View Full Version : Should we get rid of the Royal Family?
Action Jackson
09-03-2007, 10:43
I am not a Royalist, but then again, I'm not anti-Royal. I simply have no love but no hatred for them. Indifferent I suppose.
There is a common myth (probably perpetrated by the Royals themselves) that the money we spend on them through tax (Royal fund) is equally offset by the amount of money that is brought in via tourism. This is nonsense because this was based on every tourist solely coming to the UK because of the Royals, which is not true. They cost us far more to keep than what they generate back into the nation.
They no longer wield the power to set any kind of laws or nationwide policy (well, technically they do but would never actually use it or interfere in government affairs, unless they have to stop a trial to save them from embarrassment etc).
If anything, the Royals appear now to be becoming a bit of a national embarrassment, with the in-depth details of their private lives being splashed all over the tabloids on a regular basis. They have become more of a curiosity than a highly respected institution in my opinion.
So my questions are:
1. What real value do the Royals bring to our nation these days?
2. Should we keep them or get rid of them?
3. If you want to keep them then should we still be funding them?
zing_deleted
09-03-2007, 10:44
oh look another group of people to attack I hope you actually know a bit more on this subject than the last one
besides its already been done http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/20/37382-time-to-abolish-the-monarchy.html see that button at the top called search if you use it you could find these things out
Action Jackson
09-03-2007, 10:45
oh look another group of people to attack I hope you actually know a bit more on this subject than the last one
Bad post. I am trying to open up a serious and adult debate. If you have nothing to contribute other than snide remarks then please don't bother replying at all.
zing_deleted
09-03-2007, 10:46
already been done mate see my edit
There is a common myth (probably perpetrated by the Royals themselves) that the money we spend on them through tax (Royal fund) is equally offset by the amount of money that is brought in via tourism.
No, my question to you is do you have any evidence that this is a myth or is it just something which is completely unfounded but fits in with your view of the world?
Action Jackson
09-03-2007, 10:58
No, my question to you is do you have any evidence that this is a myth or is it just something which is completely unfounded but fits in with your view of the world?
It was done on BBC a number of years ago (Jon Snow presented it I think) and has been calculated many times since then. Do a websearch on it.
It was done on BBC a number of years ago (Jon Snow presented it I think) and has been calculated many times since then. Do a websearch on it.
No, if you are going to make a claim like that, the responsibility is on you to back it up.
Action Jackson
09-03-2007, 11:07
No, if you are going to make a claim like that, the responsibility is on you to back it up.
Fair point.
Article on how much the Royals cost us.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article1117252.ece
I'll try and dig something out on the approximate tourism revenue that they generate (read something recently, just can't remember where it was). :)
The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 62p per person per year, Buckingham Palace accounts revealed today.
There's bigger fish to fry than the Royals mate - if you want to start somewhere may I suggest you take a look at your local council who (in the case of mine) I'd estimate waste approximately 25% of the money they get. 25% of ~£1000 is far bigger than the 62p the Royals cost. :rolleyes:
Action Jackson
09-03-2007, 11:44
There's bigger fish to fry than the Royals mate - if you want to start somewhere may I suggest you take a look at your local council who (in the case of mine) I'd estimate waste approximately 25% of the money they get. 25% of ~£1000 is far bigger than the 62p the Royals cost. :rolleyes:
That's true, but you don't see your councillors living in various palaces, being chauffeured everywhere and owning private yachts.
I just ask the question of why we are funding such a lavish lifestyle for people who don't really give us anything back (in my opinion anyway)
sssshhhh
09-03-2007, 12:34
I just ask the question of why we are funding such a lavish lifestyle for people who don't really give us anything back (in my opinion anyway)
Probably because we have done for centuries. Its only in the last few decades society has evolved where we are in a position to question the upper echelons of our establishments, without fear of having our heads chopped off for treason.
Its not like just voting out your local councillor.
Dan_Sette
09-03-2007, 12:42
I just ask the question of why we are funding such a lavish lifestyle for people who don't really give us anything back (in my opinion anyway)
We fund the lavish lifestyle because they are Royalty. No-one expects the Queen to live in a three bed semi.
The mere fact that Buckingham Palace is lavish attracts 74,000 tourist visits and a further 50,000 official visits and guests. These all spend money, many are from overseas so generate money for the UK. Of the paying visotors 55% cite a visit to Buckingham Palace or to see the changing of the guard as a main reason for visiting the UK.
