Erm, sorry?

In an age when we no longer like billionaires, the queen’s net worth is £20bn.

The Guardian and numbers, eh? The Crown might be worth that, the Queen ain’t.

29 thoughts on “Erm, sorry?”

  1. “Only saddos like me, the sort of people who tell small children Santa isn’t real, moan about the monarchy as well as the Lords now.”

    Amazing! The first bit of accurate self-reflection I’ve seen in the ‘Guardian’…

  2. Surely anyone with firing synapses would feel that no advanced society could be ruled by people of no discernible talent, intelligence or life experience?

    That’s Labour fucked then.

  3. I think they’re trying to get the ground prepared for Brenda’s death, when they can try and get support for abolition of the monarchy.

    Given Andy’s misbehaviour, they might succeed this time.

    I’m with them on the Lords though.

  4. ” …no advanced society could be ruled by people of no discernible talent, intelligence or life experience?The idea that an accident of birth determines the head of state and church – and the public then has to fund this genetic lottery? Madness.”

    Japan, The Netherlands, Norway and Denmark seem to be doing ok.

  5. I’m in favour, but I really don’t care that much.

    The monarchy is clearly not the monarchy it once was. Back when I was a kid, this all would have been covered up. A generation before, they had real power.

    There’s a load of things that look like the queen has power, but they’re all formalities. She’s not going to tell the person who wins the election to piss off, and no, he can’t be prime minister.

    The problem with most of the monarchy is that firstly, most of them actually aren’t very bright, and secondly, they don’t go through the sort of bellend behaviour filter that most people go through. Most people get the snot kicked out of them, laughed at, shunned, fired, for being a bellend. From the age of about 13-30, you learn how not to be a bellend. You observe things about other people you know, like that even the perception of bad behaviour can make the company look bad.

    These people’s job is turning up at public events, maybe doing a speech, shaking some hands and being a good face for the nation. That’s it. And they’re rubbish at it. Prince Andrew had been doing this for 30 years at the time he decided to stay over with a convicted sex offender. That’s pretty basic PR stuff, isn’t it? Her Majesty and William seem to know what to do, but Charles, Andrew and Harry are just crap at their one job.

  6. “The problem with most of the monarchy is that firstly, most of them actually aren’t very bright, and secondly, they don’t go through the sort of bellend behaviour filter that most people go through. Most people get the snot kicked out of them, laughed at, shunned, fired, for being a bellend. From the age of about 13-30, you learn how not to be a bellend. You observe things about other people you know, like that even the perception of bad behaviour can make the company look bad.”

    And the ‘democratic’ politicians are any better?

  7. i have to agree with BoM. You don’t want the monarchy to be so wildly popular that people start expecting them to actually rule over them. Royals have a very specific job to do. Tailored (trimmed) over the centuries to a fine degree specifically to make it very difficult to fuck it up. All you have to exist, turn up, wave and have a few kids. Shouldn’t be too hard, a 90 year old great grandmum could do it.

  8. BoM4 – Dunno.

    I don’t have a yugely great opinion of the Firm (Her Maj excepted, God save her), but what Jim said.

    Seems to me that the elites in general have rotted. 100-odd years ago, wealthy robber barons were generally patriotic and did philanthropy for the less lucky members of their own society: libraries, orphanages, that sort of thing.

    Now, nearly every billionaire does antisocial stuff, because they hate the white working and middle classes, and want to dissolve the nation states that nurtured and protect them. Their definition of “charity” is all about sponsoring “refugees”, promoting sexual deviancy, funding abortions or whatever.

    We could give Prince Charles his P45, but we’d probably get a Peter Mandelson in his place.

    So, remember Bane’s plan in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES? Not that bad a shout, to be fair. Now is not the time for fear, that comes later.

  9. Jim,

    “And the ‘democratic’ politicians are any better?”

    Well, we’re not really comparing them with politicians. They aren’t doing a politicians job. They’re doing something closer to a celebrity job, and the Beckhams and the Kardashians are far more professional at this. And that’s the result of a free market for celebrity tosh.

  10. Steve,

    “Seems to me that the elites in general have rotted. 100-odd years ago, wealthy robber barons were generally patriotic and did philanthropy for the less lucky members of their own society: libraries, orphanages, that sort of thing.”

    Mostly because taxes were so low and there wasn’t a welfare state.

    The state takes over 40% of a rich man’s income to spend on libraries, orphanages and the poor in general. Some banker makes £50m in a good year, the state takes £20m of that. Do you think that’s not enough?

  11. BoM4 – I’d be happier if they just didn’t spend money on things that are inimical to the survival of Western civilisation.

  12. …they don’t go through the sort of bellend behaviour filter that most people go through. Most people get the snot kicked out of them, laughed at, shunned, fired, for being a bellend. From the age of about 13-30, you learn how not to be a bellend. You observe things about other people you know, like that even the perception of bad behaviour can make the company look bad.

    Not sure if this is restricted to the royals. Increasingly, I see the sort of behaviour one might expect of kids in their teens & early twenties, who are going through that learning process, being perpetuated by those in their 30s,40s or older. Maybe they didn’t pass through the bellend behaviour filter or it doesn’t operate as it used to. They just seem f*****g naive.
    The shit people get themselves into on social media. Why twat something on Twatter when you’re readily identifiable & the something’s the potential to cost you your career?

  13. “Japan, The Netherlands, Norway and Denmark seem to be doing ok.”

    Sweden, Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, … Shall we add Liechtenstein?

    In the East, do Thailand and Malaysia do much worse than, say, Burma and Indonesia?

    Canada, Australia, NZ, …

    We used to have a children’s book that had been translated from Danish shortly after the war. The author went out of her way to say that monarchies are superior to republics. I can’t remember what ingenuity was devoted to working this remark into a children’s tale.

