FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


The Worlds Perception of the Jubilee





medesignz
How did the guys from outside the UK perceive the Diamond Jubilee celebrations of the past few days for Queen Elizabeth II?

Did you think it was great, or over the top?

Did you not see any coverage at all?

Did you even know what was going on? Razz
coolclay
I know it was going on, but don't have a tv, nor do I watch the news, so haven't seen any coverage except what I heard on NPR radio. I think it's pretty awesome and a super rare event and all, but could really care less. I think she's a great women and deserves the celebration, but I can think of better ways to spend the amount of money that was probably spent on everything!
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
I know it was going on, but don't have a tv, nor do I watch the news, so haven't seen any coverage except what I heard on NPR radio. I think it's pretty awesome and a super rare event and all, but could really care less. I think she's a great women and deserves the celebration, but I can think of better ways to spend the amount of money that was probably spent on everything!
I'm almost certain that it has to do with an investment in tourism more than the Queen. It already happened at the Derby, i.e.a large percentage of people who attended were tourists.
Hello_World
It was shown on TV and forgot. I would have watched it to see the concert, just like I enjoy watching the opening Ceremony but I'm not really interested in the rest of the Olympics...

Why not celebrate it? Any excuse for a party. Good luck to England.

There was a lot of talk at work about the Queen not laughing at Charles' joke but like I said, I missed it.
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
Why not celebrate it? Any excuse for a party.

It took about $7.5million out of the Canadian federal budget in a period when the government is cutting jobs and services to save money... Given the number of people who have lost their job, have had reduced work seasons and/or will have a much harder time gaining financial assistance when they're out of work in recent and upcoming months, it's really hard to justify a six-figure party.
deanhills
Sometimes one has to spend money to make money. Could be an investment in tourism or back drop to trade negotiations.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
Sometimes one has to spend money to make money. Could be an investment in tourism or back drop to trade negotiations.

I think the monarchy's tourism appeal is pretty minimal in most of the commonwealth. Without any doubt, it's a large money maker for England, both in terms of tourism dollars, but also in terms of the money earned by Parliament based on use of monarch owned lands (The monarchy receives less from the country than it offers based on some fairly old land use agreements)... but elsewhere the benefits are more based on national relations than consumer dollars... Commonwealth agreements do help smooth some trade processes, but they could certainly exist without parties to celebrate figurehead leaders.

(I'm not even going to get into federal spending for each and every national visit by even low level members of the royal family... it's painful to consider)
watersoul
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Sometimes one has to spend money to make money. Could be an investment in tourism or back drop to trade negotiations.

I think the monarchy's tourism appeal is pretty minimal in most of the commonwealth. Without any doubt, it's a large money maker for England, both in terms of tourism dollars, but also in terms of the money earned by Parliament based on use of monarch owned lands (The monarchy receives less from the country than it offers based on some fairly old land use agreements)... but elsewhere the benefits are more based on national relations than consumer dollars... Commonwealth agreements do help smooth some trade processes, but they could certainly exist without parties to celebrate figurehead leaders.

(I'm not even going to get into federal spending for each and every national visit by even low level members of the royal family... it's painful to consider)

I'm with you Ankhanu, such a waste of money while deep cuts are being made to all budgets here and in the rest of the commonwealth.
The tourism benefits of an unelected head of state are based on spurious research as well, they generally do not take into account the loss to the country of the Crown Estate's income - including (amongst many other things) half the shoreline and almost the entire seabed out to 12 nautical miles, which is currently being used to screw alternative energy companies by charging high rents for wind farms and the like.
The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the monarch, but it funds the monarchy, with any excess going into the treasury. This means that after all the costs of the undemocratic 'right of birth' leading family is paid for, then the rest goes back to the people - why don't 'the people' have ownership of the entire shore and seabed surrounding our islands, why don't 'the people' get 100% of the profits without an historically successful family taking their cut?

I object that I was born into an almost lingering 11th Century Norman country where my own son cannot aspire to the top job in the land - whatever argument a royalist can make can be countered easily, it's outdated, undemocratic, and shouldn't continue to be paid for by the peasant (minimum wage) workers, anywhere. Let them perhaps keep whatever they've got in the bank, plus a couple of fine palaces with a token changing of the guards/gun salute/parade for the tourists etc, but remove the constitutional position and the perks of the Crown Estate. The "Britain would be skint without the tourists the royals bring" argument is lame and unproven.

