The Queen's Jubilee

[ahinton]

Well of course the Monarchy is a brand. I should have thought that was self-evident.

I didn't say that it wasn't - at least to some of us - but for how long do you suppose this to have been the case? Would it have been so regarded, for example, during the latter years of the reign of George III, or the final decade of that of Queen Victoria or the brief incumbency of Edward VIII? Come to that, to what extent do you imagine Queen Elizabeth II herself actually sees it and/or approves of it as such (in the purely commercial sense of that term, that is)?

A few excerpts from the ar[t]icle:-

On top of that, the monarchy is reckoned to be worth an additional £26.4 billion because of the economic benefits it brings to the UK, through the boost to tourism and other industries.

Er, hang on a minute - how is that the Monarchy is (reckoned to be - and by whom, one wonders?) assessed as being "worth" (i.e. in tangible asset values) that additional sum if the financial benefit from the perceived "boost to tourism and other industries" is enjoyed not by the Monarchy but by those industries?

“The Monarchy is a powerful endorsement for individual and company brands and for the nation brand. We believe that it is making a significant contribution to the task of driving Britain out of recession.”

On what grounds - and where's the incontrovertible proof in the accounts of the firm? How is it so? How does that actually work in practice? And if it is indeed making such a contribution, it's not succeeding in "the task of driving Britain out of recession" yet, is it?!

“Monarchy is more than a historical throwback to the days of the British Empire but a much-needed impetus for economic growth in the United Kingdom.”

But, again, how will it actually be so in practice? and, since those days of Empire ae now very far off, why is Britain still in such harash economic times and why did these get so much worse in the 1970s and again in recent years in particular?

The consultancy even puts a value on the system that allows about 800 companies, including the likes of Fortnum & Mason, John Lewis and Weetabix, to use Royal Warrants. The report estimates that Royal warrants are worth £4  billion to the companies that get the “The Firm’s” seal of approval.

Again, where is the evidence that proves this beyond all possible doubt? How is this figure arrived at an on what basis? - and is it gross or net after corporation tax? (which, incidentally, is not something that affects "the firm" at all, thereby enabling it to be considearbly more profitable than would otherwise be the case). Never knowingly underwarranted, an' all...

“[The Monarchy] is one of the most valuable of all British brands. Whatever one thinks about the constitutional principle, there seems little doubt that the institution of monarchy adds significant annual earnings and long-term economic value to the UK.”

Proof, please?

I have no idea why you think that sort of thing "plays into the hands of republicans". Are you sure you were reading the same article??

No, but then you wouldn't, would you? As someone recently said about rocket science, "it's not brain surgery, is it?!". The answer is in the sheer lack of evidential proof in the article which is instead a series of bald (rather than bold) statements that are presented as though their author does not even need to consider the question of whether proof of any of them is required. I'm not even suggesting that any or all of these statements are necessarily inaccurate - just that no information is provided to back them up; however, this is perhaps hardly surprising, since it is not likely that the author was given carte blanche to examine "the firm'"s accounts in order to find that evidential proof! It plays into the hands of Republicans that believe the statements in the article to the extent that, in the absence of any attempt to provide such proof, such vast untaxed sums in income and asset values would be regarded by some of them as the rightful property of the citizens of Britain rather than those of a private firm.

If this brand that is "the firm" is supposdly a setter of commercial and economic trends, it's about time someone started bucking 'em!

[MrGongGong]

Proof, please?

PROOF

no need for that when one has faith (as George says)
and Witchell, of course

nice to see the queen has made the sun shine .....
and the crops grow
and all because Lord Summerisle made it so , no doubt

[ahinton]

I guess you would be happy to fund other private companies then ?

Well, BSkyB, anyway!...

The whole "good for business" angle really is scraping the barrel, didn't last years wedding thing have a net loss economically ?

That doesn't necessarily follow; the lack of hard facts and figures to back up the statements in this article also mean that we cannot even be certain that they're wrong! I don't know how last year's royal wedding was funded, what its ultimate total cost was or what indirect economic benefits it may have brought to individual businesses, so I reserve judgement on that.

It's a good inspirational model for young people wanting to set up in business though , isn't it !

All you need to do is to create a myth of your value and get the poor to pay for your luxury lifestyle .......... excellent way of helping us "out of the recession"

Of course it is such a model but it's even easier than you suggest here! - all that young budding entrepreneurs have to do is pop down to 440 Strand and get a nice fat startup loan from Coutts & Co.! Simples!

Some things are good for business ....... selling drugs, selling arms to dodgy regimes etc but it doesn't make them morally acceptable

Sure, but "the firm" does not - at least as far as I am aware - engage directly in such activities, even if the advice that it sometimes unthinkingly accepts in good faith from the civil service lets them in for inviting suspect world leaders to social shindigs on British soil - and, after all, there are plenty of other activities that can be good for business that are not as morally unacceptable as those things.

[ahinton]

PROOF

no need for that when one has faith (as George says)
and Witchell, of course

But is "one" enough? (and never mind Nicholas Witch-hunt) - and, in any event, would everyone expect that every corporation that made public statements would always only be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to such an extent that no one would perceive any need to have them backed up with evidence from the accounts?

nice to see the queen has made the sun shine .....

God must be feeling abit put out if He's read this; I wonder if He's discreetly confided his chagrin to the Archrowan of Williamsbury?

[Flosshilde]

Well of course the Monarchy is a brand. I should have thought that was self-evident.

A few excerpts from the aricle:-

I'm afraid that I can't be bothered to read a piece of puffery for the monarchy from the Telegraph - your quotes are quite enough to give the flavour. Do they give the research back-up for the assertions made? Somehow I doubt it. Tourists come to Britain to see the queen? If they mean the ceremonial, then that could equally well happen with a President.

[teamsaint]

all this stuff about "the monarchy is worth £XXXBn to the UK economy is surely just PR nonsense.
How many tourists come here to see the queen? How many visit Versailles, in comparison? Most tourists head off to places like Oxford, Bath, The West country, after seeing the London sights, which they would be just as likely to visit if we were a republic, I dare say.
I reckon the Jubilee will do wonders for the republican movement.We have had enough deference to people who have done NOTHING other than have the right parents.
Time to stop it all.
Sorry. But it really is too much.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Tourists come to Britain to see the queen? If they mean the ceremonial, then that could equally well happen with a President.

I think tourists are far more likely to visit Britain to see H.M. than President Cameron.

[teamsaint]

I think tourists are far more likely to visit Britain to see H.M. than President Cameron.

If they come here hoping to see either, I think we are attracting the "wrong" kind of tourists !

[MrGongGong]

I think tourists are far more likely to visit Britain to see H.M. than President Cameron.

Why on earth should THAT be always seen as the alternative ?

or are we as lacking in imagination as I fear ?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sorry. That was a typo. I meant President GongGong.

[MrGongGong]

Sorry. That was a typo. I meant President GongGong.

I think you need a sit down and a glass of water
i wouldn't make myself scissor monitor

[ahinton]

I'm afraid that I can't be bothered to read a piece of puffery for the monarchy from the Telegraph - your quotes are quite enough to give the flavour. Do they give the research back-up for the assertions made? Somehow I doubt it. Tourists come to Britain to see the queen? If they mean the ceremonial, then that could equally well happen with a President.

No, no such evidence is given for any of the statements within the article which, had you read my posts above, you would have been able to deduce without having to read the article itself (unless you wouldn't have believed me, of course!)...

[ahinton]

all this stuff about "the monarchy is worth £XXXBn to the UK economy is surely just PR nonsense

The truth is that we really cannot be sure one way or the other; merely stating that it is the case, of course, tells us nothing other than that the writer wants to write those words and persuade his/her readership of their veracity merely by so doing, which wouldn't stand up in a court of law, would it?

[ahinton]

Sorry. That was a typo. I meant President GongGong.

Is that a President who has been knighted twice?

[Mr Pee]

I'm afraid that I can't be bothered to read a piece of puffery for the monarchy from the Telegraph - your quotes are quite enough to give the flavour. Do they give the research back-up for the assertions made? Somehow I doubt it. Tourists come to Britain to see the queen? If they mean the ceremonial, then that could equally well happen with a President.

Well, first of all, it isn't a piece of puffery from the Telegraph; the same study has been widely reported today- although probably not in the Guardian. Here's a link to the full report, with all the research back-up you need.

http://www.brandfinance.com/images/upload/brand_finance_jubilee_report_2012_dp.pdf

Who knows- if you can

be bothered

to read it, you might actually learn something.