  14. Steve,

    It’s Milton’s 4 ways to spend money. Philanthropy is, someone spending their own money on someone else. They might not be that careful about where it ends up, but they care a bit. If they think a charity or cause is taking the piss, they’ll put money elsewhere.

  15. I’m not sure when was the mythical time that “we” particularly liked billionaires, at least simply for being billionaires.
    For the most part, people have always judged billionaires (or adjusted for inflation multi-millionaires) on their perceived character – what they did to make their money, how they spent it, the extent of their philanthropy, how they treated their workers etc.
    Not for the simple fact of them having vast wealth.

  16. “Japan, The Netherlands, Norway and Denmark seem to be doing ok.”

    And others.. Those monarchies all have one single thing in common: They keep the Real Power™ out of the grubby paws of the politicians, with potential abuse by the monarch ( and family) curbed by involved self-interest.
    It’s a neat closed system.

    Of course, most politicians hate this, since it is not *they* who have that Real Power™, which is an affront to themseerrmm.. humanity. Yes, imagine they’d want that power for themselves.. the thought!!

  17. Hereditary monarchs have no incentive to rob the state blind during their term in office like elected (or “elected”) presidents.

  18. I always felt that the British system of implied power with the Monarch having the final say on matters a nice fudge.

    Her Maj always had the option of exercising real power as long as she didn’t take the piss.

    However as recent events have shown, the Royal House has clearly been disinclined to exert any influence during some of the most important political events in my lifetime, which directly concern the Sovereignty of the Nation and the Royal Prerogative.

    If thats the case, and with the Royal offspring being less than inspiring, maybe it’s time to move to a Republic?

    Lol, maybe Prince Andrew should go on “I’m A Celebrity”…

  19. In prior centuries to replace a monarch you had to chop the head off the existing one and have a large enough army backing the new one. Sometimes you just needed the army. The Windsors lucked into being the family line that was in power when this older check on the monarchy effectively stopped. Now they are the monarch line in perpetuity until the UK dies or the institution ends. Most of them are already showing that they just aren’t that good at doing the monarch job.

    If making a change was as simple as flicking a switch then I would support the removal of the monarchy. But as an issue it isn’t one I care about any more than that. If it takes any more effort than flicking a switch then I can’t be bothered with it.

    With regards to setting a constitution for the UK to form a republic I shudder at what garbage the current politicians and civil servants would put in it. “We the [non-gender specific] people of the [country name redacted to avoid offence] want free unlimited healthcare for all forever”. And that would be the more sane part of it…

  20. ” … people of no discernible … intelligence …. this genetic lottery?
    My understanding is that the data suggest that intelligence is indeed a genetic lottery, but that this was heresy in Guardian land. Are they now facing facts?

    @ Rowdy ‘abolition’.
    I’ve no doubt Comrades Corbyn and McDonnell in private want to abolish the monarchy but I think they’re savvy enough to tread carefully. Don’t want to frighten the horses too early. Probably will try to secure power irreversibly by lowering the voting age/promising a pony, and then it’s forward to the radiant future.

  21. Mal,

    “In prior centuries to replace a monarch you had to chop the head off the existing one and have a large enough army backing the new one. Sometimes you just needed the army. The Windsors lucked into being the family line that was in power when this older check on the monarchy effectively stopped. Now they are the monarch line in perpetuity until the UK dies or the institution ends. Most of them are already showing that they just aren’t that good at doing the monarch job.”

    Yeah. They exist because of inertia. If they were still absolute monarchs, people would be fighting them to get the power, money, women etc. Their power is rather limited and what they mostly provide is a nationalised version of the Beckhams (instead of paying via crap perfume and advertising, it comes out of taxes).

    I’m a republican, but it’s way down my priority list, along with things like scrapping useless roads signs in Welsh and banning restaurants from serving food on anything but plates and bowls.

  22. “Well, we’re not really comparing them with politicians. They aren’t doing a politicians job. ”

    Well irregardless of whether thats true, they’ll be replaced by politicians if we abolished the monarchy. So the chances of getting anyone cleverer, more morally upright and more filtered by real life are pretty slim, unless we implemented my policy of no-one being allowed to be a politician until the age of 50, by which time the narcissists and borderline psychopaths might have had the sh*t kicked out of them by 30 years of adult life.

  23. Republicanism is one of those kneejerk positions that sounds logical. However the track record of constitutional monarchies is far better than republics at avoiding civil strife / civil war. Just look around the world at the evidence before us, it’s like tax rates or most other subjects discussed here, therr is plenty of evidence of constitutional monarchies giving a good quality of life. .So if you want your offspring to live in the type of society least likely to go to war internally then Britain, japan, most of the skandi countries, Oz, canada new zealand etc.etc. It’s not a flippin coincidence that these are generally the nicer parts of the world to live in.

  24. Now Turnbull’s no longer PM, he and his mates are ranting about Oz being a republic again.

    The trouble with this is what do they actually want to do. I always remember the referendum on giving the Commonwealth rather than the states the power to make special laws for aboriginals. This ended up with the High Court maintaining that the abos owned the whole of Oz. Had this proposition been put to the voters, it would have had a stake driven through it’s heart.

    Or when I read about a nice simple solution to the ‘problem’ of climate change – just dump aerosols in the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. The screamers proclaim that this must never occur because of ‘moral hazard’ – in other words, it’d work, so no one’d be prepared to put with the rest of the crap they want to cram down our throats.

    When I think about the shit they’d want to dump on us, using getting rid of Liz as an excuse, I tremble. My ‘no’ vote hasn’t changed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *