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

[impatient1]

I am not from there but I think it is a nice part of your heritage, I do think that the cost of upkeep seems to be quite a lot and some take advantage of the lifestyle they are given by being born into the blood line or even married in. Also curious if Canadian's pay anything to them as well. How far through the bloodline do they receive benefits from the tax payers money (immedate family/cousins, etc)?

 

[bluebaby]

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

Thats a thought. Who would be our king and queen?? Maybe Billy Connolly and Lulu??

 

[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

Thats a thought. Who would be our king and queen?? Maybe Billy Connolly and Lulu??

omg can you imagine Billy Connelly as king? I'd defo tune in for his speeches lol

For queen though Annie Lennox would be a good choice eh? I just asked OH who he'd have as queen and he said Lorraine Kelly!

 

[bluebaby]

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

Thats a thought. Who would be our king and queen?? Maybe Billy Connolly and Lulu??

omg can you imagine Billy Connelly as king? I'd defo tune in for his speeches lol

For queen though Annie Lennox would be a good choice eh? I just asked OH who he'd have as queen and he said Lorraine Kelly!

Lorraine Kelly would be fab - very fair and dundee united would always be at the top of the league! What about Gerard Butler for prince - he would be nice to look at!!

 

[marley2580]

I don't mind them, I think the queen is useful when it comes to dealing with the Commonwealth and other nations as she is apolitical. I would like it if she were called Elizabeth I rather than II as Elizabeth I was only Queen of England and Wales and a couple of territories.

 

[Raven24]

i no they dont seem to do alot but they actually bring alot of tourism into the uk you know all those people who go to london arent really going for the london eye are they they want a glimse of the palace.
also there arent many countries left with a royal family now and i think its something to be proud of

 

[bluebaby]

i no they dont seem to do alot but they actually bring alot of tourism into the uk you know all those people who go to london arent really going for the london eye are they they want a glimse of the palace.
also there arent many countries left with a royal family now and i think its something to be proud of

They could still see the buildings without having a royal family though. The buildings aren't going to disappear if you know what a mean. The tourists come to see the buildings not the people I think. I would go to washington to see the white house not the president.

 

[aly888]

i no they dont seem to do alot but they actually bring alot of tourism into the uk you know all those people who go to london arent really going for the london eye are they they want a glimse of the palace.
also there arent many countries left with a royal family now and i think its something to be proud of

They could still see the buildings without having a royal family though. The buildings aren't going to disappear if you know what a mean. The tourists come to see the buildings not the people I think. I would go to washington to see the white house not the president.

Would you go to see the white house if it had no connection to the president what-so-ever though?? People are unlikely to come to London to visit a building that means nothing. If the royal family didnt exist the palace would have to become something else and most likely not something that tourists want to see! Just look at all the buildings form hundreds of years ago, castles etc. I know people still visit them and stuff, but they dont bring in the same level of attraction as a building that is still 'in use' iykwim?
I know what you mean though. They dont come to try and see any of the royal family. But they do watch the changing of the guard (or whatever it is called) etc

 

[morri]

Well Here we don't have a royal family but we have a President who gets paid by taxes. Sure he doesnt have such an extended family and he changes every 5 to 10 years but still everyone who was president and who is presidents gets paid his outcome and pension by the taxpayer..

 

[SKATERBUN]

I dont think the UK (London) would loose too many tourists if we didnt have a monarchy. Lots of other world wide major cities manage without one, and thrive as republic. I wouldnt know what the full pros and cons are of not having one.

The thing I have noticed however is that the everyday public is rather more focused on the average celebrity than than royalty. Gone are the days of getting the 'flags out' for the queen and country, its more likely to be done in the name of sport these days.
The royal family in the 70's and 80's were always focused on highly when i was a kid you couldnt pick up a paper or magazine without seeing an event with 'princess anne, princess di, the queen and queen mother'. Diana was probably the last of the true royal icons.

The uk was a highly respected country because of our royalty, however in recent years this seems to have dwindled. We no longer have that colonial presence in in the world and the younger generation do not seem to even know who they are let alone what they do.

On the other hand I wouldn't trust this country to be run as a republic, its already in a chaotic state with its politics

 

[bluebaby]

i no they dont seem to do alot but they actually bring alot of tourism into the uk you know all those people who go to london arent really going for the london eye are they they want a glimse of the palace.
also there arent many countries left with a royal family now and i think its something to be proud of

They could still see the buildings without having a royal family though. The buildings aren't going to disappear if you know what a mean. The tourists come to see the buildings not the people I think. I would go to washington to see the white house not the president.