*Edit* Nothing personal against any individual member of the Windsor family though, they may well all be lovely people but I of course don't know them, just their media presentation, as most citizens of my country only know. But blind respect because their particular line stems from 1066 and their later conquest of Wales (Where I was born) with the killing of Llewellyn ap Gruffyth in 1282 is all a bit BS and irrelevant to me and modern society.

*Edit Edit* I also object to the 2 days wages of public servants who had the extended weekend I also enjoyed, but funded in part by my and other self employed/small business taxes.

...I had an absolutely brilliant long party weekend though, regardless of the particular circumstances which caused it to happen Wink
standready
I see the 'party' as a total waste of funds. The Commonwealth should follow the example set by of the United States of America some 236 years ago. Where would the royalty be without their 'skim' of taxes?
deanhills
standready wrote:
I see the 'party' as a total waste of funds. The Commonwealth should follow the example set by of the United States of America some 236 years ago. Where would the royalty be without their 'skim' of taxes?
Well then we need to completely shift the comparison to the exorbitantly high salaries that are paid to Hollywood stars and compare them with stars in the UK. Stars in Hollywood have riches in Billions. Why should someone like Gates be allowed to be so exorbitantly wealthy and why is wealth not more evenly distributed? If all of that makes 100% sense, then OK, let's get rid of everything else that does not look completely fair.
Hello_World
Quote:
It took about $7.5million out of the Canadian federal budget in a period when the government is cutting jobs and services to save money


The Canadian? But it was in England? What?
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
Stars in Hollywood have riches in Billions. Why should someone like Gates be allowed to be so exorbitantly wealthy and why is wealth not more evenly distributed? If all of that makes 100% sense, then OK, let's get rid of everything else that does not look completely fair.

Yawn, that lame old chestnut again.
In simple terms, stars are paid for their work, either directly by fans or media companies etc.
Bill Gates has made many millions from his products which people wanted to buy.

Anyone can set up a company or study hard with aspirations to reach the top of their field.
No-one outside the Windsor family can aspire to be part of it unless through marriage to another member of the family. The UK tax payer has no choice to opt out of funding this family, their status and riches being historically gained through warfare and forced rule over the 'common people'.

The example of stars or business leaders is quite wrong and a bit silly Rolling Eyes
Good luck to rich succesful people who've worked for it or even for the ones born into rich business families - my taxes do not directly support them and they do not claim to have constitutional status over me due to accident of birth.
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
It took about $7.5million out of the Canadian federal budget in a period when the government is cutting jobs and services to save money


The Canadian? But it was in England? What?


Most Commonwealth nations participated... didn't Australia?

*a moment of google later*

Yes you did, though it looks like you guys were more restrained in your spending than we were:
budget.gov.au wrote:

The Government will provide up to $5 million in 2012‑13 to the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust as part of Australia's commemoration of the diamond jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. The Prime Minister has written to the Premiers and Chief Ministers encouraging them collectively to match the Commonwealth's contribution.
standready
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Stars in Hollywood have riches in Billions. Why should someone like Gates be allowed to be so exorbitantly wealthy and why is wealth not more evenly distributed? If all of that makes 100% sense, then OK, let's get rid of everything else that does not look completely fair.

Yawn, that lame old chestnut again.
In simple terms, stars are paid for their work, either directly by fans or media companies etc.
Bill Gates has made many millions from his products which people wanted to buy.

Anyone can set up a company or study hard with aspirations to reach the top of their field.
No-one outside the Windsor family can aspire to be part of it unless through marriage to another member of the family. The UK tax payer has no choice to opt out of funding this family, their status and riches being historically gained through warfare and forced rule over the 'common people'.

The example of stars or business leaders is quite wrong and a bit silly Rolling Eyes
Good luck to rich succesful people who've worked for it or even for the ones born into rich business families - my taxes do not directly support them and they do not claim to have constitutional status over me due to accident of birth.

Well stated, watersoul. I wonder if the royals could now defend themselves if the people now revolted?
Hello_World
Quote:
Most Commonwealth nations participated... didn't Australia?


Hmmm... I'm surprised that wasn't accompanied by calls for republic again. I think we had a boat or something.

Yeah I think it is a party for England to pay for, don't see why the rest of us Commonwealth should have chipped in.
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
Quote:
Most Commonwealth nations participated... didn't Australia?


Hmmm... I'm surprised that wasn't accompanied by calls for republic again. I think we had a boat or something.

Yeah I think it is a party for England to pay for, don't see why the rest of us Commonwealth should have chipped in.

That's what it is to be part of the Commonwealth; we recognize the Windsors as our figurehead sovereigns. As such, we participate in celebrating their reign and recognizing their rule... that means we throw parties and spend a lot of money when they come to visit.

There are benefits to the Commonwealth, including recognizing a shared heritage, but, it's not something that we NEED, really... there are other ways to maintain positive international relations, without the use of figurehead rulers.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
There are benefits to the Commonwealth, including recognizing a shared heritage, but, it's not something that we NEED, really... there are other ways to maintain positive international relations, without the use of figurehead rulers.
Here I agree with you. Can't understand that Canada is still a Monarchy after all of this time.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
There are benefits to the Commonwealth, including recognizing a shared heritage, but, it's not something that we NEED, really... there are other ways to maintain positive international relations, without the use of figurehead rulers.
Here I agree with you. Can't understand that Canada is still a Monarchy after all of this time.

There was a bit of "debate" on the subject on CBC radio last week... I found it interesting that the republic supporters tended to have an actual reason to abandon the monarchy, while the monarchists pretty much had "it's tradition" and "it's fun to watch the royal family" for their entire argument. While having the monarchy recognized, generally, doesn't bother me at all (as in most ways it simply does not affect how life is lived), I really do find "it's tradition" and "it's fun!" to be rather poor reasons to hold onto something if it's become outmoded Razz

What does bother me is the millions spent on things like the Jubilee, or the further millions spent on renovating the royal suites in Ottawa every couple years, and the further millions spent during each and every royal visit (and there have already been a couple this year!)... they're bleeding our troubled federal budget dry; all the while Canada's public service and essential services are being axed left right an center.
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
What does bother me is the millions spent on things like the Jubilee, or the further millions spent on renovating the royal suites in Ottawa every couple years, and the further millions spent during each and every royal visit (and there have already been a couple this year!)... they're bleeding our troubled federal budget dry; all the while Canada's public service and essential services are being axed left right an center.
That I agree with too. For me it is entirely different for the Brits to have their Jubilee than for Canadians to act like they are still in monarchy diapers. Lots of pomp and ceremony that don't make sense in Canada. And does cost money as you indicated.
watersoul
deanhills wrote:
For me it is entirely different for the Brits to have their Jubilee than for Canadians to act like they are still in monarchy diapers. Lots of pomp and ceremony that don't make sense in Canada. And does cost money as you indicated.

Urm, why on earth do you think a celebration party for an unelected head of state is any more acceptable for the UK than the former colonies?
The former British empire was effectively built on invasions and stealing treasure wherever it was found, the current royal family stems from the French invasion of Britain in 1066 (As non-British as the Saxe-Coburg Gotha name of the family before the anglicised official name change to Windsor in the early 1900's), so how can anyone say that commonwealth countries should look toward greater democracy yet support the same stupid archaic constitutional system for the UK Rolling Eyes

The UK monarch is the head of state of quite a surprising number of commonwealth countries - it is a legislative situation that can be changed and is not simply 'right' because the laws of various countries say so. The sooner the Australians take the lead again and vote to ditch this silly tradition, the sooner the growing republican movement here will win the obvious democratic argument and do the same as the more forward thinking Irish people did in 1949.
Hello_World
Quote:
Urm, why on earth do you think a celebration party for an unelected head of state is any more acceptable for the UK than the former colonies?


As it is a benevolent monarchy, I see that as a question for England.

I have been a republican most of my life. Only recently I have started to question whether actually it might be better to remain in the Commonwealth for the time being.

In many ways it works well for Australia. She never interferes and if she should... really she couldn't. We would need to make real changes in our political system to become a republic, but not necessarily ones that would be of benefit.

And unfortunately Australians have a tendency to copy the behaviours of other countries, so I think it is good to keep this link rather than become any more like US than we already are. If we are going to copy someone, I'd prefer it was a European country. I seem to be in the minority, so I like that link.

Sometimes people from other countries seem to think being a Commonwealth country is a sign of Australia's immaturity, so that is unfortunate, but it only shows their lack of understanding of my country.

But I still don't think we Commonwealth countries should have to chip in, but, oh well. That seems to be the price we need to pay to keep a useful figurehead.

But... watersoul... reality sets in... Australia is likely to become a republic when the Queen dies. So don't hold your breath.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
For me it is entirely different for the Brits to have their Jubilee than for Canadians to act like they are still in monarchy diapers. Lots of pomp and ceremony that don't make sense in Canada. And does cost money as you indicated.

Urm, why on earth do you think a celebration party for an unelected head of state is any more acceptable for the UK than the former colonies?
Because Canada has not been a colony of the UK for ages. It looks perfectly silly to me for a large country like Canada to cater for symbols that belongs to an Empire that has basically expired a number of decades ago.
watersoul
Hello_World wrote:
But... watersoul... reality sets in... Australia is likely to become a republic when the Queen dies. So don't hold your breath.
I hope it comes sooner than that, for both of our countries... but I certainly do not look forward to a speedy end to her life to make it happen, she's a human being just as I am so I hope her life is long lived and happy Smile

deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
For me it is entirely different for the Brits to have their Jubilee than for Canadians to act like they are still in monarchy diapers. Lots of pomp and ceremony that don't make sense in Canada. And does cost money as you indicated.

Urm, why on earth do you think a celebration party for an unelected head of state is any more acceptable for the UK than the former colonies?
Because Canada has not been a colony of the UK for ages. It looks perfectly silly to me for a large country like Canada to cater for symbols that belongs to an Empire that has basically expired a number of decades ago.
Why so surprised? I'm sure geography lessons at school would have discussed the difference of republics to a constitutional monarchy. Canada is not a republic, sharing the UK Monarch as head of state with 15 other countries and over 137 million people. The whole accident of birth thing is equally indefensible and silly for all the countries concerned - I just struggle to understand why you appear to defend the monarchy system to govern me, yet think it's silly for the former colonies who have pretty much the same legal/constitutional framework previously 'agreed' with their people.
Ankhanu
Hello_World wrote:
But I still don't think we Commonwealth countries should have to chip in, but, oh well. That seems to be the price we need to pay to keep a useful figurehead.

We're not really "chipping in"... we're holding our own, related celebrations. We're not paying into the celebration in England, we're paying for celebrations in our nations. I just don't think it's a wise use of funds Razz
watersoul
...of course it's not, it's a ridiculous waste of money during difficult economic times Razz
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
Hello_World wrote:
But... watersoul... reality sets in... Australia is likely to become a republic when the Queen dies. So don't hold your breath.
I hope it comes sooner than that, for both of our countries... but I certainly do not look forward to a speedy end to her life to make it happen, she's a human being just as I am so I hope her life is long lived and happy Smile

deanhills wrote:
watersoul wrote:
deanhills wrote:
For me it is entirely different for the Brits to have their Jubilee than for Canadians to act like they are still in monarchy diapers. Lots of pomp and ceremony that don't make sense in Canada. And does cost money as you indicated.

Urm, why on earth do you think a celebration party for an unelected head of state is any more acceptable for the UK than the former colonies?
Because Canada has not been a colony of the UK for ages. It looks perfectly silly to me for a large country like Canada to cater for symbols that belongs to an Empire that has basically expired a number of decades ago.
Why so surprised? I'm sure geography lessons at school would have discussed the difference of republics to a constitutional monarchy. Canada is not a republic, sharing the UK Monarch as head of state with 15 other countries and over 137 million people. The whole accident of birth thing is equally indefensible and silly for all the countries concerned - I just struggle to understand why you appear to defend the monarchy system to govern me, yet think it's silly for the former colonies who have pretty much the same legal/constitutional framework previously 'agreed' with their people.

I'm a citizen of Canada, had to study some basic tests in order to become a citizen, so probably have to know at least the basics. Not that I really need to defend my knowledge to you. I'm not the only citizen in Canada who is of the opinion that the constitutional monarchy is outdated in Canada.

