Debate - Do you think the British Royal Family is a waste of money?*CLOSING 2MRO*

[Blah11]

The Royal Family expenditure is £41.5m per year with £13.9m coming from tax payers. Do you feel that 50p per person per year is wasted money even though in 2008-2009 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £211 million?

Discuss...

Before you discuss, please read through the rules carefully and if you feel that there are any you cannot agree with please do not join in the debate. This debate is to be discussed maturely and anyone breaking the rules will be asked to leave the debate until told by me they can come back.

RULES- PLEASE READ!

- Although voicing your opinion is encouraged, please do not personally attack another participant whilst doing so.

- Please do not preach or force your opinion on others.

- What is said in this thread stays in this thread. Do not carry it over to other areas of the forum, or facebook. Anyone caught doing this will forfeit from the rest of the debate.

- Each debate will have a neutral moderator (the original poster) who is impartial and not taking part in the debate. They have the final say if any disagreements crop up. Please do not argue with them and if they ask you to leave the thread or take some time out please respect that and don't take it personally.

Happy debating and remember, you can voice your opinion without getting nasty so PLAY NICE

 

[lollylou1]

yes i do even without recession it still a waste

Lou
xxx

 

[buttonnose82]

I think the idea of the royal family is nice but I think it is now outdated. I know they generate alot of income but they also cost us alot to 'upkeep'

I disagree with the fact they are exempt from certain taxes etc just because of who they are, for example they are exempt from paying inheritence tax .... the reason 'to protect their money' Things like that I find unfair.

I think on the other hand the 2 boys (william & harry) are good examples, yes harry had some rough times but it goes to show he was your typical teenager. I actually felt very sorry for harry that he was unable to complete his tour of duty because people put his safety at risk by leaking to the press that he was over there.

I do feel sorry for the younger members of the royal family having to live their lives in front of the world.

I wouldn't mind the continuing of the royal family IF they were self sufficient and lived by the same rules as the rest of the country ..... lead by example

 

[lesleyann]

i think its pretty pointless really.. Get rid of the Govt and just have teh queen then maybe we should keep them but otherwise nope im not intrested at all in the royal family there is nothing that great about any of them just a title

 

[Blah11]

Sorry I know I'm not suppose dto get involved but lesleyann - that would mean the country would be a dictatorship

 

[jeanettekaren]

I agree in principal with keeping the "core" Royal family ie. those directly in line to the throne. They bring in alot of money via tourism and are good ambassadors for the country overseas. What I don't agree with is all the indirect royalty living it up and getting all the perks without doing any work to warrant this. These are the ones that are spending tax-payers money without putting in the work for the country.

 

[lesleyann]

Sorry I know I'm not suppose dto get involved but lesleyann - that would mean the country would be a dictatorship

i dont know what that is but heres the thought behind what i said


Currently we pay for a Govt and the royal family

When we could just pay for one of the above

but i dont know to much on this subject lol so ignor me iff its well out there

 

[Charlotteee]

The king and queen are there to run the country.

Well thats how it should be/used to be.
I agree with it aswell.

The government shouldnt run it IMO. We should have one or the other, and i think the royal family should x

 

[aly888]

I personally dont think they are a waste of money. I like that we have our royal family, and the last thing I would want to live in is a dictatorship, no matter how it came about!!

But I do agree with janettekaren in that the 'indirect' royals are reaping (sp) all the benefits without putting in the foot-work

This came up in a thread a couple of weeks back and someone pointed out the number of people who are actually employed by the royal family in one way or another...what would happen to them!?

 

[jenny_wren]

not at all ...

one of the first things you think of when you think
of england is the royal family, it's what we as a country
are known for, i love the fact we have a queen at the
top

to get rid of the royal family would mean no more tourists
and tourists spend ALOT of money in london visiting various
things associated with the royal family that money i dare
say is needed for businesses to thrive!

50p a year per person is not alot of money especially considering
how much we must get from tourists every year ... i think my
50p is well invested in the royal family!

the queen always has the final say on everything which makes
her in charge, one woman cannot run this country by herself which
is why we have the government, they suggest to her what needs
doing and she says yes or no ... i dont see a problem in that!

i don't see them as a waste of money, they do alot to ensure our
country stays afloat, the spend alot of time with charities and
schools, and they're fantastic ambassadors for overseas, yes they
may fart arse about in their spare time ... but who doesn't!

xxx​

 

[aly888]

Just wanted to add that the purpose of the government was so that the 'common' people got a say in what happened to the country, but obviously still had to run everything by the king/queen first (hence 'house of commons' and 'house of lords'). To lose one or the other could potentially result in disaster I know it's changed alot since it came about, and if we are honest, MP's arent always exactly 'in tune' with the real world, but I think it's good that everything gets run by the king/queen first!
And as Jenny says, the tourism that it generates is well worth my 50 pence

 

[danapeter36]

I think they are part of our heritage that makes us British, so I actually think that 50p is a good investment and tbh I like the fact we have a queen and palaces and guards and all of that. It makes us have an identity really which i quite like

 

[Sovereign]

not at all ...

one of the first things you think of when you think
of england is the royal family, it's what we as a country
are known for, i love the fact we have a queen at the
top

to get rid of the royal family would mean no more tourists
and tourists spend ALOT of money in london visiting various
things associated with the royal family that money i dare
say is needed for businesses to thrive!

50p a year per person is not alot of money especially considering
how much we must get from tourists every year ... i think my
50p is well invested in the royal family!

the queen always has the final say on everything which makes
her in charge, one woman cannot run this country by herself which
is why we have the government, they suggest to her what needs
doing and she says yes or no ... i dont see a problem in that!

i don't see them as a waste of money, they do alot to ensure our
country stays afloat, the spend alot of time with charities and
schools, and they're fantastic ambassadors for overseas, yes they
may fart arse about in their spare time ... but who doesn't!

xxx​

Couldn't agree more!! You just saved me typing it all out lol! x

 

[morri]

I think the qustion is not do you want to get rid of the royal family but rather, would you like to get your tax payers money soend on a president or a constitutional monarch because really the president in Germany (although atm w don't have one) does not do much else than the queen, they live in a fancy castle, or palace and sign the laws . and get their pension from taxpayer .

I think though that nobody even if they say so in their post wants a real monarchy or even a absolutistic monarchy lol.

 

[coccyx]

Gosh, no way should unelected people run the country. Queen is there due to birth/abdication and should not be involved in governing.
I'm no royalist and hate all the hang on family members, but as I understand it they bring in more than they cost, and boy do we need that revenue.

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

I agree with Jenny. I like having a royal family.

 

[bluebaby]

I do think the royal family are a waste of money even if it is only 50p. In my eyes they really don't do alot for britian really (this is just my opinion I've not really researched this) I believe that tourists would come to britian in the same numbers and spend the same money whether we have a royal family or not. Tourists come to britian to see the wonderful country, its beautiful buildings, senery, history and attractions not a posh family that you wouldn't get to set your eyes on anyway.

The 50p we all give could be put towards our national debt or be used for the NHS etc. The money quoted that it costs us to fund the royal family doesn't include all of their security and some other things so its prob not as accurate as we may think.

 

[rubixcyoob.]

There are pros and cons to the royal family, as there is with everything.

Currently, the royal family has no real say in legislation or running the country. The Queen does not have the final say on passing legislation. If it passes in the House of Commons, it moves onto the House of Lords (the HoL can't scrap legislation, but can defer it for a maximum of 2 years). Once passed by the House of Lords it goes to be approved by the Queen, which it will be regardless, due to passing the other two stages of the legislitive process.
The Queen does not write her own 'Queens speech', this is something influenced and written from 10 Downing Street and whomever is in charge of the country.
The Queen also does not really have a choice in choosing the next priminister. They are recommended by the previous PM, whom she then invites to her home on this recommendation. Will she go against this? No, because its what the people want.
The royal family is too extensive for us to be paying for all of them. £300k+ to pay for Princess Beatrice's university accommodation to be done up. Utterly appaling. She is in no way, ever going to be monarch to our country, why do we pay for her upkeep?
The royal family also gets away with murder. I commend prince Harry for going to war and fighting for his country, yet his racist comments (which made the press for 2ish weeks and then forgotten) are not something that should be acceptable by those representing Britain. Prince William was also known as the "Party Prince" due to his notorius nights out, drug taking and alcohol consumption.
The Queen also goes on 'political' trips, however, not of her own accord. The government arranges these for her, so all she is doing is being a puppet for the PM and his cabinet.
Why do we have to fund a monarchy that really has no influence in our government, acts they way they have done etc.etc.?

However, on a positive note, the Monarchy does bring a lot of tourism to Britain. The crown jewels, Buckingham palace, Windsor etc.etc. which generates a lot of income within our country, which we need during this recession.

So the question really is, do we fund a family that has no real say in our country and is only there through blood lines going back to when the Monarchy was respected, or do we lose the income from tourism?
Honestly, I would rather stop paying for the royal families luxuries etc. and use that money getting our country back in order.

 

[BlackBerry25]

I do not live there, but I think it is a nice part of your heritage and culture. However, I think it is a big waste of money and outdated, and pointless. Do Canadians pay anything towards the Royal Family, since they are also our Royal family? I would like to know...

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I think it is a bit of a waste of money tbh. And I agree with everything Rubixcyoob said

If there has to be a Royal family though it would be nice if Scotland had their own but I suppose thats a whole other debate lol