You Can Stick Your "Royal" Wedding Where the Sun Don't Shine.

page: 29
81
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 


I put the 6 billion figure up. It comes from Bloomberg tv thi morning and the expert giving the breaddown is Mat(?) Gotkine. I don't know how to post a link but if you goog bloomberg tv uk you can pick it up there - something about will the Royal Wedding damage the UK's ecomony.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by aivlas
 


I put the 6 billion figure up. It comes from Bloomberg tv thi morning and the expert giving the breaddown is Mat(?) Gotkine. I don't know how to post a link but if you goog bloomberg tv uk you can pick it up there - something about will the Royal Wedding damage the UK's ecomony.


Once you get past a certain amount, the money becomes irrelevant.

It cost this country too much, in every way apart from one.

end of story.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynda101
 


Ok well I posted that link I think and it says


There are estimates that the royal wedding will be the most expensive security event in U.K. history at the equivalent in pounds of about $30 million. For the wedding, I've seen estimates of $80 million in revenues to hotels in London and retailers selling souvenirs such as dishes, pillows, and playing cards. Some British economists estimate a potential loss of national output because wedding festivities span two holiday weekends, encouraging people to take up to 11 days out of work, adding up to ¼% of U.K. GDP or around $50 billion.


www.bloomberg.com...


So many estimates it's not even funny.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:36 PM
link   
PMSL at anyone who thinks that this wedding cost £50 billion.......come on budski!......even you have to admit that this is a totally fabricated and ridiculous figure!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynda101
 



The wedding cost nothing like the figures you are banding around!.........Britain's economy will make a very handsome profit out of today's events.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Lynda101
 


Ok well I posted that link I think and it says


There are estimates that the royal wedding will be the most expensive security event in U.K. history at the equivalent in pounds of about $30 million. For the wedding, I've seen estimates of $80 million in revenues to hotels in London and retailers selling souvenirs such as dishes, pillows, and playing cards. Some British economists estimate a potential loss of national output because wedding festivities span two holiday weekends, encouraging people to take up to 11 days out of work, adding up to ¼% of U.K. GDP or around $50 billion

So many estimates it's not even funny..


www.bloomberg.com...



Perhaps, but when you start counting in tens of billions, does it really matter?

You know the old saying - a billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.


Sorry, I messed up on formatting there.
edit on 29/4/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I knew you would get it in the end


Any amount of cash that size is way over my head, couldn't even imagine having so much.
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 





Sorry, I messed up on formatting there.


yet you accused me of being a liar this afternoon when I did the same?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 


Hi, its not the right link. www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-29/bloombergs-gotkine-says-royal-wedding-may-hurt-erconomy-video html

Eliot Gotkine.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lynda101
 


The link is 404


The link

www.onenewspage.co.uk...

???????
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)


To be fair that's still an estimate and is actually less than in the link I posted. None of these estimates can be taken seriously they range to wildly.
edit on 29-4-2011 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lynda101
reply to post by aivlas
 


Hi, its not the right link. www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-29/bloombergs-gotkine-says-royal-wedding-may-hurt-erconomy-video html

Eliot Gotkine.



you need to use the tool bar above the posting panel.......what you typed doesn't compute



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by budski
 





Sorry, I messed up on formatting there.


yet you accused me of being a liar this afternoon when I did the same?



In fairness, you denied it, and then editted it.

Plus I had to ask 2 or 3 times.

And when you repaired it, I said "Thank You"



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



Show me where I denied it?
I corrected it as soon as you brought it to my attention!

You just took a cheap shot.......and it has backfired on you because you made the same mistake, which you claimed was "difficult" to make..........hypocrisy?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 



Back on topic

Do you really think that this wedding cost £50 billion ?.........or even the £6 billion you were banding about earlier?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by budski
 



Back on topic

Do you really think that this wedding cost £50 billion ?.........or even the £6 billion you were banding about earlier?


How much dos it cost the country to have an extra day off on a 4 day weekend?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Well Bud, the morning after and no headache, which is always a bonus on a Saturday morning....just the customary slow start due to encroaching middle age, (something I passionately refuse to acknowledge).

On reflection it was a good day - the 'feel good' factor was something this country badly needed and it certainly brightened a few people up and that can't be a bad thing.

But maybe it was just papering over the cracks and it certainly highlighted major divisions within our society and the need for debate about the future role of The Monarchy.

I hope you managed to get out and have a few mate....and guess what - the sun is out, it's Saturday so I suspect it's an afternoon in the beer garden followed by an evening of Northern Soul and Ska.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
You're right about some of that, rich people do excessive things. But if you're going to complain, why don't I see you doing anything? What do you expect them to do? Sell everything they have and give it to the poor? Then I expect you to do the same.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
There may be another little cost about rear its ugly little head. RT News (Ex M15 Officer Annie Machon) this morning, (Please could someone tell me how to post a link cos I can never manage it) Its confirmed in a much watered down state with fewer numbers in the UK press the guardian I think.

In the land, where my grandfather and father and Step father went to war to protect our freedom, the day before the royal wedding, our illustrious police and presumably M15 went out and made 50 pre crime arrests. What the hell happened to innocent till proved guilty.

These were people whose only crime is that they oppose the monarchy. One guy arrested was 68 year old, Chris Knight, leader of the anti-capitalist Group. Some of these people were dressed or going to stage small tabloid scenes which people would have walked past. There were no guns and no violence, just people exercising their right to free speech - back to why we fought the wars.

Looking at the two Princes They weren't in the usual top hat and tails, which look so smart, they were wearing uniforms with so much stuck onto them it was ridiculous. Harry looked plain bemused, I doubt he even know the relevance of the tack appended to him. It will created the symbolic impression we control the armed forces.

So we have had an actual attack on the public's democratic freedom by institutions whose wages we pay through our taxes, ensuring that everyone will think twice before they open their mouths to criticise Royalty in this country.

WELCOME to BRITAIN quickly turning into a fascist state. forgot to say, that the last I heard, even the friends and more importantly lawyers of these peaceful protestors can't find out where they are, I hope every one of them sues the state.

Any one still under the illusion we are not serfs under a dictator monarchy?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lynda101
Tourists, like us only get rare glimpses of the Royals at ceremonies or at play somewhere. Buckingham Palace may have had 50,000 but that's nothing compared to the 3,000,000 that visit just the Royal chateau in Versailles, without taking into account the visitors that visit all the other French and German beautiful castles and palaces,which they can actually afford to run because they don't maintain any Royals.

We are given a figure of 66p pp to maintain the royals. That actually adds up to considerably more than the £7 million odd the Government admits they cost. Presumably that comes from the Civil List which pays for their staff, execs, admin, catering,hospitality,housekeeping,furnishings, ceremonial functions, sundres and spending on assets - (which does not include gambling bills that the Queen Mother ran up). What it does not cover are thing like security etc which comes out of the Armed Forces and Police budgets. We will probably never get to the real figure but it will be huge.

The Media are the ones that have given the wedding the hype it has had and every opportunity has been taken
to try to stir up the public about this wedding. However I suspect its actually less than 20% of the public are actually fans. Diana's death has damaged them deeply.

People seem to think that the Royal Family are 'one of us'. They are not. They come from old, quite secretive land-owning Royal European families, whom only ever intermarried other royal houses thereby keeping their assets and power intact. They often ended up ruling over peoples they had no personal relationship to. Queen Victoria's first language was German, not English. As most countries rumbled and then kicked out their royals the marriage market became less populated and they have over the last few of generations married from the lower eschelons.

The Queen is cousin to the then US President Bush and David Cameron, even Obama appears to have some weird link to her through a supposed Egyptian line and William has married a distant cousin. So its still all in the family despite appearances. These links are very handy for protecting 'one's interestboth on internal and foreign policy.

The Queen still has the power of Veto and has probably bargained with it to avoid paying tax for years. It was not that long ago that an investigative journalist, rare today, managed to reveal the phenomenal extent of her wealth, things like part of Times Square etc. Anyone who thinks the Queen has no hand in government is actually a fool. She receives every day except Christmas and New Year Despatch Boxes which update her with affairs across the world. A Red Box contains The Page of the Presence which holds Cabint, Foreign and Commonwealth documents which she has to sign. The Prime Minister visits her every week to take her instructions. She still governs and obviously helps select favoured personages into selected jobs. Cameron would never have made PM without Buck House's help.

Personally I would like a chance to vote for a proper democracy, I doubt in this day and age we would retain our royalty if the public actually realised the serruptituous stranglehold around the world our Royals actually hold. However they understand the value of eliteism and maintain an honours list which most would sell their principles to get on


I stopped reading when you said the Queen is related to George Bush as you are clearly talking bullcrap. So where's your evidence to back all this up rather than making it into a nice story?

As i said, thats the 50,000 who directly visit the palace, i.e on a tour. I would guess that the people who stand outside taking pictures or go on tours of london to visit the palace are substantially higher. Never mind that all those tourist will be paying money into our economy on their visit to see the palace. She has a hand in government as she has to sign any new acts/laws/etc that the government come up with. She can Veto, but she rarely does if the act is beneficial in some way, and of course the queen owns land, she owns all the forest in the UK, of course she is incredibly wealthy, shes the QUEEN. Look at fact rather than fairy tale.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ironsjack
 


Its you that needs to do your research considerably better than you appear to have done so far. Wasn't it you earlier who tried this line on another poster?

Ancestry.com Had you have researched the Bush connection you would have noted:

One Common ancestor is: Throckmorton Family - New England Stock.

to To

George Bush Elizabeth Bowes Lyon

Elizabeth 2nd Queen

By the way, when you do your research you will find also there are great Grandmother relationships for another family linking Hilary Clinton and Barbara Bush to the Queen.

What you fail to notice is that initially only wealthy people could have afforded the cost of sailing to the USA. Some of these settled in New England (stock) you have a number of past USA presidents linked to the British Royals, one could wonder if the USA was ever free of monarchic rule in reality.

Your point about the visitors busily snapping photos of Buck house - apart from the transport and hotel fees, taking photos helps our economy. Do you honestly think that really earns much money?

Do you realistically want to compare the 50,000 visitors to Buck House a year against the 3 million to just one French Palace. Wouldn't 3 million tourists in Versaille spend money also, not counting the other palaces and castles they also visit. Perhaps you think these visitors boost our economy by buying trinkets - trouble is, even the tac is usually made abroad so doesn't employ British Workers.

Yes I am English but I have to own I have visited a number of the French and German palaces and castles. Some of these places are sadly in a league far above Buck House - what little the public do see of it.





top topics
 
81
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join