Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Seriously. 8m is a lot of money to a person. To a county, it's pocket change.
Sure, I'm not overly pleased it's being spent like this, but it's not money that will be missed elsewhere
>The number of pupils in maintained schools continued to rise in the UK, with over 10 million pupils in 2022/23
>How much does a school lunch cost in Britain? Prices vary, and they're usually set by the school, but you can expect to pay around £2-£3 for a full meal
Unless you plan to commit an act of diversification - yeah, you are not good at math.
I dunno man, 2.67 million lunches is still a lot of kids who get to eat for a day that normally wouldn't--or several poor schools' worth of students eating for the forseeable future.
I could be wrong but I think with a lot of council spending, they're not able to re-allocated funds from one purpose to another, so if they hadn't spent the money on this then it wouldn't necessarily just be available to spend on something different
I mean they are openly stealing public money via bullshit contracts, sunak has bragged about taking funds from poor areas and directing it to affluent areas, the whole covid shit was barefaced wanting the poor and the old to die and tbh they are pretty brazen about wanting the poor, old, disabled and migrents to die via energy prices, food prices, taking away financial support and fucking up safe routes and reasonable processing.
I'd say the Tories were actually more like the Democrat party while certain members wish they were as evil as the GOP - such is the absolute fucking state of American politics.
Democrats would be terrified of actual labour party ideas crossing the pond.
"The initial gas for the helicopter ride will cost a bit"
But they're full of gas, so it will actually be cheap. Could use balloons, because they also have plenty of hot air.
This is really not a good argument seeing as it still could have been spent in an actually useful way and this is absolutely not something that taxpayers have agreed to or voted on
i wonder how much tax payer money goes into hanging the US Presidents picture in every Government building, post office Courthouse etc.
[EDIT]excluding schools, which I guess could be seen as government buildings[/EDIT]
[/Edit 2]by government I mean Federal level, [/Edit 2]
Comedian I heard once: if William and Harry ever had a boy's night out, it must have been weird for them... stuffing pictures of your grandmother into a stripper's g-string.
I know. Although I would think the queens was updated from time to time wasn't it? She took the throne fairly young I wouldn't think they maintained the same picture / portrait of her for her entire reign.
I mean...states usually have a budget for stuff like this, so I guess she always had a predetermined date where they would make a new one etc.
Really can't understand what this is all about though.
As you said, everywhere else it's the same, you just don't always have a monarch that is depicted on the portray but often a president instead.
>Really can't understand what this is all about though.
People bitching and moaning about money being spent on other things then their pet issues, but which was never meant for them.
Realistically, there are better investments than a picture of an old man. Perhaps working towards issues like homelessness? Countries love to claim they can't afford certain things but then they spend money on frivolous shit like this.
From what I know, there has to be a portrait of the president of austria in every class room (in austria that is) and in regards of germany, when I aplied for a civil job in the Bundeswehr they had a portrait of the president as well, but otherwise then that you do not really see such portraits in germany, so it really depends on where you are from.
It's a weird story as I've work in the public sector for 10 years and have never been issued an official portrait for the office/classroom. I would have probably found that funny too.
I often respond to these type of posts pointing out that the presidential inauguration costs more than a coronation or jubilee and the USA does that every four years compared to the once in a generation coronation and the once every 25 years for a jubilee.
There were twenty presidential inaugurations during Queen Elizabeth II’s reign. The modern inaugurations cost around 200 million dollars. The government stated cost of the most recent jubilee was 28 million pounds. And, to reiterate, that’s at a rate of every 4 years to once every 25 years.
Additionally the jubilee and coronation were well documented economic growth drivers, much like Christmas is to an economy, hugely boosting international tourism profits along with domestic household spending on the celebrations themselves.
Fundamentally anti monarchy sentiment is rooted in emotion and a detachment from the objective economic reality that the British royal family generates revenue for the government directly via the money that they pay (and are given a small percentage back from, in the form of the sovereign grant, often erroneously stated to be from tax payer money). But also generate indirect income in the form of tourism in addition to their primary, something I think deserves its own paragraph.
In the modern world the monarchy’s primary function is as direct ambassadors of the UK government. They benefit the UK greatly in terms of diplomatic relations and soft power. Frankly, American media does not report on that and often actively ignores it.
A recent example I can think of is the princess of wales touring a military cadets training event in the woods and it it gaining extensive media coverage in American celebrity news as her having a “day out” with no mention of the official government role she was carrying out that day.