Would you go to see the white house if it had no connection to the president what-so-ever though?? People are unlikely to come to London to visit a building that means nothing. If the royal family didnt exist the palace would have to become something else and most likely not something that tourists want to see! Just look at all the buildings form hundreds of years ago, castles etc. I know people still visit them and stuff, but they dont bring in the same level of attraction as a building that is still 'in use' iykwim?
I know what you mean though. They dont come to try and see any of the royal family. But they do watch the changing of the guard (or whatever it is called) etc

I do get what you mean but the building would mean something in history. It would be where the royal family used to live, people would still go and see it. Like Robbie Burns house - he hasn't lived there for a long time(mainly because he is dead) but it is still a huge tourist attraction in Scotland because it has history.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

heres something to ponder though.. what would the royal family do if we decided to get rid of the monarchy?

I cant imagine them doing 'normal' stuff. I cant see Prince Charles taking up a part time position in Tesco - would be funny to see them on Jeremy Kyle though for some scandal or another lol *mental image* ...

On a serious note, I still think people would come to see the palace etc... edinburgh castle makes a fortune and noone lives there iykwim.

We would still get the tourist revenue without the cost of 'upkeeping' the royals. Thats what I think anyway

 

[bluebaby]

heres something to ponder though.. what would the royal family do if we decided to get rid of the monarchy?

I cant imagine them doing 'normal' stuff. I cant see Prince Charles taking up a part time position in Tesco - would be funny to see them on Jeremy Kyle though for some scandal or another lol *mental image* ...

On a serious note, I still think people would come to see the palace etc... edinburgh castle makes a fortune and noone lives there iykwim.

We would still get the tourist revenue without the cost of 'upkeeping' the royals. Thats what I think anyway [/QUOTE]

Exactly what I think - don't think I worded it properly. The royals are one of the biggest land owners in Britain so they would still have lots of money and a good lifestyle if they weren't royal anymore and they would just do paid public appearances and speaking engagements to make more money.

 

[redpoppy]

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

Two topics we agree on...

SO, here are my reasons:

In terms of value for money, do I even blink when I think of the loss of 50p? I actually thought it was closer to £2 but 50p sounds like a BARGAIN!!!!

But it is the ideals around power which interest me.

To be honest every part of me screams that it SHOULD be against the monarchy. But it just isn't because the IDEALS do not convey the reality. Democracy is not infallible and in most places is corrupt. Even in this country, I'd rather see peerage go from father to son (or daughter!) than have it being BOUGHT and SOLD to the highest bidder.

And it may sound nuts but I'd rather pay a random family to be rich and messed up and give them an abstract form of power (and it is pretty abstract in this day and age as it increasingly seems like the royal family have very little power anyway!) than have faith in a democracy where we have so much scandal around the issues of money. We don't even have a Labour Labour party anymore, we have "new" labour. There is no escaping the effects of big business and money on the political system of any country. People like Rupert Murdoch make or break people depending on their interests.

I realise that having a monarchy does suggest some form of inherited dictatorship BUT, although it sound stupid, I'd rather have faith in a family who have a huge sense of duty to their country and their "subjects" (I do actually quite dislike that term! ) than greedy power hungry b*****d politicians.

Besides, the royal family tend to be messy enough that from one monarch tot he next the ideology changes greatly. We can see the queen holding on for dear life as Charles (king charles!) is bound to be a bit of an odd one but I like that. I like that he talks to plants and cares about old buildings and the environment etc. and I like the fact that all royals receive excellent education. No chance of anyone knowing much about not being very rich and privileged but then that doesn't mean they don't care.

The aristocracy traditionally (and if this change to a great degree I might actually change my mind totally!) value "good breeding" above all else including money. I like this reflected in the tailors of St Jermyn Street who thing advertising is tacky (although sadly this is changing!) And I would like us to fund a family that is paid to feel this way and which nurtures a great sense of duty.

I would even dare to suggest that it would have been nice if the royal family had a teeny tiny bit more power than they currently do.

if I'm honest, i don't know too much about this subject but that's unfortunately never stopped me from having an opinion.

