• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

William & Kate Royal Wedding |OT| 2000 Guests, 8000 Media, Est.2Billion Watching

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jeff Albertson

Member
Kalnos said:
bu..bu..but 2 billion unique viewers!

KuGsj.gif


I realize that's only the U.S.
Click to expand...

You make me laugh, yesterday you were saying the numbers aren't proof yet if they back up your argument then they become valid
 
K

Kalnos

Banned
Jeff Albertson said:
You make me laugh, yesterday you were saying the numbers aren't proof yet if they back up your argument then they become valid
Click to expand...

Hah. Those numbers are probably a stretch as is, since they're likely based on small sample sizes and assume multiple viewers per TV. The joke was that this event never had a chance at that many viewers realistically, and even if it did, it would be impossible to measure.

Why do I even bother? These kinds of articles would of been the proof used against my stance had they reported many more people, which is to say it's funny that they do not. I guess if the British officials stroke over their estimated 2 billion number thousands of times everyone will believe that 2 + 2 = 5.

TLDR: 2 Billion was a joke estimate, deal with it.

With that said, the amount of viewers is still impressive.
 
J

Jeff Albertson

Member
I agree it wont be accurate, I'm guessing it will be on the higher side of the estimates, where I watched it 14 people watched in one place so if they had a Neilson box or whatever they are called it may not be accurately reflected.

Not that it matters anyway, all that matters is that it was an awesome event and occasion for the country and a spectacular success.
 
G

gerg

Member
Kalnos said:
Hah. Those numbers are probably a stretch as is, since they're likely based on small sample sizes and assume multiple viewers per TV.
Click to expand...

Isn't this true for every TV viewing figure ever?
 
K

Kalnos

Banned
Jeff Albertson said:
I agree it wont be accurate, I'm guessing it will be on the higher side of the estimates, where I watched it 14 people watched in one place so if they had a Neilson box or whatever they are called it may not be accurately reflected.

Not that it matters anyway, all that matters is that it was an awesome event and occasion for the country and a spectacular success.
Click to expand...

I'd say at best it will be just at or slightly higher than the World Cup viewer estimates. Which is still great, obviously.
 
N

Napoleonthechimp

Member
Subliminal said:
Wow. I love reading through this thread. seeing people trying to defend the royals.

At a time when we've had loads of people complaining about politicians expenses and behaviour everyone likes to swallow the dick of the royal family.

Atleast politicians are elected, they represent the people. They weren't born into a life of ridiculous wealth and expected to shake hands and give a tiny amount to charity.

The simple fact is, although alot of politicians are from rich backgrounds, they've worked hard to better themselves, Thats why you see so many politicians coming from Oxbridge, They're the academic elite that have the ability to change things and get elected.

The royals are a bunch of inbred, unelected tossers who shit all over the idea of a meritocracy.
Click to expand...
In comparison to many in "third world" countries you were born into a life of ridiculous wealth. The majority of the people in this thread have inherited a life that is the end product of centuries of exploitation. Don't think you are so different.
 
S

Subliminal

Member
Napoleonthechimp said:
In comparison to many in "third world" countries you were born into a life of ridiculous wealth. The majority of the people in this thread have inherited a life that is the end product of centuries of exploitation. Don't think you are so different.
Click to expand...

I don't really think you can make that comparison. Of course I am very fortunate that I was born here but I'll still have to work my entire life and likely never get the amount of money that the royals have.

That is completely unfair and if you disagree you have to be a moron.
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Napoleonthechimp said:
In comparison to many in "third world" countries you were born into a life of ridiculous wealth. The majority of the people in this thread have inherited a life that is the end product of centuries of exploitation. Don't think you are so different.
Click to expand...
good point
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Subliminal said:
I don't really think you can make that comparison. Of course I am very fortunate that I was born here but I'll still have to work my entire life and likely never get the amount of money that the royals have.

That is completely unfair and if you disagree you have to be a moron.
Click to expand...
and people in 3rd world countries can work their asses off and never attain what you have
 
N

Napoleonthechimp

Member
Subliminal said:
I don't really think you can make that comparison. Of course I am very fortunate that I was born here but I'll still have to work my entire life and likely never get the amount of money that the royals have.

That is completely unfair and if you disagree you have to be a moron.
Click to expand...
I do disagree and you've just called me a moron. Thanks!

You also have privacy and are not bound to a lifetime of duty to a country in which you were born. It is worth remembering that there are many people who inherited a fortune larger than the Royal Family's combined wealth.
 
-COOLIO-

-COOLIO-

The Everyman
Your Excellency said:
Some of the responses in this thread really are embarrassing. Honestly, even if the Queen generated £100 million in extra tourism, THAT STILL WOULDN'T MAKE IT OKAY TO HAVE A MONARCHY.

It's like saying "Slavery should be allowed because it increases the GDP of the nation by 10%". Fuck that shit. This is a matter of principle, out and out.
Click to expand...
who's exploited by having a royal family though? they dont get tax money do they? if all they do is generate money and provide spectacle for the country then what's the problem?
 
S

Subliminal

Member
Napoleonthechimp said:
I do disagree and you've just called me a moron. Thanks!

You also have privacy and are not bound to a lifetime of duty to a country in which you were born. It is worth remembering that there are many people who inherited a fortune larger than the Royal Family's combined wealth.
Click to expand...

They can have as much privacy as they want, I feel like they chose to not have privacy so that they can always have positive media attention and keep their aristocratic, disgustingly rich lives.

And on the subject of 3rd world countries, of course thats a problem and thats why we need to tackle poverty and equally we should tackle this problem back at home.

In a society that calls itself democratic why should people be born into wealth with all opportunities given to them regardless of their abilities?


And yes. They do get tax money, and they 'represent' us to the world.
 
S

Suairyu

Banned
Subliminal said:
They can have as much privacy as they want, I feel like they chose to not have privacy so that they can always have positive media attention and keep their aristocratic, disgustingly rich lives.
Click to expand...
Well then, your feelings would be wrong. Princess Diana had to get a court order to stop paparazzi from photographing William and Harry, and even that was only until they were 18. It also didn't stop the foreign journalists.

You're also conveniently forgetting Diana was killed trying to escape paparazzi. Nobody chooses that, but feel free to keep your feelings.
 
S

Suairyu

Banned
Subliminal said:
PRINCESS DIANA IS A CUNT.
Click to expand...
*was

No wonder you're so angry; you never learnt tenses and so are stuck thinking the Royal Family still actually holds any power over you that makes you less of a free citizen. Study the present and you'll realise, like anyone with half a brain, the continued existence of the Royal Family has zero detriment to your life.
 
S

Subliminal

Member
Suairyu said:
*was

No wonder you're so angry; you never learnt tenses and so are stuck thinking the Royal Family still actually holds any power over you that makes you less of a free citizen. Study the present and you'll realise, like anyone with half a brain, the continued existence of the Royal Family has zero detriment to your life.
Click to expand...

It clearly is a detriment, They take my money, represent me, and are fucking unelected.

We also have an archaic political system based around them!
 
C

cuevas. PhD.

Member
Subliminal said:
It clearly is a detriment, They take my money, represent me, and are fucking unelected.

We also have an archaic political system based around them!
Click to expand...

Whaaaa, you live in one of the richest countries in the world that got into that position partly because of "them", WHAAAAAA WHAAA.
 
T

teeny

Member
Subliminal said:
One question. If I demanded 62p from everyone on gaf just because I was born to a special family would that be fair?

I think most people would say no.
Click to expand...

If your estate surrendered all of its income to the state's treasury, then I reckon that would be fair.
 