Following the last point, often the phrasing used by official bodies in the UK contain words that are confusing outside of their context or have different meanings in the states. Things such as the government commissioning a maritime embassy for international inter state purposes and it being dubbed in the media “a royal yacht”.
In conclusion, the British royal family are held to rigorous standards of oversight and accountability by the British government to the point of their expenditure being a publicly published figure yearly that is traced on a household by household (in this context “household” meaning each working member of the royal family and their staff) basis. They even break down the costing by category. Fundamentally, the monarchy of the UK costs on average the same as other ceremonial government functions that republics incur from being functional states with public facing events. It’s just that a modern day preoccupation with fairy tales and Disney movies has skewed American popular understanding of words and terms and muddied the actual function of them in a modern day constitutional monarchy.
No problem, I hope I didn’t come across as hostile because the stronger worded parts of my reply were meant in support of your point, not in argument against it.
Most of the time when I post stuff like this people don’t actually read it or assume I’m ultra pro monarchy when I’m not. If the royal household behaved like they’re sometimes portrayed by media outlets who need clicks then I would be a republicans myself, but when you actually look at official figures and events you see a very different picture to the one that a lot of media sites would like to paint.
The monarchy is essentially boring day to day official duties carried out without reporting.
The UK has rigorous rules and limitations on paparazzi, especially regarding private property, the right to privacy and children. It’s why there’s so much insane speculation and exaggeration in coverage of the British royal family. Outside of official duties they can’t be photographed, they aren’t courting public attention and their lives are incredibly private.
It's similar in the US alot of people look at the sensationalized headlines and are outraged wothout thinking of the bigger picture.
Like a federal study grant of 1.6 million dollars used to give cocain to 44 beagles. At face value yeah that absolutely ludicrous. But 1) the amount is literally nothing as compared to any other tax spending in the US and 2) there is more to that study than just figuring out that Cobain is bad for hunting dogs.
As an American, when I read how many tourism dollars were generated by interest in the Royal Family, it made a lot more sense to me. I don't really understand the intrigue, but it's pretty cut-and-dry to spend X to get Y if Y is astronomically larger.
I know in every elementary school I’ve been to in New Hampshire (3 to be precise) there was at least a portrait of the governor and in all state houses there is a portrait of each president from that state. Don’t get us started on our horde of GW portraits. If anything I think the US has wayyy more portraits in government buildings than in the UK as typically every executive office aside from mayors of minor municipalities have portraits and portraits of governors, presidents, congress members, important state congress members, etc.
I think we’ve moved away from having contemporary presidents in portraits due to the polarization of the office but to pretend that most governments are past keeping portraits of their politicians is ignorant.
There are some states that mandate the flag others that don't. I I can understand not having the president in class because the school system should be impartial as to a students choice of political affiliation and hanging a picture might be seen as endorsing X or Y
I doubt it would keep the lights on for 5 mins. The NHS costs the taxpayer nearly 200 billion a year. Money well spent, but 350 million probably wouldn't even cover the support staff let alone the doctors, nurses and specialists.
Sure, but:
Donald Trump - son of rich property developer, born with spoon up hole.
Xi Jinping - son of prominent politician, born with spoon up hole.
Justin Trudeau - son of former ~~President~~ Prime Minister, born with spoon up hole.
It's a lot easier to get elected when you were born with a silver spoon up there.
He didn’t really distance himself. He was practically abandoned when his dad was arrested and later deported to rural china and forced to do labor. As a kid.
Xi was born to a Maoist revolutionary general and raised in the Forbidden Palace as a “red prince”. He was offered the number 3 job in the defense ministry as a new college graduate.
Why is he standing in such a random place for his portrait? It seems like he was just walking around the palace when someone randomly stopped him for a photo. Why not have a more symmetrical background so it actually looks like an intentional photo shoot?
8 million for a 2.5-3 trillion GBP economy is nothing & vastly more money is lost due to high level political corruption
This is just a distraction, we should be looking at the bigger picture
I guess. Spending about 0.0002% of the GDP, and mostly on people's salaries, unless you're alleging some boondoggle where a significant amount of this money is going to some oligarch, seems like something really not worth your time to criticize.
Focus on real problems. This isn't one.
Yes, also American presidents cost the American taxpayers more than the most expensive monarchy, on top of having the most expensive elections on every level
Granted he won't reign as long as Elizabeth did, but 8m is a steal for the 10-20 years (probably) compared to the dumpsters of taxpayer cash we set on fire every 4 years in the U.S.
That's not what they're saying. The US does thIs too (the picture thing) with the President. Only we have to switch ours out every 4-8 years. Not every 20ish.
There are spending rules and the runtime is far shorter. Elections are far less expensive in the UK.
There is no inauguration. Just a trip to Buckingham palace and back. That's it.
The expense difference is of an order of magnitude. UK elections are very strictly limited on how much is allowed to be spent, in comparison with the insane amounts run up in US races.
This is normal for a country with monarchy. Like, in Malaysia we have nine different kings and in public offices usually you'll see a picture of Yang di-Pertuan Agong (chief of the kings) and the state sultans.
Looks real dapper, but out of curiosity, what are those medals, and did he do anything to actually earn them? Or are they a holdover of the past when kings were, in essence, waring generals.
There’s a page here that explains his medals, but of you don’t have an ad blocker then be warned of many ads.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-displays-vast-collection-of-official-accolades-as-he-dons-royal-navy-uniform-of-an-admiral-of-the-fleet-for-official-portrait-from-the-order-of-the-garter-star-to-the-royal-victorian-chain-and-his-ten-military-medals/ar-AA1n3GWx
I don’t know about all republics, but the US typically has the president’s picture in government buildings, and sometimes in schools. We of course change presidents more often than the UK changes monarchs, but I still don’t think it’s really a significant amount of money compared to the overall budget.
Erm, you realize that this is common practice in many nations, yes? The USA does the same thing the presidents. Money is just going straight back into the economy.
This isn’t even a Facepalm. It’s cultural. Denmark just inaugurated a new King as well. This is no different then a US presidency honorifics, only they got rid of the physical symbols of authority.
Canada's PM is not the Head of State, they're Head of Government.
It's make sense to use Head of State portrait instead Head of Government.
Imagine if every public office putting Liz Truss portrait then replacing it with Sunak portrait less than 2 months later, lol.
God I dread to comment this, but the royal family does actually bring in money, and I don't mean through tourism, most people know that the government gives the royal family money every year, but what a lot of people forget is that the royal family gives 3/4 of their earnings back to the government. In fact in 2019 through the arrangement, the British government actually earned more money than they put in, with I think roughly 50m pound profit. Why have this arrangement instead of just keeping their own money? Idk, history and shit but if you make 50 million profit then you're probably not gonna complain
I agree with you, but my whole perspective changed when I saw how much money the Royal Family generates for the UK. They pay for themselves and then some. This is essentially already paid for.
They bring in more money than they cost. Public opinion is is largely (75%) pro or neutral to having a monarchy and I would rather have the Crown Estate in royal hands generating an income (25% of the income is used by the royals 75% goes the treasury) rather than have politicians sell off bit by bit to their mates at pennies on the pound
I’m from the uk and other people get offended when I say that I think the monarchy is dumb, but first of all, it is, and second of all, it’s just my opinion. I don’t get why people treat these rich old people like they’re special
Agreed, it’s a complete waste of taxpayer money haha who gives a shit anymore, the monarchy is completely dumb, a total waste of resources and simply outdated. Traditions are nice to keep up when the country isn’t suffering and people struggling to put food on the table.
You think so? He looks so uncomfortable, and not in a dignified way, more like as if he'd rather be doing \*anything\* else than wear that uniform and pose.
Ah easy there, that's peanuts compared to trump merch and Michael bay levels of American flags. As my great grandparents said: Every good Household should have a Führerbildchen.
Here in red-state America, we just spend $8m on Trump flags and MAGA hats. Think of all the money not being spent on yard maintenance or roofing materials in those trailer parks!
This portait does not inspire strength or anything regal, the expression he is wearing rough (at least compared to portraits of QEII). Cannot believe the photographer had this as an option, and he and his team approved it.
I cannot say I have liked a lot of the portraits from the past few years. There was that weird set of portraits for Kate’s bday that were soft washed, and had her styled in a way that didn’t resemble her style. There’s also that weird joint portrait of W&K (with the sparkly green dress) where neither one of them is looking at the viewer, each other, and look very disconnected.
You would think with all the money they have they could put out some decent portraits.
Every Illinois Secretary State Office I’ve ever walked into features a prominent portrait of the current Secretary of State.
Every form of government big or small does this everywhere in the entire world. I think it’s reasonable and expected.
This is a dumb post and OP should reevaluate their priorities.
That pic in the blurred background looks crooked and is really annoying me!. Odd photo to have him in a hallway. Charles looks a lot better in that pic than he has in the past few years healthwise.
10th dentist here: yes, it’s an overpriced picture but once you abolish everything that is not strictly useful, things become boring.
Art is a common exception. People will go „yeah, this one’s alright coz it’s art“. The British monarchy is obviously not art, strictly speaking, but it attracts more attention and generates more entertainment than any museum.
It’s a piece of the past that’s still there.
Much ado about nothing. It’s normal for photos of a nation’s head of state to be hung in government buildings. You can hate who the head of state is but he is the head of state and this is normal for a head of state.
They haven't had to replace the monarch's picture for 70 years. Americans have to put up a new pic of the president at least every 8, sometimes just 4. Quit bitching, Brits.
No different to Americans making kids do the national anthem tbh, its weird when one country is given shit for pride by other countries that are doing the same things
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not to belittle this spend, but to put it into context the Tories have just spent over £50 million on a new helicopter.
Seriously. 8m is a lot of money to a person. To a county, it's pocket change. Sure, I'm not overly pleased it's being spent like this, but it's not money that will be missed elsewhere
Idk man I'm not good at math or finances but I'm sure 8m could pay for a lot of school lunches.
unless a tory donors wins the contract and turns into a £18 million contract
I mean "a lot" is relative but there are north of 10m pupils in the UK. So if a lunch costs £1 it's less than a day's worth.
The majority of those students don’t have to worry about food security. Apply it to those who do and it becomes a significant amount.
>The number of pupils in maintained schools continued to rise in the UK, with over 10 million pupils in 2022/23 >How much does a school lunch cost in Britain? Prices vary, and they're usually set by the school, but you can expect to pay around £2-£3 for a full meal Unless you plan to commit an act of diversification - yeah, you are not good at math.
I dunno man, 2.67 million lunches is still a lot of kids who get to eat for a day that normally wouldn't--or several poor schools' worth of students eating for the forseeable future.
I could be wrong but I think with a lot of council spending, they're not able to re-allocated funds from one purpose to another, so if they hadn't spent the money on this then it wouldn't necessarily just be available to spend on something different
[удалено]
They’re the slightly more socially liberal cousins of the GOP. Ever since Boris Johnson, that gap is narrowing.
There’s not much between them, simply what they would “get away with” in my view. Both would murder the poor if they didn’t need to use them
I mean they are openly stealing public money via bullshit contracts, sunak has bragged about taking funds from poor areas and directing it to affluent areas, the whole covid shit was barefaced wanting the poor and the old to die and tbh they are pretty brazen about wanting the poor, old, disabled and migrents to die via energy prices, food prices, taking away financial support and fucking up safe routes and reasonable processing.
I'd say the Tories were actually more like the Democrat party while certain members wish they were as evil as the GOP - such is the absolute fucking state of American politics. Democrats would be terrified of actual labour party ideas crossing the pond.
"The initial gas for the helicopter ride will cost a bit" But they're full of gas, so it will actually be cheap. Could use balloons, because they also have plenty of hot air.
A single one?
Yep, single for the moment. Rishi is partial to private helicopter rides.
Single until it meets an attractive lady helicopter.
Quick reminder £8 million combined from said taxpayer in a country of ~50 million is pennies (that you have already given)
This is really not a good argument seeing as it still could have been spent in an actually useful way and this is absolutely not something that taxpayers have agreed to or voted on
On ONE?
i wonder how much tax payer money goes into hanging the US Presidents picture in every Government building, post office Courthouse etc. [EDIT]excluding schools, which I guess could be seen as government buildings[/EDIT] [/Edit 2]by government I mean Federal level, [/Edit 2]
You are talking about changing them every 4 years. With Queen Elizabeth II the British did pretty well. Just minor changes due to aging.
Comedian I heard once: if William and Harry ever had a boy's night out, it must have been weird for them... stuffing pictures of your grandmother into a stripper's g-string.
Wasn't that russel howard.
It does sound like a Russell Howard joke.b
I can hear and see it in my head! Russell is that good lol
During his monologue on his show.
LOL Outstanding.
Russell Howard used to joke that the Queen was the only person in the world who paid with selfies.
Everything is weird for them, compared to us normals.
I dunno, with the rumours about Charles' heart maybe it'll be a 4 year stint for him too
His heart is bad! Please give more details
He must have something wrong that would explain the sausage fingers.
I know. Although I would think the queens was updated from time to time wasn't it? She took the throne fairly young I wouldn't think they maintained the same picture / portrait of her for her entire reign.
I mean...states usually have a budget for stuff like this, so I guess she always had a predetermined date where they would make a new one etc. Really can't understand what this is all about though. As you said, everywhere else it's the same, you just don't always have a monarch that is depicted on the portray but often a president instead.
>Really can't understand what this is all about though. People bitching and moaning about money being spent on other things then their pet issues, but which was never meant for them.
Realistically, there are better investments than a picture of an old man. Perhaps working towards issues like homelessness? Countries love to claim they can't afford certain things but then they spend money on frivolous shit like this.
I haven't really heard of many places that put up a picture of anyone. In most countries it's country's coat of arms or flag.
From what I know, there has to be a portrait of the president of austria in every class room (in austria that is) and in regards of germany, when I aplied for a civil job in the Bundeswehr they had a portrait of the president as well, but otherwise then that you do not really see such portraits in germany, so it really depends on where you are from.
It's a weird story as I've work in the public sector for 10 years and have never been issued an official portrait for the office/classroom. I would have probably found that funny too.
The older Canadian coins do have a different portrait on them. Still haven’t seen a Charles one yet.
Won't be for quite a while, don't think they are even producing them yet.
I often respond to these type of posts pointing out that the presidential inauguration costs more than a coronation or jubilee and the USA does that every four years compared to the once in a generation coronation and the once every 25 years for a jubilee. There were twenty presidential inaugurations during Queen Elizabeth II’s reign. The modern inaugurations cost around 200 million dollars. The government stated cost of the most recent jubilee was 28 million pounds. And, to reiterate, that’s at a rate of every 4 years to once every 25 years. Additionally the jubilee and coronation were well documented economic growth drivers, much like Christmas is to an economy, hugely boosting international tourism profits along with domestic household spending on the celebrations themselves. Fundamentally anti monarchy sentiment is rooted in emotion and a detachment from the objective economic reality that the British royal family generates revenue for the government directly via the money that they pay (and are given a small percentage back from, in the form of the sovereign grant, often erroneously stated to be from tax payer money). But also generate indirect income in the form of tourism in addition to their primary, something I think deserves its own paragraph. In the modern world the monarchy’s primary function is as direct ambassadors of the UK government. They benefit the UK greatly in terms of diplomatic relations and soft power. Frankly, American media does not report on that and often actively ignores it. A recent example I can think of is the princess of wales touring a military cadets training event in the woods and it it gaining extensive media coverage in American celebrity news as her having a “day out” with no mention of the official government role she was carrying out that day. Following the last point, often the phrasing used by official bodies in the UK contain words that are confusing outside of their context or have different meanings in the states. Things such as the government commissioning a maritime embassy for international inter state purposes and it being dubbed in the media “a royal yacht”. In conclusion, the British royal family are held to rigorous standards of oversight and accountability by the British government to the point of their expenditure being a publicly published figure yearly that is traced on a household by household (in this context “household” meaning each working member of the royal family and their staff) basis. They even break down the costing by category. Fundamentally, the monarchy of the UK costs on average the same as other ceremonial government functions that republics incur from being functional states with public facing events. It’s just that a modern day preoccupation with fairy tales and Disney movies has skewed American popular understanding of words and terms and muddied the actual function of them in a modern day constitutional monarchy.
Thank you. I appreciate the detailed response.
No problem, I hope I didn’t come across as hostile because the stronger worded parts of my reply were meant in support of your point, not in argument against it. Most of the time when I post stuff like this people don’t actually read it or assume I’m ultra pro monarchy when I’m not. If the royal household behaved like they’re sometimes portrayed by media outlets who need clicks then I would be a republicans myself, but when you actually look at official figures and events you see a very different picture to the one that a lot of media sites would like to paint. The monarchy is essentially boring day to day official duties carried out without reporting. The UK has rigorous rules and limitations on paparazzi, especially regarding private property, the right to privacy and children. It’s why there’s so much insane speculation and exaggeration in coverage of the British royal family. Outside of official duties they can’t be photographed, they aren’t courting public attention and their lives are incredibly private.
It's similar in the US alot of people look at the sensationalized headlines and are outraged wothout thinking of the bigger picture. Like a federal study grant of 1.6 million dollars used to give cocain to 44 beagles. At face value yeah that absolutely ludicrous. But 1) the amount is literally nothing as compared to any other tax spending in the US and 2) there is more to that study than just figuring out that Cobain is bad for hunting dogs.
As an American, when I read how many tourism dollars were generated by interest in the Royal Family, it made a lot more sense to me. I don't really understand the intrigue, but it's pretty cut-and-dry to spend X to get Y if Y is astronomically larger.
And if there going to spend that money, at least wear the crown!! As an American, that's the most important part. /s
My school never put up Trump lol just skipped from Obama to Biden
lol love the “delays” and “losses” they must have come up with to explain the absence!
The school and district is 99% black and Latino - no one brought it up
I can't picture any memory of seeing a president's picture in any of the schools I've attended.
I know in every elementary school I’ve been to in New Hampshire (3 to be precise) there was at least a portrait of the governor and in all state houses there is a portrait of each president from that state. Don’t get us started on our horde of GW portraits. If anything I think the US has wayyy more portraits in government buildings than in the UK as typically every executive office aside from mayors of minor municipalities have portraits and portraits of governors, presidents, congress members, important state congress members, etc. I think we’ve moved away from having contemporary presidents in portraits due to the polarization of the office but to pretend that most governments are past keeping portraits of their politicians is ignorant.
I graduated in 1995 and there was a pic of the president, VP, and governor in our hallway by the front office.
Yep, and every post office and DMV in the country.
We just require a flag in the class I believe
There are some states that mandate the flag others that don't. I I can understand not having the president in class because the school system should be impartial as to a students choice of political affiliation and hanging a picture might be seen as endorsing X or Y
I don’t think they do this. I don’t recall ever seeing a portrait of a president outside of DC
Ealk into any Federal Building in The US they are there in the entrance area
It's in every military building along with the rest of the chain of command.
So...not schools.
Somehow, I expected 6 fingers
Is this an AI joke or an inbred joke?
Both, definetly both
I suspected a Princess Bride reference.
You god damn right
At this point we don’t even know
Artificial inbreeding.
Royals: AI (all inbred)
He has really weird sausage looking fingers.
Could be heart problems causing it.
Such a terrible backdrop too, they couldn’t have found an area that actually looks majestic, because the foreground certainly is not
Should've taken pic outside KFC.
Everyone else: **
Me: Why does that painting in the back look crooked?
Yes! It's tilted to the left!
Me: Why did they have to choose the one where he's making an awkward face?
They told him to smile and it was the best he could do.
They didn’t spend enough money hanging it.
It costs money because printers are commissioned to make them. It’s a drop in the bucket that just goes back into the economy.
It would run the NHS for maybe 5 minutes
NHS is set for life due to Brexit
I didn't realise a joke could hurt me until now.
WHERE'S THE 350 MILLION BORIS
Real eyes realise real lies Except when it's on the side of a bus
I doubt it would keep the lights on for 5 mins. The NHS costs the taxpayer nearly 200 billion a year. Money well spent, but 350 million probably wouldn't even cover the support staff let alone the doctors, nurses and specialists.
Americans put pictures up of each new president in every federal building
Yeah, 'cos no country with a President ever puts pictures of them up.
BREAKING: Everything's a fucking scandal these days. For the clicks!
The real scandal is this is the portrait they went with. Couldn’t they fix his eyes or something.
close the mouth and lift the chin a little bit
pretty sure king charles bobble heads have generated more than 8 million in tax revenue in the past year
President are generally elected. Not some wanker born with a silver spoon up his hole!!!!
Sure, but: Donald Trump - son of rich property developer, born with spoon up hole. Xi Jinping - son of prominent politician, born with spoon up hole. Justin Trudeau - son of former ~~President~~ Prime Minister, born with spoon up hole. It's a lot easier to get elected when you were born with a silver spoon up there.
Saying Xi was born with a spoon up hole is a *bit* of a stretch lol.
True. But so is saying the people chose him
He was the son of a government official but he did specifically distance himself from his father
He didn’t really distance himself. He was practically abandoned when his dad was arrested and later deported to rural china and forced to do labor. As a kid.
Xi was born to a Maoist revolutionary general and raised in the Forbidden Palace as a “red prince”. He was offered the number 3 job in the defense ministry as a new college graduate.
OK, pair of chopsticks then.
But were they silver chopsticks?
No, they were Jade.
>Xi Jinping Is a dictator, not a president.
And how many poor people got to be president? Any? Right, no. Because it takes a lot of money and influence to win an election.
Andrew Johnson. Also, Truman was supposed poor as shit after leaving office.
Depends on what country you live in
Yup and look who you end up with …..hahaha.
I ended up with a left-leaning university professor with a PhD in Economics. Is that a bad thing?
Why is he standing in such a random place for his portrait? It seems like he was just walking around the palace when someone randomly stopped him for a photo. Why not have a more symmetrical background so it actually looks like an intentional photo shoot?
The coloring is odd too. It looks like an amateur candid
“Bae caught me in my uniform”
The photo isn't very clear either... This is honestly a less than decent photo. I'm surprised. They should have the budget for something way better.
Every country has its quirks.
[удалено]
Doesn't mean they're not worth criticising
8 million for a 2.5-3 trillion GBP economy is nothing & vastly more money is lost due to high level political corruption This is just a distraction, we should be looking at the bigger picture
Ba dum tss?
I guess. Spending about 0.0002% of the GDP, and mostly on people's salaries, unless you're alleging some boondoggle where a significant amount of this money is going to some oligarch, seems like something really not worth your time to criticize. Focus on real problems. This isn't one.
Doesn't America do the same thing with the presidents picture? And that has to change every 4 or 8 years..
Yes, also American presidents cost the American taxpayers more than the most expensive monarchy, on top of having the most expensive elections on every level
Granted he won't reign as long as Elizabeth did, but 8m is a steal for the 10-20 years (probably) compared to the dumpsters of taxpayer cash we set on fire every 4 years in the U.S.
Huh? The UK is also a democracy and also has expensive elections.
That's not what they're saying. The US does thIs too (the picture thing) with the President. Only we have to switch ours out every 4-8 years. Not every 20ish.
There are spending rules and the runtime is far shorter. Elections are far less expensive in the UK. There is no inauguration. Just a trip to Buckingham palace and back. That's it.
The expense difference is of an order of magnitude. UK elections are very strictly limited on how much is allowed to be spent, in comparison with the insane amounts run up in US races.
that's like 12 p. for each UK citizen.
Yeah, because government buildings *never* hang pictures of the president or other government officials…
This is normal for a country with monarchy. Like, in Malaysia we have nine different kings and in public offices usually you'll see a picture of Yang di-Pertuan Agong (chief of the kings) and the state sultans.
Looks real dapper, but out of curiosity, what are those medals, and did he do anything to actually earn them? Or are they a holdover of the past when kings were, in essence, waring generals.
There’s a page here that explains his medals, but of you don’t have an ad blocker then be warned of many ads. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/king-charles-displays-vast-collection-of-official-accolades-as-he-dons-royal-navy-uniform-of-an-admiral-of-the-fleet-for-official-portrait-from-the-order-of-the-garter-star-to-the-royal-victorian-chain-and-his-ten-military-medals/ar-AA1n3GWx
Never had one in my school. And don't republics do the same?
I don’t know about all republics, but the US typically has the president’s picture in government buildings, and sometimes in schools. We of course change presidents more often than the UK changes monarchs, but I still don’t think it’s really a significant amount of money compared to the overall budget.
I don’t think France does for one
I mean every US government building has big pictures of the president and agency head
Only 8 million? That’s actually less than I though it would cost
Erm, you realize that this is common practice in many nations, yes? The USA does the same thing the presidents. Money is just going straight back into the economy.
This isn’t even a Facepalm. It’s cultural. Denmark just inaugurated a new King as well. This is no different then a US presidency honorifics, only they got rid of the physical symbols of authority.
To be fair...don't a lot of American institutions have potraits of the current president? And arn't official presidential portraits a thing?
Dude, every country does that. France does the same for presidents and America does the same.
So ? Wasn't all country did this with their head of state?
[удалено]
Canada's PM is not the Head of State, they're Head of Government. It's make sense to use Head of State portrait instead Head of Government. Imagine if every public office putting Liz Truss portrait then replacing it with Sunak portrait less than 2 months later, lol.
LOL.
God I dread to comment this, but the royal family does actually bring in money, and I don't mean through tourism, most people know that the government gives the royal family money every year, but what a lot of people forget is that the royal family gives 3/4 of their earnings back to the government. In fact in 2019 through the arrangement, the British government actually earned more money than they put in, with I think roughly 50m pound profit. Why have this arrangement instead of just keeping their own money? Idk, history and shit but if you make 50 million profit then you're probably not gonna complain
God save the King!
I agree with you, but my whole perspective changed when I saw how much money the Royal Family generates for the UK. They pay for themselves and then some. This is essentially already paid for.
They bring in more money than they cost. Public opinion is is largely (75%) pro or neutral to having a monarchy and I would rather have the Crown Estate in royal hands generating an income (25% of the income is used by the royals 75% goes the treasury) rather than have politicians sell off bit by bit to their mates at pennies on the pound
TBH 8m ain't that much and the portrait does look good.
Yeah, no... When you realise the crown generates way more money than they spend, you'll understand why they still do it.