I grant you that there will be other reasons, but even if you attribute just 2 nights stop in the UK to a visit to a royal palace / event it equals £6m. That doesn't include any visits to any other royal Palace (Winsor / Holyrood etc).
The Duchy of Cornwall pays £15m in tax - Prince Charles does not recieve money from the Civil list. The Queen pays over £5m in tax from her estates.
The CBI and the UK Dept of Trade and Industry conservatively estimate that Prince Andrew, in his function as UK Business Ambassador during his 650 official foriegn functions earnt the UK some £80m in inward investment.
Not to mention the charities. The Princes Group of Charities donate £100m per year.
That is all just for starters nd about three minutes search on the internet.
In the face of that. What do you contribute to the uk?
DAn
Action Jackson
09-03-2007, 12:53
Probably because we have done for centuries. Its only in the last few decades society has evolved where we are in a position to question the upper echelons of our establishments, without fear of having our heads chopped off for treason.
Its not like just voting out your local councillor.
But do we need them anymore, even for tourism?
Can the money we spend on them be justified against what actual value that they give to us?
Would we suffer in any way if they weren't here?
---------- Post added at 12:53 ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 ----------
We fund the lavish lifestyle because they are Royalty. No-one expects the Queen to live in a three bed semi.
The mere fact that Buckingham Palace is lavish attracts 74,000 tourist visits and a further 50,000 official visits and guests. These all spend money, many are from overseas so generate money for the UK. Of the paying visotors 55% cite a visit to Buckingham Palace or to see the changing of the guard as a main reason for visiting the UK.
I grant you that there will be other reasons, but even if you attribute just 2 nights stop in the UK to a visit to a royal palace / event it equals £6m. That doesn't include any visits to any other royal Palace (Winsor / Holyrood etc).
The Duchy of Cornwall pays £15m in tax - Prince Charles does not recieve money from the Civil list. The Queen pays over £5m in tax from her estates.
The CBI and the UK Dept of Trade and Industry conservatively estimate that Prince Andrew, in his function as UK Business Ambassador during his 650 official foriegn functions earnt the UK some £80m in inward investment.
Not to mention the charities. The Princes Group of Charities donate £100m per year.
That is all just for starters nd about three minutes search on the internet.
In the face of that. What do you contribute to the uk?
DAn
You make some great points that are worthy of serious debate. Then you go and spoil it all with a petty little insult right at the bottom. Shame really. But to answer your question, I pay my taxes but don't take back tens of millions every year from other taxpayers just for my overly lavish upkeep.
Anyway, you talk of inward investment and charity funds. Do you really think that we would not be able to generate the same revenues if it wasn't one of the royals as the figurehead?
You think the tourists would stop coming if the Royals weren't here?
sssshhhh
09-03-2007, 12:58
There are so many things to take into account when trying to evaluate the worth of the Royal family. Its not just about how much tourism they bring in (which in itself is a difficult thing to establish). Its also about the diplomatic benefits they bring, its about the country retaining or losing identity (which is a hotbed of debate these days with the immigration issues etc), it's about knowing how much power they really have (even though we're told in certain media they're just for show) in terms of forging and keeping international relationships. My point is it's not just as black and white as 'do they bring in as much cash as they cost us?'
My personal opinion is keep them. I'm not a royalist as such, but can't fail to see the benefits they bring that dan sette mentioned above.
Mr Clean
09-03-2007, 13:18
I say keep them. I'm in no way a royalist or an anti-royalist. They don't bother me and I don't bother them but living in one of the few countries to actually have a Monarchy is great. Tourists come to see our Monarchy because they don't have one. It's a good thing.
Like Dan_Sette said in his post. They bring an awful lot to the country via many different systems which is alot more than the rest of us put together.
Never mind the fact that the royal family has been a long tradition for 100's and 100's of years. Why would anyone want to stop that tradition. Keep it.
JG
Dan_Sette
09-03-2007, 13:39
Then you go and spoil it all with a petty little insult right at the bottom. Shame really.
You think the tourists would stop coming if the Royals weren't here?
It wasn't meant as a personal insult, but the problem with typed debate is you can't hear inflection.
I did think about typing "in the face of that what do we contribute", but then that would infer the whole of the UK, which is not what I meant.
Perhaps, "in the face of that what do you and I contribute?" Anyway. Hope you get the drift.
Action Jackson
09-03-2007, 14:01
It wasn't meant as a personal insult, but the problem with typed debate is you can't hear inflection.
I did think about typing "in the face of that what do we contribute", but then that would infer the whole of the UK, which is not what I meant.
Perhaps, "in the face of that what do you and I contribute?" Anyway. Hope you get the drift.
That's ok, I get what you mean and I agree that sometimes things get misconstrued. :)
I edited and answered the question anyway.
I'm not anti-Royal (like I said in my first post) and don't really care whether they stay or go. I'm simply playing devil's advocate for the sake of opening up the debate a bit.
simonbodd
12-03-2007, 20:50
Of course the Royal Family is out-dated, a waste of money and bares very little function.
Personally I would like to see rid of them but I know this will probably not happen in my lifetime. Whatever discussions take place I think what is most likely is a period of perhaps a century where thoughts and ideologies take a new turn. The people will slowly tire of them and inevitabley realise what weight they are on a country's forward development.
I do not hate the Royals. They are very lucky to be born into such wealth with so many privileges, but granted, many of them do work hard and do what is expected of them. I do not expect them to think any bad of me for being born into a lower social status so I will spare anyone the irrational rant that can be sometimes expected from an anti-royalist.
But should a head of state's function be reduced to barely a cereomonial one at such cost to the people?? That is the key question that Royalists really need to convince me about.
Look forward to any opinions for or against this
Thanks
Simon
I like having a royal family it is part of our culture and it does bring a lot of tourism
I am not a Royalist, but then again, I'm not anti-Royal. I simply have no love but no hatred for them. Indifferent I suppose.
There is a common myth (probably perpetrated by the Royals themselves) that the money we spend on them through tax (Royal fund) is equally offset by the amount of money that is brought in via tourism. This is nonsense because this was based on every tourist solely coming to the UK because of the Royals, which is not true. They cost us far more to keep than what they generate back into the nation.
They no longer wield the power to set any kind of laws or nationwide policy (well, technically they do but would never actually use it or interfere in government affairs, unless they have to stop a trial to save them from embarrassment etc).
If anything, the Royals appear now to be becoming a bit of a national embarrassment, with the in-depth details of their private lives being splashed all over the tabloids on a regular basis. They have become more of a curiosity than a highly respected institution in my opinion.
So my questions are:
1. What real value do the Royals bring to our nation these days?
2. Should we keep them or get rid of them?
3. If you want to keep them then should we still be funding them?
1. Lots
2. Keep
3. Yes
Or put it another way do you really want a President for life Blair
cookie_365
12-03-2007, 21:27
1. What real value do the Royals bring to our nation these days?
2. Should we keep them or get rid of them?
3. If you want to keep them then should we still be funding them?
Lots and lots and lots; tourism revenue, the ability to act as an establishment figurehead for progressive causes that politicians wouldn't touch otherwise, fabulous entertainment, all for next to no expense.
Keep.
Yes; it hardly costs us anything anyway.
homealone
12-03-2007, 21:57
erudite and amusing, as always, cookie :)
- how do we propose this 'getting rid' is supposed to happen, anyway - if it includes all relatives, then it will be some bloodbath ;) :D
erudite and amusing, as always, cookie :)
- how do we propose this 'getting rid' is supposed to happen, anyway - if it includes all relatives, then it will be some bloodbath ;) :D
It would probably be outsourced to the Russians; I believe they have some experience in this field of work..........
apologies for the very bad taste comment, but couldn't resist :monkey:
That's true, but you don't see your councillors living in various palaces, being chauffeured everywhere and owning private yachts.
I just ask the question of why we are funding such a lavish lifestyle for people who don't really give us anything back (in my opinion anyway)
Not my feeling on the matter but still..... you need to pick your battles - the royals should be way down the list mate. Unless it's just an envy/jealousy thing?:erm:
cookie_365
13-03-2007, 18:40
how do we propose this 'getting rid' is supposed to happen, anyway - if it includes all relatives, then it will be some bloodbath ;) :D
MI5 and the Duke Of Edinburgh may be able to assist, or so I'm told ;)
MI5 and the Duke Of Edinburgh may be able to assist, or so I'm told ;)
:erm: psst just don,t go there..........:Yikes:
1. What real value do the Royals bring to our nation these days?
No, they bring the opposite.
2. Should we keep them or get rid of them?
Get rid of them.
3. If you want to keep them then should we still be funding them?
N/A
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.