評(píng)論
打印
THIS REBRANDING EFFORT has allowed royalists
重塑品牌形象這一努力讓保皇黨有了以“王室對(duì)英國經(jīng)濟(jì)的價(jià)值”為由，
to justify the cost to the public purse on the grounds of “value to the economy.”
宣稱王室從公眾錢包支出這筆錢是合理消費(fèi)的借口。
But the story of the royal family’s value to the British economy
而王室對(duì)英國經(jīng)濟(jì)的價(jià)值本身不過是
was simply dreamed up by smart PR professionals to save an institution in crisis.
精明的公關(guān)專家們?yōu)榱苏韧跏矣谖C(jī)而編造出來的故事。
In reality, according to our research,
事實(shí)上，根據(jù)我們的研究，
British taxpayers lose about $468 million a year just to have a head of state—
英國的納稅人每年在國家元首身上損失的錢就高達(dá)4.68億美元左右——
a lot more than the official figure released by Buckingham Palace, which was $58 million last year.
遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)高出了白金漢宮去年公布的5800萬美元這一官方數(shù)字。
In fact, our monarch is one of the most expensive nonpolitical heads of state in Europe,
事實(shí)上，我們的王室也是歐洲最昂貴的非政治性質(zhì)的國家元首之一，
at least 12 times as expensive as Ireland’s elected equivalent.
起碼是愛爾蘭選舉產(chǎn)生的王室開支的12倍。
Even if it were true that the royals represent an investment by the British people,
即便王室代表著英國人民的投資，
why should the royals spend taxpayers’ money with no checks and balances?
王室為什么要毫無節(jié)制地把納稅人的錢呢？
That, after all, is why the monarchy costs so much—
畢竟這恰好就是王室開支過大的原因——
not because it’s expensive to run the office of head of state
不是因?yàn)榻?jīng)營王室這一國家領(lǐng)袖機(jī)構(gòu)燒錢，
but because the royals spend tens of millions of pounds on their palatial apartments, security and luxury vacations.
而是無數(shù)的錢財(cái)都被王室花到了購置富麗堂皇的公寓、安保和奢華的度假上。
Brits increasingly resent this—
英國民眾對(duì)此已經(jīng)越來越反感——
a recent poll we commissioned shows that 57% believe the royal family should pay not only for the wedding but also for police costs.
最近我們委托進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)民意調(diào)查顯示，57%的人都認(rèn)為王室不僅應(yīng)該自己為婚禮買單，還應(yīng)該自己為調(diào)動(dòng)警察買單。
Any claim about how the royals boost British tourism, trade and retail sales needs to be set against the high costs.
任何有關(guān)王室?guī)?dòng)了英國的旅游業(yè)、貿(mào)易和零售額的說法都應(yīng)該考慮考慮王室本身的高額開支。
Pundits claim events like Harry and Meghan’s wedding will trigger huge spending sprees—
評(píng)論專家們稱，類似哈里王子和梅根婚禮這樣的事件會(huì)引發(fā)巨大的消費(fèi)熱潮——
but in 2012 Pew Research showed most Americans said they did not follow news of the British royals,
但2012年皮尤研究中心的調(diào)查顯示，大多數(shù)美國人都表示他們沒有關(guān)注英國王室的新聞，
while a November YouGov poll showed more than half of Brits were indifferent to the news of Harry and Meghan’s engagement.
而輿觀去年11月的一項(xiàng)民意調(diào)查顯示，超半數(shù)的英國人都對(duì)哈里王子和梅根訂婚的消息不感興趣。
Any imagined or real spike from royal weddings is so brief and infrequent as to make no difference to British prosperity.
王室婚禮帶來的提振，無論是想象的也好真實(shí)的也好，都太過短暫、太過偶然，對(duì)英國的繁榮起不了什么作用。
The discussion about the value of the monarchy misses the most important point of all: the damage it does to our democracy.
關(guān)于王室價(jià)值的討論忽略了最重要的一點(diǎn)：王室破壞了我們的民主。
The Crown is the centerpiece of Britain’s rotten constitution,
王室是腐朽的英國憲法的核心所在，
giving us a head of state who lacks independence or purpose,
王室給我們的是一個(gè)缺乏獨(dú)立性和目的性，
who can do only what she’s told by our Prime Minister.
只會(huì)按照首相的吩咐行事的這樣一個(gè)國家首腦機(jī)構(gòu)。
The costs of the monarchy are considerable, the gains fleeting, mythical or the stuff of PR fantasies.
王室的開支是巨大的，收益卻顯得轉(zhuǎn)瞬即逝，虛無縹緲或像是公關(guān)的幻想。
While Britain may not be a nation of republicans yet, it’s certainly no longer a nation of royalists.
盡管英國或許還不是一個(gè)共和黨國家，但它也絕對(duì)已經(jīng)不再是一個(gè)保皇黨國家了。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
