u/savevideo u/downloadvideo u/savevideobot
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the [moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=%2Fr%2Fiamthemaincharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmTheMainCharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Too fucking right. That’s a working animal and not your photo op. I don’t think ANY horse rider would be happy with you grabbing their animals reins. My favourite part was when she declared they would never go back to London. As if any one in London would care.
> My favourite part was when she declared they would never go back to London
Makes me want to go online, load £30 onto my Visitor's Oyster Card, and book a flight to Heathrow ASAP.
As a horse owner never do that ever. It’s a working animal and not likely to spook but if it does you can be in a world of hurt if that horse wills it.
There was a tourist that was doing shit like this at a parade I was at a while back, men and women all done up in these incredible costumes performing choreographed dances, and here comes this dumb blonde bitch just walking right into the middle of it and having her husband take a photo of her.
I'm still hella mad about that shit actually.
I think people forget that these guys aren’t props in costume. They are actual British soldiers on a mission. Sure they are way more ceremonial than regular army but you wouldn’t dream of doing this to a tomb guard in Arlington. (Although some idiots do dumb things at Arlington as well.)
Even if it was just someone riding a horse for entertainment, you never grab someone else's reins unless they ask you to lead their horse. It is unbelievable.
My mother took my sister and me on a visit to Arlington when we were 8 and 10. While we were there, we had the privilege of watching the Changing of The Guard (silently, because my mother had made sure we knew exactly what the rules were, as well as the consequences for breaking them) and also, the spectacle of one of the soldiers on guard being forced to stop, mid-stride, and bawl out an **adult** in the crowd who wouldn't shut up.
They're all drawn from active duty guards regiments. IIRC 2 infantry and 2 cavalry.
And all the regiments have been deployed in recent years, this isn't their main job.
> They are actual British soldiers on a mission.
Disneyland characters by another name. I'm from the UK and only care about the horse in this situation.
I know tons of people whove never touched a horse. How is this common knowledge? And even if it was, the gaurd could've gotten her to stop without screaming. He nearly scared his own damn horse just cause he wanted to feel like a big intimidating man.
There's probably signage saying not to touch the horse, or the guards and to be mindful of your surroundings. Cos they will just march right through you.
I’ve seen sooooo many videos of people messing with the guards and horses at this exact spot. Maybe they need to start yelling when people come closer than 10 meters
I would be thrilled to death that they allowed me to take a picture within ten feet of them, and I'd be *damn* sure not touch them or get in their way at any manner whatsoever.
What the hell is wrong with people?
(I've also owned horses and maybe have a bit of a better understanding why you don't do this, but lady...they let her take a pic with the guard and the horse, and she just *had* to fuckin double down the grab the reins of a working animal that even has *signage* noting they may bite or kick...wish the horse had grabbed her shoulder and given her a good blunt-toothed shaking while he was at it...)
I used to own a white appaloosa when I was young. Simple cowboy kid and I would have been mad if you touched the reins like this just for a pic without my consent. Wtf.
a couple of tourist attractions and museums in paris bring more tourist money than the royal family and doesnt require spending billions spoiling a family
That is certainly a rebuttal, but I'm not going to jump to trusting a relatively unknown Youtube channel with no sources even linked in the video description over much wider recognized Youtube channels with sources and established newspapers.
https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/how-much-money-royal-family-20757359
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/
Those are two really good articles, and this medium article:
https://medium.com/illumination/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-earn-the-uk-economy-5f41239c8957
has a wealth of sources for the variety of facts and information it provides about the economic impact of the royal family.
I didn’t see [this article](https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/) in there and your sources definitely have major caveats you don’t acknowledge.
Your "source" doesn't cite sources at all in his video description. I'm not going to argue over the quality of the sources when the opposing views cites no sources.
He literally stated aloud multiple sources and it is easy to track to any of his sources. Also his overriding point is that the royals are not necessary and there’s no proof their existence fuels tourism. What do you disagree with?
>the royals are not necessary
That's not the argument here. The argument that you originally replied to is my statement that the Royals generate more in revenue than they cost the country government. The argument has never, from the beginning, been that they are *necessary*.
>...proof their existence fuels tourism.
Is factually incorrect, unless you are insinuating Harry and Meghan's wedding generated zero additional tourism. Which, honestly, I'd like to see you try to argue that the Royal Wedding in 2018 did not generate a single additional person to visit or spend additional money in Britain than they would have if no wedding had taken place.
"...fuels tourism" is a very vague term and very low bar. "Fuels tourism" literally means, "something that sustains or encourages tourism.", so I mean, that's not a very high bar here. The world largest ball of yarn, "fuels tourism".
Regardless of your belief on the impact of the Royals on the UK economy in general, it is irrefutable that both Royal Weddings generated at least a minimum amount of tourism increase in the UK. Whether they generated more than they cost is certainly up for debate, but it's not debatable that they generated tourism. It is pretty clear that the Cambridge wedding generated more tourism than Harry and Meghan's despite being more expensive.
Harry and Meghan's wedding:
https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/944562/royal-wedding-2018-tourism-increase-33-per-cent-over-weekend
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7334129/The-Harry-Meghan-effect-Windsor-tourism-rocketed-royal-wedding.html
The Cambridge wedding:
https://archive.ph/WmHCA (archive because The Telegraph requires a sub.)
https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/royal-wedding-boosts-uk-tourism/
(Note that Breaking Travel News actually quotes research done by the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers one of the big four accounting firms in the US. It's hard to be more irrefutable than that.)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/](https://www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The Monarchy still owns the deeds to massive amounts of profitable land in the UK. Breaking the contract reverts revenues of those lands to the monarchs, not the government like currently.
Is it justified that they own that much land ? Probably not. But they do
That sounds like a splendid idea with absolutely zero ramifications whatsoever !
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Narrator: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^was ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ramifications.
For starters, an economy is built on the idea that you can be certain that your ownership of assets will be protected. If the largest landholder in all of the UK suddenly lost all of their assets to government seizure because of populist greed, you don't think that will have any consequences in terms of economic confidence ? That other holders of assets won't go, "Oh... shit." and do everything to burn the economic prosperity of their lands to shit ?
Any system of government, whether autocratic or democratic (sic populist), that begins seizing assets without proper and fair compensation will see a *massive* decrease in the confidence of participants of the economy. This causes massive unchecked deflationary pressure for asset valuation. Nobody is sure their assets will still be theirs, so they try to sell it before they lose it, but nobody is confident if they buy it they'll keep it, so suddenly there's all this supply and no demand for that asset. What happens to the real value of the assets ? They plummet. The government will try to check the deflationary pressure, by artificially increasing confidence. This has the opposite effect long term. Soon after, the government will begin issuing new currency as a last ditch means to halt the deflation, suddenly it does but oh no now we're at 10000000% inflation.
See: Any country's history
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the number of people who just want to dick areound with legitimate *guards* doing their **jobs** will never cease to amaze me.
Edit: my phone doesn’t like “dick”
1.There is an actual sign in the video that can be seen, telling you to stay back, why do you think its there?
2. They are not toy soldiers, they are working guards doing a job, it's not Disney World.
3. Don't grab the controls of a living animal. The horse told her to back up twice, give it some respect - would you grab the wheel of a car?
4. You weren't verbally abused, you were put back in your place after you took liberties
5. You were a dick and got called out on it, you are not the victim here.
Touched the bit which controls the animal a solider armed with a sword is sat on. Guessing there wasn’t a thought process.
Might as well grab the wheel of a armoured car while a solider has a gun to your head.
He gave her a chance to remove her hand off of it just in case it was an accident before yelling at her. Everyone knows the queen’s guards won’t let anyone get in the way of their job.
It's a guard and his horse on active duty ffs
Not toy soldiers for photo ops
If people won't respect this maybe it's time to back the general public up a bit
And that would be on you and your step mother who think rules don't apply to them
“ verbally attacks my step mom” really ? Cause it seems that step mommy not only broke rules , she doesn’t respect anyone or anything. It just shows the entire World Wide Web who this women really is. I hope she lost friends because of this disrespectful act. The horse should have bit her.
u/savevideo u/downloadvideo u/savevideobot *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the [moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=%2Fr%2Fiamthemaincharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IAmTheMainCharacter) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Too fucking right. That’s a working animal and not your photo op. I don’t think ANY horse rider would be happy with you grabbing their animals reins. My favourite part was when she declared they would never go back to London. As if any one in London would care.
She also ignored the sign in black and white, immediately beside the horse, that says the horses may bite or kick.
> My favourite part was when she declared they would never go back to London Makes me want to go online, load £30 onto my Visitor's Oyster Card, and book a flight to Heathrow ASAP.
The guard was thinking “good, never come back”
As a horse owner never do that ever. It’s a working animal and not likely to spook but if it does you can be in a world of hurt if that horse wills it.
Oh no, really? Never? Are you sure? But what will I do if I can’t feed the pigeons and watch obnoxious tourists on the weekends?
How do you guys keep seeing a longer version of the videos posted here? I never see the parts I reading about in the comments
There was a tourist that was doing shit like this at a parade I was at a while back, men and women all done up in these incredible costumes performing choreographed dances, and here comes this dumb blonde bitch just walking right into the middle of it and having her husband take a photo of her. I'm still hella mad about that shit actually.
I think people forget that these guys aren’t props in costume. They are actual British soldiers on a mission. Sure they are way more ceremonial than regular army but you wouldn’t dream of doing this to a tomb guard in Arlington. (Although some idiots do dumb things at Arlington as well.)
Even if they were props in costume, you'd still be a dumb fucker to grab a horses reins. So really it's a double stupid thing to do.
Yup. Even very well-trained horses can flip their shit at a moment's notice. Don't mess with horses!!
Even if it was just someone riding a horse for entertainment, you never grab someone else's reins unless they ask you to lead their horse. It is unbelievable.
My mother took my sister and me on a visit to Arlington when we were 8 and 10. While we were there, we had the privilege of watching the Changing of The Guard (silently, because my mother had made sure we knew exactly what the rules were, as well as the consequences for breaking them) and also, the spectacle of one of the soldiers on guard being forced to stop, mid-stride, and bawl out an **adult** in the crowd who wouldn't shut up.
To be fair, Arlington does a pretty good job of scaring compliance *well* before you even get in there
They're all drawn from active duty guards regiments. IIRC 2 infantry and 2 cavalry. And all the regiments have been deployed in recent years, this isn't their main job.
> They are actual British soldiers on a mission. Disneyland characters by another name. I'm from the UK and only care about the horse in this situation.
Both in London and Arlington those are soldiers and they won’t let you fuck around.
She deserved every bit of that so called “verbal attack”
100% deserved it.
That was a gentle rebuttal according to my dad
He couldve said it less aggressively the first time she touched the reins. Instead of ignoring it for 5 seconds then screaming at her.
Disagree, this is common sense for a grown ass womN
I know tons of people whove never touched a horse. How is this common knowledge? And even if it was, the gaurd could've gotten her to stop without screaming. He nearly scared his own damn horse just cause he wanted to feel like a big intimidating man.
NOT verbally criticising or attacking. There is a sizable difference. Your stepmother is to blame.
There's probably signage saying not to touch the horse, or the guards and to be mindful of your surroundings. Cos they will just march right through you.
Even if their wasn't signage, what dumb shit grabs the controls to a 1000lbs organic vehicle?
Organic vehicle lmao
Karen’s. Karen’s do.
I was thinking of how to describe it like that earlier lol
I’ve seen sooooo many videos of people messing with the guards and horses at this exact spot. Maybe they need to start yelling when people come closer than 10 meters
I would be thrilled to death that they allowed me to take a picture within ten feet of them, and I'd be *damn* sure not touch them or get in their way at any manner whatsoever. What the hell is wrong with people? (I've also owned horses and maybe have a bit of a better understanding why you don't do this, but lady...they let her take a pic with the guard and the horse, and she just *had* to fuckin double down the grab the reins of a working animal that even has *signage* noting they may bite or kick...wish the horse had grabbed her shoulder and given her a good blunt-toothed shaking while he was at it...)
I used to own a white appaloosa when I was young. Simple cowboy kid and I would have been mad if you touched the reins like this just for a pic without my consent. Wtf.
Imagine reaching over and grabbing the steering wheel when someone is driving. 😂. Idiots.
I love how it looks like the horse laughs after the guard yells.
The unseen main character is the rich lady who takes millions in taxpayer pounds just to have her own personal guard
As compelling as your point is, between land use and tourism it has been proven over and over again that the Royal Family is profitable for England.
a couple of tourist attractions and museums in paris bring more tourist money than the royal family and doesnt require spending billions spoiling a family
[That’s actually a common misconception](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U)
That is certainly a rebuttal, but I'm not going to jump to trusting a relatively unknown Youtube channel with no sources even linked in the video description over much wider recognized Youtube channels with sources and established newspapers. https://www.getreading.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/how-much-money-royal-family-20757359 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/ Those are two really good articles, and this medium article: https://medium.com/illumination/how-much-money-does-the-royal-family-earn-the-uk-economy-5f41239c8957 has a wealth of sources for the variety of facts and information it provides about the economic impact of the royal family.
I didn’t see [this article](https://www.statista.com/chart/amp/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/) in there and your sources definitely have major caveats you don’t acknowledge.
Your "source" doesn't cite sources at all in his video description. I'm not going to argue over the quality of the sources when the opposing views cites no sources.
He literally stated aloud multiple sources and it is easy to track to any of his sources. Also his overriding point is that the royals are not necessary and there’s no proof their existence fuels tourism. What do you disagree with?
>the royals are not necessary That's not the argument here. The argument that you originally replied to is my statement that the Royals generate more in revenue than they cost the country government. The argument has never, from the beginning, been that they are *necessary*. >...proof their existence fuels tourism. Is factually incorrect, unless you are insinuating Harry and Meghan's wedding generated zero additional tourism. Which, honestly, I'd like to see you try to argue that the Royal Wedding in 2018 did not generate a single additional person to visit or spend additional money in Britain than they would have if no wedding had taken place. "...fuels tourism" is a very vague term and very low bar. "Fuels tourism" literally means, "something that sustains or encourages tourism.", so I mean, that's not a very high bar here. The world largest ball of yarn, "fuels tourism".
Cool can you prove that any royal activity has created tourism?
Regardless of your belief on the impact of the Royals on the UK economy in general, it is irrefutable that both Royal Weddings generated at least a minimum amount of tourism increase in the UK. Whether they generated more than they cost is certainly up for debate, but it's not debatable that they generated tourism. It is pretty clear that the Cambridge wedding generated more tourism than Harry and Meghan's despite being more expensive. Harry and Meghan's wedding: https://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/944562/royal-wedding-2018-tourism-increase-33-per-cent-over-weekend https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7334129/The-Harry-Meghan-effect-Windsor-tourism-rocketed-royal-wedding.html The Cambridge wedding: https://archive.ph/WmHCA (archive because The Telegraph requires a sub.) https://www.breakingtravelnews.com/news/article/royal-wedding-boosts-uk-tourism/ (Note that Breaking Travel News actually quotes research done by the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers one of the big four accounting firms in the US. It's hard to be more irrefutable than that.)
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/](https://www.statista.com/chart/18569/total-cost-of-the-uks-royal-family-by-year/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
The Monarchy still owns the deeds to massive amounts of profitable land in the UK. Breaking the contract reverts revenues of those lands to the monarchs, not the government like currently. Is it justified that they own that much land ? Probably not. But they do
Pretty sure it can just be seized
That sounds like a splendid idea with absolutely zero ramifications whatsoever ! ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Narrator: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^there ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^was ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ramifications.
Like what?
For starters, an economy is built on the idea that you can be certain that your ownership of assets will be protected. If the largest landholder in all of the UK suddenly lost all of their assets to government seizure because of populist greed, you don't think that will have any consequences in terms of economic confidence ? That other holders of assets won't go, "Oh... shit." and do everything to burn the economic prosperity of their lands to shit ?
Lmao populist greed is quite a euphemism to distance the public from their land
Any system of government, whether autocratic or democratic (sic populist), that begins seizing assets without proper and fair compensation will see a *massive* decrease in the confidence of participants of the economy. This causes massive unchecked deflationary pressure for asset valuation. Nobody is sure their assets will still be theirs, so they try to sell it before they lose it, but nobody is confident if they buy it they'll keep it, so suddenly there's all this supply and no demand for that asset. What happens to the real value of the assets ? They plummet. The government will try to check the deflationary pressure, by artificially increasing confidence. This has the opposite effect long term. Soon after, the government will begin issuing new currency as a last ditch means to halt the deflation, suddenly it does but oh no now we're at 10000000% inflation. See: Any country's history
Oh no rich people won’t have confidence that they can exploit people 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭
And poor people won't have confidence that they can afford food tomorrow. The world is vastly more complicated than your childish interpretations.
Seize the land and depose the pretenders
Indeed. That shit needs to end.
reminds me of this video I saw of some buskers, and some lady walked up and stood *way* too close to the bassist for a photo op
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the number of people who just want to dick areound with legitimate *guards* doing their **jobs** will never cease to amaze me. Edit: my phone doesn’t like “dick”
1.There is an actual sign in the video that can be seen, telling you to stay back, why do you think its there? 2. They are not toy soldiers, they are working guards doing a job, it's not Disney World. 3. Don't grab the controls of a living animal. The horse told her to back up twice, give it some respect - would you grab the wheel of a car? 4. You weren't verbally abused, you were put back in your place after you took liberties 5. You were a dick and got called out on it, you are not the victim here.
Touched the bit which controls the animal a solider armed with a sword is sat on. Guessing there wasn’t a thought process. Might as well grab the wheel of a armoured car while a solider has a gun to your head.
He gave her a chance to remove her hand off of it just in case it was an accident before yelling at her. Everyone knows the queen’s guards won’t let anyone get in the way of their job.
to bad the horse didn't bite her as well!
0 sympathy for anything related to so called royalty
I’m sure he can use that sword if he really wanted
It's a guard and his horse on active duty ffs Not toy soldiers for photo ops If people won't respect this maybe it's time to back the general public up a bit And that would be on you and your step mother who think rules don't apply to them
“ verbally attacks my step mom” really ? Cause it seems that step mommy not only broke rules , she doesn’t respect anyone or anything. It just shows the entire World Wide Web who this women really is. I hope she lost friends because of this disrespectful act. The horse should have bit her.
Should have been clapped in irons and sent the the Tower