No bread? It's okay, we can still have circuses

[aronnax]

Don't ask me. You brought up the fact that Lee Kuan Yew is not King as though it was relevant, and kingship is a political position and politics is about power.

Nice extrapolation, but not what I meant.
Everyone knows that what is acceptable for a King to have is unacceptable for a politicians (like a Royal Wedding, Opening Parliament, Jubilees). I will admit that monarchy is unfair in this aspect but for it's pros, it is something I can let slide.
You can't devote a yacht to a politician. A President maybe, but certainly not a politician like LKY. You wouldn't give LKY a Jubilee for his 41 years as PM. A King, by its position (no matter how unfair) has more entitlement to a yacht.

But she does fine without one. I mean, the whole point, according to you, is that having the monarchy is a net benefit for the UK. If the Queen really does need a yacht to perform her duties, then that would reduce the net benefit of the monarchy.

The yacht improves her ability to do so. She's just not handicapped by it's absence. I don't need a smartphone to do my job, but a smartphone does improve my ability to do so.

Uh... Huh?

You asked what use would the President of Singapore have with a yacht. I say it can be used to warm ties with foreign countries like Nixon did with Mao. Whenever a head-of-state visits another country, there is always plenty of fanfare and parades. A yacht adds to it.

 

[aelf]

Nice extrapolation, but not what I meant.
Everyone knows that what is acceptable for a King to have is unacceptable for a politicians (like a Royal Wedding, Opening Parliament, Jubilees). I will admit that monarchy is unfair in this aspect but for it's pros, it is something I can let slide.
You can't devote a yacht to a politician. A President maybe, but certainly not a politician like LKY. You wouldn't give LKY a Jubilee for his 41 years as PM. A King, by its position (no matter how unfair) has more entitlement to a yacht.

And why is that?

The yacht improves her ability to do so. She's just not handicapped by it's absence. I don't need a smartphone to do my job, but a smartphone does improve my ability to do so.

So what's your cost/benefit analysis for the yacht?

You asked what use would the President of Singapore have with a yacht. I say it can be used to warm ties with foreign countries like Nixon did with Mao. Whenever a head-of-state visits another country, there is always plenty of fanfare and parades. A yacht adds to it.

I don't see how the yacht is related to Nixon's visit to China. Was a yacht involved? I don't think so. How much fanfare does Singapore's president need anyway? Small countries don't usually try to show off because that really isn't the point.

 

[aronnax]

And why is that?

It's a monarchy. It's meant to be privileged. People expect pom and circumstance. Trumpets, confetti, red carpets and grand entrances.

So what's your cost/benefit analysis for the yacht?

Precisely because the yacht adds to the whole festive, grand and impressive entrance of the monarch and the state that it is a benefit.
Do you know the whole song and dance when a diplomat visits the Queen for a dinner party? They get pulled through a carriage through a long Windsor Castle ground, walk into the armoury hall and be awed the decorations, the musicians, the splash and pomp, shining cutlery and silver plates where amid the majesty of the atmosphere, they meet the Queen, decked out in her tiara and dress, a sense of humbling and awe. And you know what? Diplomats and other guest love it. Suddenly, they are deep in the trappings of Britain. The whole overwhelming impression leaves them stun at the riches of the UK and the Queen and it sticks to them. Britain has greeted them. Call it a kind of soft power.
This is true of any nation. Britain is just better at it.
A yacht is basically the aquatic version of it. To me, feeding the expense of maintaining a yacht seems like good money spent. If Britain deems that it has the money, it is not money wasted.

I don't see how the yacht is related to Nixon's visit to China. Was a yacht involved? I don't think so. How much fanfare does Singapore's president need anyway? Small countries don't usually try to show off because that really isn't the point.

A yacht wasn't involved. But China pulled out all the stops to impress her American visitors. More fanfare, more pomp, just not in a shape of a boat.
Singapore is only small in geographic size. In many other sectors of international relations, she throws her weight.
If Singapore wanted to deck Tony Tan in plomp and send him off to improve relations with neighbouring countries, she can.

 

[aelf]

It's a monarchy. It's meant to be privileged. People expect pom and circumstance. Trumpets, confetti, red carpets and grand entrances.

Did you miss the Royal Wedding? There was pomp and circumstance. And it's not like other heads of state are not entitled to pomp and circumstance. I still don't see why a yacht is necessary or even important.

Precisely because the yacht adds to the whole festive, grand and impressive entrance of the monarch and the state that it is a benefit.
Do you know the whole song and dance when a diplomat visits the Queen for a dinner party? They get pulled through a carriage through a long Windsor Castle ground, walk into the armoury hall and be awed the decorations, the musicians, the splash and pomp, shining cutlery and silver plates where amid the majesty of the atmosphere, they meet the Queen, decked out in her tiara and dress, a sense of humbling and awe. And you know what? Diplomats and other guest love it. Suddenly, they are deep in the trappings of Britain. The whole overwhelming impression leaves them stun at the riches of the UK and the Queen and it sticks to them. Britain has greeted them. Call it a kind of soft power.
This is true of any nation. Britain is just better at it.
A yacht is basically the aquatic version of it. To me, feeding the expense of maintaining a yacht seems like good money spent.

So, basically, you are not able to quantify the benefits in any way?

Your reasoning can be used to justify all kinds of ridiculous spending, so it suffices to say that your reasoning is ridiculous.

If Britain deems that it has the money, it is not money wasted.

Who is "Britain"?

A yacht wasn't involved. But China pulled out all the stops to impress her American visitors. More fanfare, more pomp, just not in a shape of a boat.

So the UK should aspire to be like Mao-era China in its ability to do whatever it takes to impress dignitaries? I'm sure the electorate would agree!

I don't think you know much if anything about the British social and political situation.

Singapore is only small in geographic size. In many other sectors of international relations, she throws her weight.
If Singapore wanted to deck Tony Tan in plomp and send him off to improve relations with neighbouring countries, she can.

But it doesn't, ergo Singapore deems that it would be money wasted

You clearly have no serious argument to offer, just dreamy musings about the prestige of a monarchy. Have you considered living in Brunei? I hear it has a monarchy with pomp and glitter that surpasses the British monarchy.

 

[Arakhor]

The Royal Family attracts millions of tourists a year and I'd happily pay 62p a month for the monarchy if they continue to carry on the way the Queen does. She is however the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Queen Anne was the last Queen of England.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

A new yacht for the Queen leads to two Singaporeans bickering over a yacht for Li Guangyao.
I love this forum

 

[Traitorfish]

It's really funny what non-Brits want to do with the British monarchy when at least 70% of Brits actually like spending their 62p for the Monarchy. It's silly to think that there is no popular mandate behind backing the Monarchy. If there wasn't, the monarchy would have been abolished a long time ago.

It was. Now, call me a conservative if you will...

The Royal Family attracts millions of tourists a year and I'd happily pay 62p a month for the monarchy if they continue to carry on the way the Queen does.

At what point, I wonder, does the money stop being enough to have us crawling and grovelling and begging in front of an unelected blueblood?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Makes eye motions towards Canada.

I'm a monarchist and even I don't support giving the Queen a new yacht. After all, she doesn't have a lot of years left to use one, and hopefully Charles and William realize how unnecessary such a thing is.

A real and lasting legacy would be something to do with education. And keep the damn bibles out of the schools (except for having a copy in the library for reference material). Pay the teachers a decent wage. Fix the infrastructure that needs fixing. Top up any outdated libraries with newer reference materials.

 

[Arakhor]

I don't know about you, but I've never crawled, grovelled or begged to a member of the Royal Family.

 

[Traitorfish]

It was a metaphor...?

 

[Quackers]

I'm a monarchist and even I don't support giving the Queen a new yacht. After all, she doesn't have a lot of years left to use one, and hopefully Charles and William realize how unnecessary such a thing is.

A real and lasting legacy would be something to do with education. And keep the damn bibles out of the schools (except for having a copy in the library for reference material). Pay the teachers a decent wage. Fix the infrastructure that needs fixing. Top up any outdated libraries with newer reference materials.

Why bother? I went to a COE school, there are plenty of Catholic, Anglican, Jewish schools all over the country and Britain isn't known for it's religious fanaticism. I actually enjoyed singing hymns every day.

I don't know about you, but I've never crawled, grovelled or begged to a member of the Royal Family.

Don't say that! Traitorfish may start believing we live in the modern era and not some horrendous dystopia where we live in Victorian workhouse conditions and grovel to our landed classes!

 

[Arakhor]

It was a metaphor...?

Well, given that any serious answer would be entirely speculatory, I chose to take it literally.

Valka, as the UK actually has an established state faith, I'm fine for them to be used in religious instruction or in school assemblies and the like. When it infects the curriculum or the legislation, then I agree with you entirely.

 

[Traitorfish]

Don't say that! Traitorfish may start believing we live in the modern era and not some horrendous dystopia where we live in Victorian workhouse conditions and grovel to our landed classes!

I may even come up with some made notion that Britain doesn't own the world any more, and then where would I be?

 

[Arakhor]

In a state very similar to some Americans!

 

[Lone Wolf]

The British can keep the monarchy all they want, it's cute. However, they need to drastically cut down on the expenses. Provide Lizzie with a nice little comfortable two-storey house, pizzas for lunch and tea for dinner, but there's no need to have anything more (the Royal Jewels and stuff count as the property of the government as a whole, rather then of the Queen).

 

[aelf]

The Royal Family attracts millions of tourists a year and I'd happily pay 62p a month for the monarchy if they continue to carry on the way the Queen does. She is however the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Queen Anne was the last Queen of England.

So how many more tourists would the royal yacht attract a year?

A new yacht for the Queen leads to two Singaporeans bickering over a yacht for Li Guangyao.

Nobody actually spells his name out that way in English.

 

[classical_hero]

A new yacht for the Queen leads to two Singaporeans bickering over a yacht for Li Guangyao.
I love this forum

I keep forgetting that aelf is not actually British Left. AS such I don't understand why he would be worrying about that, since it does not affect him all that much.

 

[Quackers]

He is a wannabee Brit, I don't blame him

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I keep forgetting that aelf is not actually British Left. AS such I don't understand why he would be worrying about that, since it does not affect him all that much.

I've never seen you discuss Australia on here, now that I think about it...

 

[aelf]

I keep forgetting that aelf is not actually British Left. AS such I don't understand why he would be worrying about that, since it does not affect him all that much.

He is a wannabee Brit, I don't blame him

I actually live in Britain? And here I thought the Tories want more social integration! How foolish of me.