I couldn't care any less what system of Government you have or don't have or want to have. My comment (on someone else's post) was that it could be that the UK was using the Jubilee celebrations as an investment in tourism. Nowhere did I say that that justifies what system of Government you have.
coolclay
Wow, a very educational thread for a US citizen who has often wondered how the commonwealth countries relate to the UK. Ever since I was a little kid I was curious as to how England still had a Queen and why Canada's coins had her on it!

So thanks to all for clearing things up a bit!

It's hard to believe that in this day and age that there is still "crown estate" and that any money made off it is not public money. In the US we have plenty of federal and state property but any income generated goes into the general fund I believe, and for the most part the land is open to the public for recreation.
kaysch
coolclay wrote:
Wow, a very educational thread for a US citizen who has often wondered how the commonwealth countries relate to the UK. Ever since I was a little kid I was curious as to how England still had a Queen and why Canada's coins had her on it!

So thanks to all for clearing things up a bit!

It's hard to believe that in this day and age that there is still "crown estate" and that any money made off it is not public money. In the US we have plenty of federal and state property but any income generated goes into the general fund I believe, and for the most part the land is open to the public for recreation.


I agree, interesting debate. But to me as an outsider (I'm from Germany) the Commonwealth makes sense. Quite a lot of countries share a similar history as being former English colonies, so why shouldn't they have a platform to discuss issues? I don't think the goal of any Commonwealth state can be to keep the tradition alive - except for England of course...

The English monarchy has become harmless compared to past centuries, and the Queen seems to be a popular advisor with all British Prime Ministers - so she earns her money just like Hollywood stars or Bill Gates do. Not sure whether her offspring will be able to fill in the gap once is she is no more, therefore I have my doubts, too, whether the English monarchy will survive in its present form. But we will see about that. The metric system has not arrived completely yet in Britain, and instead of having 1 national football team the British choose to have 4 even if it makes them lose against Germans, so some things just take a bit longer on that island. Wink

For the time being it's a celebrated institution, and the glamour seems still somehow attractive in Australia, Canada and the other Commonwealth states...
medesignz
I started this thread because i wanted to see all your street party pics... BUT LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE...

Haha, good work everyone Smile
chasbeen
medesignz
I just come back from a ten year stay in North America and I really liked it.
The Queen climbed into a tiny tiny boat to get on to a big boat in the Thames, then we saw her frequently with her whole family for 3 days
It was good to see her get on stage on the very last event, the open air concert in the Mall
I believe that she genuinely cares about people and you have to live and have been born here to know that.
It also brought a lot of people together over here and I did not see anything like that while I lived in North America.
We did the party hats queen face even if it was raining mostly...
medesignz
Thanks Chasbeen.

Great to hear that the spirit is always british, no matter if you go spend some time in North America, eh! Wink
deanhills
Would be interesting to see how the Jubilee and Olympics will go together. Probably a great opportunity for tourism.
medesignz
deanhills wrote:
Would be interesting to see how the Jubilee and Olympics will go together. Probably a great opportunity for tourism.
I think thats what we're all hoping for Very Happy
psychorollercoaster
I have pretty much seen most of the coverage and would say seen few things first hand...n almost feel this has been a media blitz or a PR exercise to encourage tourism.....moreover thts the only reason y we still have monarchy persisting s yet

well these are my 2 cents
medesignz
psychorollercoaster wrote:
I have pretty much seen most of the coverage and would say seen few things first hand...n almost feel this has been a media blitz or a PR exercise to encourage tourism.....moreover thts the only reason y we still have monarchy persisting s yet

well these are my 2 cents


And many would agree with you Very Happy
Related topics
I have dreams
Alternate Realities
Job that u wouldn't mind doing for the rest of your life
Bangalore,India Art of Living celebrates silver jubilee
Velikovsky: Worlds In Collision
Worlds worst hacker
Satre, Russel, Ayer Philosophy questions
A question for all you monotheists.
Worlds most annoying website
Two Worlds first Impressions
The God Dellusion - Richard Dawkins
Vista's biggest problem is perception
Hilltop Hoods @ Jubilee Pavilion
Worlds smallest horse
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.