[ SECRET POST #2405 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2405 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 099 secrets from Secret Submission Post #344.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Anon who wrote the first reply-

I'm not British, and as I said, I only talked with a British friend of mine about it- but it's my understanding that although the royal house has no power, it's still mostly funded by people's taxes?

(I'm not American either, BTW).

[ill_omened]

They make more than they cost through tourism.

And even setting that aside, there's a certain value to be had in maintaining pieces of heritage, they're just a living example.

[(Anonymous)]

That's an often repeated argument, but it doesn't really make sense. Do you honestly think people would stop visiting royal/historic sites if there was no royal family? Plenty of tourists still visit Versailles even though the French monarchy is gone.

[(Anonymous)]

My understanding is the royal family owns many of those houses and historic sites as private property. They loan them to the government and keep them open to the public now, but if they ere no longer royal they'd have no real incentive to keep doing so. So the argument does make sense in that way.

[(Anonymous)]

So is a president though. Any head of state (regardless of how much power they functionally have) will be funded through people's taxes. in general though royal houses also earn back the amount of money invested in them via taxes through tourism and by being part of the national brand which can be very influential during foreign trade missions.

[(Anonymous)]

Also adding to that, there is a big part of the cost of a monarchy that would exist whether the monarchy exists or not. Think about all the monumental palaces and stuff. Even if the monarchy stops that cost does not go away.

(for full disclosure. I'm also from a country with a monarchy, though not the UK. Mainly I just hate the 'omg but so expensive' argument cause the people who cite it tend to cite it in a very short-sighted manner)

[(Anonymous)]

Even it the monarchy stopped, the tourism for those big monumental places would not go away. You'd still get the tourism cash, but then you could funnel it all towards maintaining the buildings, and not on maintaining the royal lifestyle and security and travel arrangements and clothes, etc. etc.

I'm Canadian, and I visited Paris because of the buildings, history, and yes, I went to Versailles. I went to London (mostly because my sister knew someone there where we could stay at a cheap rate), and I was interested in the buildings and the history and the historic palaces (Hampton Court). Actually, if you didn't have the monarchy, I'd have been able to tour more palaces, since they're off-limits when people are living there.

Anyway, you got some of my money, but I didn't come to see your royals (I guess they're kind of my royals too, drat it, but I hope that changes).

[(Anonymous)]

As I already mentioned, I am not from the UK.

The tourism for the monumental places wouldn't go away no. There is a lot of other related tourism income that would go though. There is a shit ton of commemorative memorabilia, picture books, special magazines that rakes in a lot of money that would stop existing when you get rid of a monarchy.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT Sorry, when we're all nonnies, I sometimes lose track of which nonny I'm replying to.

[(Anonymous)]

Right. Which is why no commemorative memorabilia, books or magazines ever, ever cover Princess Diana, seeing as how she's dead and all.

[(Anonymous)]

Because a decline in sales is the same as a complete stop. Of course!

[(Anonymous)]

Please. I'd take QEII in a flat second over Harper. I'd take just about any of them; hard working people who always stand up in times of crisis and serve their country in war or peace? Yes plz.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, but a head of state like a president or a prime minister is elected by the majority of the people in the country to do his work, and the people can also fire him if needs be.

Monarchy gets money for being born. It's a bit unfair.