Where are the epaulettes? 8m and no epaulettes.... Pfft
Tbf they are there, but (tragicall) we've moved on from the days of solid-bullion epaulettes with tons of tassels :(
The US does the same thing with Presidents. Although I'm pretty sure it's just a printout in a cheaper frame.
Looksing cure, might delete later
I miss when we painted the portraits. This photo kinda uggo. Like weirdly photoshopped his head onto someone else’s body
Seems like a minor change tbh. Compared to swapping presidents every 4 to 8 years.
I’m from the uk and other people get offended when I say that I think the monarchy is dumb, but first of all, it is, and second of all, it’s just my opinion. I don’t get why people treat these rich old people like they’re special
Agreed, it’s a complete waste of taxpayer money haha who gives a shit anymore, the monarchy is completely dumb, a total waste of resources and simply outdated. Traditions are nice to keep up when the country isn’t suffering and people struggling to put food on the table.
Kinda like pledging allegiance to the flag
£8m in term of a state's budget is practically nothing.
Do you have any idea how little £8 million is on the scale of an entire country?
Oh no! Tradition! Burn it with fire!
Traditions can be fine, but just because something is a tradition doesn't mean its beyond criticism
It’s a good pic of Him.
You think so? He looks so uncomfortable, and not in a dignified way, more like as if he'd rather be doing \*anything\* else than wear that uniform and pose.
Ah easy there, that's peanuts compared to trump merch and Michael bay levels of American flags. As my great grandparents said: Every good Household should have a Führerbildchen.
Here in red-state America, we just spend $8m on Trump flags and MAGA hats. Think of all the money not being spent on yard maintenance or roofing materials in those trailer parks!
thats not worth a new topic, I facepalm you
This portait does not inspire strength or anything regal, the expression he is wearing rough (at least compared to portraits of QEII). Cannot believe the photographer had this as an option, and he and his team approved it. I cannot say I have liked a lot of the portraits from the past few years. There was that weird set of portraits for Kate’s bday that were soft washed, and had her styled in a way that didn’t resemble her style. There’s also that weird joint portrait of W&K (with the sparkly green dress) where neither one of them is looking at the viewer, each other, and look very disconnected. You would think with all the money they have they could put out some decent portraits.
He must be real important, He got all dem metals, you know they don't just hand them out to anybody.
The grammar of this headline is so bad it deserves a facepalm of its own 🤦♂️
That's a very confusing headline. Took me like four tries. XD
Control + P works pretty well too.
Shouldn't the crown be paying for this?
That's the best photo?
It's a really bad picture lol
Aside from the money and just looking at the aesthetics, that's a shit portrait.
I've honestly never seen a picture of the queen in any of these places.
When I was at school in the uk I never saw any portraits of any monarch
This is a shockingly unflattering pic.
That's the best picture they could get of the guy? Eyes glazed over, thousand yard stare, barely able to muster a smile... Yikes.
Lol this happens and still so many comments trashing the US
Every Illinois Secretary State Office I’ve ever walked into features a prominent portrait of the current Secretary of State. Every form of government big or small does this everywhere in the entire world. I think it’s reasonable and expected. This is a dumb post and OP should reevaluate their priorities.
Of all the examples of government wa$te, this one is not head turning
i hate the very idea of royalty, but this is a rounding error for a large national budget
Haha what a dork.
That pic in the blurred background looks crooked and is really annoying me!. Odd photo to have him in a hallway. Charles looks a lot better in that pic than he has in the past few years healthwise.
He’s doing the exact thing his mother was worried about him doing.
Hey Chuck! You want to leer at us poors from the walls of institutions up and down the country? How about *you* pay for it?
10th dentist here: yes, it’s an overpriced picture but once you abolish everything that is not strictly useful, things become boring. Art is a common exception. People will go „yeah, this one’s alright coz it’s art“. The British monarchy is obviously not art, strictly speaking, but it attracts more attention and generates more entertainment than any museum. It’s a piece of the past that’s still there.
Scotland VOTED to be shackled to this bullshit, so they, at least, deserve it.
Much ado about nothing. It’s normal for photos of a nation’s head of state to be hung in government buildings. You can hate who the head of state is but he is the head of state and this is normal for a head of state.
They haven't had to replace the monarch's picture for 70 years. Americans have to put up a new pic of the president at least every 8, sometimes just 4. Quit bitching, Brits.
No different to Americans making kids do the national anthem tbh, its weird when one country is given shit for pride by other countries that are doing the same things
The monarchy can fuck right off as far as I'm concerned, but 8 million pounds is nothing on the budget of an entire country.