C

ChiTownBuffalo

Either I made up lies about the Boston Bomber or I fell for someone else's crap. Either way, I have absolutely no credibility and you should never pay any attention to anything I say, no matter what the context. Perm me if I claim to be an insider
Don't you see? The presence of the British Royal Family keep their people from elevating idiots, when they have a set group of people who are already elevated.

Crown loyalty could have prevented us Americans from making Paris Hilton a celebrity.
 
C

cuevas. PhD.

Member
Subliminal said:
One question. If I demanded 62p from everyone on gaf just because I was born to a special family would that be fair?

I think most people would say no.
Click to expand...

If GAF had provided the foundation in the past for me to live with a high quality of life then I would say yes.
 
N

numble

Member
teeny said:
If your estate surrendered all of its income to the state's treasury, then I reckon that would be fair.
Click to expand...
Too bad they don't. They are exempt from estate taxes, something you can't say for other rich people.
 
T

teeny

Member
numble said:
Too bad they don't. They are exempt from estate taxes, something you can't say for other rich people.
Click to expand...

Though the crown pays tax.

Also, please read the link; the Crown Estate pays the revenue of their assets directly to the state's treasury.

2009-2010, Head of State expenditure was £38.2 mil. The Treasury's income from the Crown Estate was £230 million.
 
N

numble

Member
teeny said:
Though the crown pays tax.

Also, please read the link; the Crown Estate pays the revenue of their assets directly to the state's treasury.

2009-2010, Head of State expenditure was £38.2 mil. The Treasury's income from the Crown Estate was £230 million.
Click to expand...
They pay income tax. They don't pay inheritance tax. The state would be able to get both capital and income gains from the Crown Estate if some of that land had to be divested to the state upon death, like other rich people that must divest 40% of property to the state upon death.
 
T

teeny

Member
numble said:
They pay income tax. They don't pay inheritance tax. The state would be able to get both capital and income gains from the Crown Estate if some of that land had to be divested to the state upon death, like other rich people that must divest 40% of property to the state upon death.
Click to expand...

Is the state receiving all revenue from the estate in return for an annual payment not enough? Im pretty sure the government makes more money in the long term with this strategy than with any alternative, and gains the added benefit of having a royal institution.
 
N

numble

Member
teeny said:
Is the state receiving all revenue from the estate in return for an annual payment not enough? Im pretty sure the government makes more money in the long term with this strategy than with any alternative, and gains the added benefit of having a royal institution.
Click to expand...
The Crown Estate no longer technically belongs to the royal family anyway, they do not control or manage it in anyway--they are state managed and accountable to parliament.

The Royal Family does have it's own managed and controlled land as several duchies--the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. Those revenues do not go directly to the state, they go to the Queen's Privy Purse, and the state only touches those in the form of income and capital gains tax. Those property are exempt from inheritance tax which all other wealthy people must pay. Technically, these duchies should be subject to corporation tax as well, but they are exempt from that as well.
 
J

Jeff Albertson

Member
Is that this threads first victim? Surprised it took so long.

On topic im surprised William is back at work this week I thought they would be touring the nation or similar.
 
S

supermackem

Banned
teeny said:
Though the crown pays tax.

Also, please read the link; the Crown Estate pays the revenue of their assets directly to the state's treasury.

2009-2010, Head of State expenditure was £38.2 mil. The Treasury's income from the Crown Estate was £230 million.
Click to expand...

This, they bring in more than they spend way more. I dont get the hate for them at all, and im glad that mong got banned. Saying that about dianna is well out of line she did more than any other royal for people.
 
eso76

eso76

Member
Hey, it's not just William & Kate, i'm also getting married next saturday.

I was actually going to ask GAF to help me with a playlist to play during lunch
 
C

Chinner

Banned
eso76 said:
Hey, it's not just William & Kate, i'm also getting married next saturday.

I was actually going to ask GAF to help me with a playlist to play during lunch
Click to expand...
why i am not invited???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom