news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7481717.stm

So that's all right then.

At least he won't have to worry about the credit crunch and rising food / fuel prices.

did he threaten to go on strike too? :unsure:

if we do have to put up with an unelected head of state and her family then let them pay for themselves and their bills (e.g. transport, security et al) via palace tours, charging for the visits they make or selling a painting or too

don't see why a single penny I earn should go to anyone who was born into their job.

Fcuking :goodpost:

Fcuking english cnuts!

2000 and fcuking 8 my arse!

It cost you 66p last year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7477222.stm

I'm sure far more of your money was spent on far less worthy things if you're going to go down that road.

If you're going to moan about people being unelected then how about the prime minister. He actually makes important decisions, the Royals don't. Her being head of state is more of an honourary thing these days, doesn't really affect you.

They add more than they take IMO in terms of the money they bring in worldwide and the way the raise the profile of Britain around the world.

the pm makes less money than the chief execs at most small organisations

let alone those other leaders who have power over nuclear weapons!

the royal family cost £40m a year

they are also hereditory

and never stripped of their titles no matter what they do

And how much do they bring in, directly and indirectly? That is the important point to consider if you're going to moan about their finances.

Maybe we should ask someone on here that's good with statistics to give us a 1,000 word thesis analysing the effects of the royal family on country infrastructure and tourism levels.

Do you know anyone that would be up for the challenge? :popcorn:

I'm looking forward to not reading it already. :good:

Do people seriously believe that tourists would stop traveling to England if the monarchy was abolished?

The absence of monarchies doesn't seem to dent tourist industries elsewhere.

I dont care how little of my dosh goes to the Royal family, it should be optional whether you wish to give it or not, not taken from you.

I had no money to buy a pint of milk yesterday, had I not given 66p to the Queen, I would have been able to afford one, with some pennies left over to get my kids some sweeties.......

:goodpost: Something usually overlooked by the 'they bring in revenue' brigade.

No, but it's more than just that. It's the way they raise our profile around the world.
EDIT: I'm not sure how reasonable the comparison with other countries is anyhow.
Britain's monarchy is pretty unique in terms of their worldwide profile.


And, just generally, I like all the pomp and ceremony that goes with them.
It's all a bit bonkers but it's part of British life that I like.

:dance:


Gawd bless 'em.

do people still visit the leuvre?

would people stop coming here just because we don't have a hereditory head of state? would the tower of london, stone henge and a hundred and one other things disappear if we had an elected head of state?

no

other countries manage to maintain business and diplomatic ties with other nations without the need to have a monarchy do it for them, don't see any reason not to do the same here

although thanks to some monarch - maybe King Charles II? - the house of parliament, the centre of this great "democracy", is not allowed to debate the monarchy at all!

Would you be happier if people had to vote for king or queen?

Course he wouldn't. He moans about our elected leaders too.

:tiphat:

They're scum!


...and proddy b@stards!

can you have an elected king or queen?

and yes I would be happy, provided they had less of a role as tourism reps and ceremonial types and more as people driving through national policy

and of course the bill would have to decrease

No you wouldn't. You'd still moan about them.

The bill is tiny compared with the amount they bring in (not just in tourism, also indirectly in terms of raising Britain's profile worldwide).

£40m is a tiny amount compared with budgets of billions which get spent on things like nuclear weapons.

I think I know what makes me moan better than you do to be honest

WUMs :rolleyes:












:run:

:yikes:

Maybe we could have President Sarkozy instead?

Abolish the monarchy just because a few of you don't like it?, oh do feck off.

mugabe wasn't elected by popular vote

plenty of tyrants throughout history have been heridotory heads of state, don't see how citing mugabe, hamas and hitler is any more valid than citing numerous examples of these.

The money issue is irrelevant. It's a drop in the ocean of our national expenditure.
And, IMO, they more than make up for it in terms of income they bring in. Tourism is part of that - although I agree that wouldn't grind to a halt if they weren't around - but they also do a lot of work raising Britain's profile around the world.

So the only issue is some vague principle that we shouldn't have an unelected head of state. But since that role is pretty much one of a figurehead it doesn't really affect policy.

I personally feel Britain would be poorer without them. Not neccessarily financially but it's a part of British life. A slightly eccentric part, but it's something I rather like about Britain.

*waves little Union Jack*

I don't particularly care about the money (but letters tell the people like single mothers and disabled who suffer due to shortfalls that 40 mill is a drop in the ocean - if you cant see that could be better spent then i question your sanity) I just think it's a disgrace that in this day in age we still have shit like this going on.

They are rascist and sectarian and this cannot be disputed!

Shit like what going on?

They cost £40m. How much do they bring in?
Billions, with a b, is spent on the problems you're talking about.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...o-4-396421.html


So yeah. Relatively, £40m is a trivial amount.
EDIT: It's 0.045% of the spend on the NHS.

Shit like hereditory Institutions that are inherently rascist and sectarian.

Also this figure of 40 million is very misleading. This only represents the money that comes directly from the public purse to finance the royal family. It does not represent the money that they generate via their dutchies and other 'business' interests, and i use the word 'business' very lightly as something that is handed on a plate with every concession possible does not constitute a business, which they make hundreds of millions of pounds from. Now this money would still be generated if the monarchy did not exists so again this could be fed back into the public purse.

For the sake of debate though, I'll stick to the figure of 40 mill as this point will remain valid: it may be a drop in the ocean relativley speaking but how many life saving operations could that perfom? Hundreds? Thousands? Now do you think that the royal family is more important than the lives that we can't afford to save?

It's very simplistic to think that were that £40m not spent on the Royals that it would be directed to life-saving operations.

There are plenty of things where far more money is spent on things which are less important than saving likes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_Trident_programme#Cost

For example.

Which doesn't mean that I don't think we shouldn't have a nuclear defence. I do.
But I'm sure your £40m could be shaved off that budget quite easily.

Oh I agree completely about Trident (although I maintain that Scotland as an Independant nation would not require a nuclear defence).

But that is a poor arguement. Just because it can be saved elsewhere does not mean it should.

It was simplistic but that was intentional Letters.

It's an equally poor argument to say that the money would be better spent on life-saving operations.

You're probably right, but realistically that isn't what would happen so it's not a reason for abolishing the monarchy. It also ignores how their work in raising Britain's profile boosts the economy.

Like I said, it was intentionally simplistic to illustrate that simply, the money would be better spent elsewhere.

I also think that tyou are over estimating their importance in raising the profile of the UK. Does the profile need raised? Can it be raised further than it is?



One day we'll agree on summin letters, one day :good:

I disagree. :sulk:


;)

So how does their work help the economy, other than by tourism which might still be good even if they were not there. People go to many countries where the old monarchies have disappeard because there is more than just figureheads dressing up.

What significant business deals would we have lost without a royal family? You indicate the importance of a deal by having your head of state or top political leaders turn up. Other countries with elected heads of state do this, we can do the same.

All the arguments I have seen in favour of the royals have no proper figures to back it up. Figures bandied around like the tourism one are based on all tourists to the UK - there is no indication of what proportion of those tourists would not have turned up if we had a republic.

There is more to life than just money. Even if the cost was a few 100s of millions, I'd still want to get rid of the royal family as they are the top of the class and priviledge system which I want to see destroyed. If we took over the land and other assets that the royal family enjoy, I'm sure we'd get the money back.

Absolutely.

I do think they add something to the country in terms of tourism and work on raising the profile of the country in general.

But ignoring any financial impact they may have I just like the general pomp and ceremony which goes with them. It's part of British life that I like rather a lot and I think we'd be the poorer without it.

It's all a bit eccentric these days but it's something I rather like about us.


TBH I don't think there are very good reasons for keeping them or for not keeping them. It's more how you feel about them, the whole idea of a monarchy in the modern world and whether you like that somewhat eccentric part of British life.

As I say, it is what they represent that I dislike. However, if you want royal parades to continue - maybe something like the Disney Parades at the US theme parks, that can still be kept - that is not as silly as it sounds, after all, what is the Changing of the Guard except a spectacle for tourists? Ditto the Trouping of the Colour. These ceremonies are not ancient tradition as is made out - they were cynically started up in recent times by the monarchy and government during Victoria's reign when she was not very popular and the Victorian spin doctors got to work.

Trooping the Colour dates back to around 1700 Coney, hardly Victorian.

And most countries, monarchy or republic have the same military traditions like Trouping the Colour or Changing the Guard, The Queens birthday parade is no different from any other national celebration like May Day parades or even Bastille day.

What like about the monarchy is the sense of tradition, history and pride it engenders, regardless of its artifice real or imagined, it is to me an important symbol of the country I live in.

I stand corrected - but most of the bullshit is, well, bullshit.

My father, being an ex-Guardsman, may want to take you to task over that ;)

:lol:

Nothing against our armed forces who do a top job despite the politicians doing their best to break their bats before they've even left the pavillion and waging wars due to their incompetence to solve things better. :good:

I'd still want to get rid of the royal family as they are the top of the class and priviledge system which I want to see destroyed.


And replaced with what Coney?

Another bloody level of money wasting beurocrats no doubt.

There's a lot of nonsense on here. Well done Letters though.

To abolish the Monarchy (not that it ever would happen) would be barmy.

Quite frankly, anybody in favour of doing anything which increases the power and responsibility of politicans neads psychiatric help.