any importance today? Why is prince harry important enough to take up air time on the news? He can't raise taxes, start a war, or have anyone beheaded - what kind of king would that be?


So you're saying you expect humans to be logical?

ha ha ha.
Title: Re: Royalty
Post by: dbeechum on June 27, 2010, 08:30:09 pm
Don't forget.. for the Brits not only do the royalty have an important symbolic function, they have an important monetary function as well. The very existence of the royal family and all of the associated fluffery make for a strong tourist attraction!