The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[Ontarian1981 10]

69p? Sounds like a bargain doesn't it.

 

But that actually works out at about £45.5 million.

And this is given to one of the wealthiest women in the world with lands and riches galore. Not such a bargain when you put it like that is it.

 

£45+ million quid (every year) could be a lot better used and help a lot more people.

 

What about all the other wealthy people who cost the country 100s of millions a year in lost tax revenues by having tons of money in offshore accounts? That could also be put to better use, right?

[Robin-H 11]

69p? Sounds like a bargain doesn't it.

 

But that actually works out at about £45.5 million.

And this is given to one of the wealthiest women in the world with lands and riches galore. Not such a bargain when you put it like that is it.

 

£45+ million quid (every year) could be a lot better used and help a lot more people.

 

Sounds like amazingly good value to me considering the estimated boost to the UK economy (estimated at £1.8b a year). And yes, before anybody says it, I know some people would still visit the royal palaces etc if we didn’t have a royal family, but there is tons of tourist tat, visits for royal events, the value of endorsements etc etc - it all adds up.

[mickey finn 12]

69p? Sounds like a bargain doesn't it.

 

But that actually works out at about £45.5 million.

And this is given to one of the wealthiest women in the world with lands and riches galore. Not such a bargain when you put it like that is it.

 

£45+ million quid (every year) could be a lot better used and help a lot more people.

 

Pocket money, I love how people froth at the mouth over the royals when we prop up some of the worlds biggest most vile despots using tax payers money, the royals are an easy target for armchair complainers.

[Padders 2,840]

I would quite willing to pay 70p a year.

[Ontarian1981 10]

Pocket money, I love how people froth at the mouth over the royals when we prop up some of the worlds biggest most vile despots using tax payers money, the royals are an easy target for armchair complainers.

 

Yeah, really and some people think they have an easy job. To them, I say try getting up in the morning and heading to a public appearance, not a hair out of place and smiling, waving and shaking hands all day long, when feeling rough or hung over. lol

 

---------- Post added 16-10-2018 at 15:05 ----------

 

I would quite willing to pay 70p a year.

 

For crying out loud, don't add another penny, you will start a riot.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Ontarian1981

[Phanerothyme 12]

The Royals are going to have a brown baby. Now that's what I call progress.

[nouxnoux 10]

I agree, and we need all the good, happy news we can get lately.

Im perfectly happy to pay my 69p a year.

Bless you. I'm happy to pay mine too. I would pay even more. The income the Royal Family bring to this country far outweighs anything we pay towards them.

[smithy266 21]

So piggin what? Another over-priviledged family adding to the pile. Leave them alone for her to get on with it, but please don't ram this sort of stuff down our throats.

[glennpickard 10]

WW1 was when many of the European Royal families disappeared, not WW2. To be followed by the likes of Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler etc, very poor replacements most would say.

The UK has had a dual political/Monarchial system that has worked for hundreds of years because all the players know what is expected of them. And yes since 1952, the Queen has worked as hard as any politician to further the interests of the country, its peoples, and the stability of its institutions. Her income has been an investment for the country

And she was one of the guiding lights, along with her father, to transfer the Empire into the British Commonwealth of nations, of which 53 still want her to be retained as their Head of State.

Having been to and worked in many of the worlds nations, I don't believe there is a head of state with higher worldwide respect than the Queen of England. Nor should the EU's mandarins ever be in a position to affect the position of the British Monarchy

[Anna B 1,401]

WW1 was when many of the European Royal families disappeared, not WW2. To be followed by the likes of Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler etc, very poor replacements most would say.

The UK has had a dual political/Monarchial system that has worked for hundreds of years because all the players know what is expected of them. And yes since 1952, the Queen has worked as hard as any politician to further the interests of the country, its peoples, and the stability of its institutions. Her income has been an investment for the country

And she was one of the guiding lights, along with her father, to transfer the Empire into the British Commonwealth of nations, of which 53 still want her to be retained as their Head of State.

Having been to and worked in many of the worlds nations, I don't believe there is a head of state with higher worldwide respect than the Queen of England. Nor should the EU's mandarins ever be in a position to affect the position of the British Monarchy

 

 

 

I agree with all this. The Queen has indeed done her duty and done it well for 60+ years.

 

However the other Royals don't have her dedication and self-control, and I fear that they will not come near her performance. Times have changed and I think the Monarchy will become more and more anachronistic.

 

Personally I think the class system which is headed by the Queen and aristocracy, and all the attendant 'tradition,' actually holds us back. It can be appreciated as a historical entity, but is no basis for a modern, forward looking country. Take the Palace of Westminster - no longer fit for purpose as a place of Government. When it closes for restoration it should be made into a museum, and the business of government should take place elsewhere in a purpose built 21st century building. It is a place of work, after all, not a place of privilege.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Anna B

[Jomie 30]

Quote Ecconoob: Yes it did 370 years ago. What replaced it as allegedly requested by the "people" was so bad that it lasted a mere 12 years before the public pleaded for the Monarchy to be restored.

It's simply not possible to equate what happened 370 years ago to the situation now. We have moved a long way since then and it is difficult to see the relevance in the twenty first century.

 

Quote Ecconoob: 2 minutes on Google would give you an answer.

 

Its a question that has been done to death.

 

I think a more interesting question would be what do the 328 uk citizens listed as having MORE wealth than the Queen do to earn theirs. At least, due to her unique position of being under pubic scruitany 24/7 since her birth, you can easily find out what the still on duty 92 year old does all day.

Having done more than two minutes searching on Google it seems to me that actually nobody can give any definitive answer regarding how much wealth the royal family bring to the UK. It depends on who is doing the research, their bias and what data they include. For every positive there is a negative. As for other people who are wealthy, that is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

 

I don't know what the Queen does all day but the mere fact that she is 92 and still doing her job would seem to indicate that it can't be that arduous. How many people do you know who are still able to work at that age? Very few people in the north live to anywhere near the age of the Queen and her husband. No prizes for guessing why that is. Having had a lifetime of working in a stressful occupation I cannot and will not believe that the Queen 'works hard'. Go into any NHS hospital, especially A&E and then see if you agree that the Queen works hard. She actually doesn't have to lift a finger, not even to wash her own mug! She doesn't have to care for her ailing husband. There are carers all over the UK who are under tremendous pressure, 24/7. It is insulting our intelligence to say that the Queen 'works hard' in comparison to the ordinary person who does not have her privileges.

 

Many people do not want the UK to be without a monarch but they do object to the sheer size and burden of the royal family en masse. It needs slimming down drastically to a manageable level. They are simply overstaffed and in the corporate world overstaffing leads to redundancies. The taxpayer should only be expected to fund the monarch and no more than the first five in line of succession.

Edited October 17, 2018 by Jomie

[alchemist 35]

Just looked at the 2017 figures for parliament and the house of lords and it seems like they cost us @ £318m last year, 7x the cost of the royals or £4.83 each.

 

I cant help but think on their current performance I deserve my money back!!!