 

[buttonnose82]

i just think they should lead by example ..... not one rule for the royal family and another for the rest of the population .....

 

[Hayley90]

I can see both sides of this...

I think that the Royal Family is an out dated set-up, and it takes more than just "money they bring in" vs "money they take out" to decide if they are needed or not.

I disagree with the entire royal family getting allowances and state-funded benefits, I don't think we should be paying for their private education (when we all know the princes didn't exactly do that well at Eton) their healthcare (You will NEVER see Philip in an NHS bed thats for sure, yet we pay for his private healthcare) and their facilities - (why own 3 houses if you can only be in one at a time?!?!)

Then again, i do like the history of it & the tourism money they bring in is phenomenal. However, i still dont think this warrants the sheer volume of public cash needed to keep them afloat -

The queen has "demanded" her first payrise in 10 years this year, which is shown here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-demands-Her-Majesty-demands-6m-pay-hike.html
I know its the Daily Mail, but the little diagram was quite useful to me

Its interesting to see that the amount taken from the tax payer goes into paying for all their staff and events, catering, as well as upkeep of their homes, transport, travel and "state trips". I think a lot of this could be cut back on - why should every one else in the UK cut back on their expenses, and the Royal family get to continue eating banquets like nothing is wrong?

There should definately be more transparency in what money is spent where, only then should the Queen be able to "demand" money from the tax payers pot.

I think that while SOME of the Royals are bad examples (and they have plenty of hangers on - Fergie for example) some of them should be applauded - Prince Harry still did his tour of duty (even though it was cut short) and served his country as he said he would. Prince William has done HUGE amounts for most of the charities Diana worked for (Unicef etc) and i think seen as both of them are possible future rulers to this country, it is good that we the public get to see them on their day to day life - mistakes aswell.

I personally know very little about the Queen, and i think she is slightly alienated from the public - whereas her grandsons have grown up in the public eye, with their fair share of troubles along the way - they are seen as "normal" guys. I would MUCH rather they rule this country, as more well-rounded experienced individuals, and hopefully they would bring with their youth a little more transparency to the whole Royal Family & prove what they are worth.

When the Queen came into "power" as it were, she had experienced very little by herself - just a princess, wrapped in cotton wool. William & Harry are the opposite and you would hope they carry a little bit of the "common folk" attitude with them, as they know more about life in the real world.

SO no, i dont think THEY are a waste of money - but they need to cut back & perhaps hand the reins over to someone a little fresher who can bring a new attitude to the way the monarchy acts & behaves & ultimately spends its money.

Ugh. This is so jumbled, will definately edit...

 

[dani_tinks]

Im very patriotic and love our royal family. Well I don't love THEM but I love that our country's got one

 

[buttonnose82]

I can see both sides of this...

I think that the Royal Family is an out dated set-up, and it takes more than just "money they bring in" vs "money they take out" to decide if they are needed or not.

I disagree with the entire royal family getting allowances and state-funded benefits, I don't think we should be paying for their private education (when we all know the princes didn't exactly do that well at Eton) their healthcare (You will NEVER see Philip in an NHS bed thats for sure, yet we pay for his private healthcare) and their facilities - (why own 3 houses if you can only be in one at a time?!?!)

Then again, i do like the history of it & the tourism money they bring in is phenomenal. However, i still dont think this warrants the sheer volume of public cash needed to keep them afloat -

The queen has "demanded" her first payrise in 10 years this year, which is shown here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-demands-Her-Majesty-demands-6m-pay-hike.html
I know its the Daily Mail, but the little diagram was quite useful to me

Its interesting to see that the amount taken from the tax payer goes into paying for all their staff and events, catering, as well as upkeep of their homes, transport, travel and "state trips". I think a lot of this could be cut back on - why should every one else in the UK cut back on their expenses, and the Royal family get to continue eating banquets like nothing is wrong?

There should definately be more transparency in what money is spent where, only then should the Queen be able to "demand" money from the tax payers pot.

I think that while SOME of the Royals are bad examples (and they have plenty of hangers on - Fergie for example) some of them should be applauded - Prince Harry still did his tour of duty (even though it was cut short) and served his country as he said he would. Prince William has done HUGE amounts for most of the charities Diana worked for (Unicef etc) and i think seen as both of them are possible future rulers to this country, it is good that we the public get to see them on their day to day life - mistakes aswell.

I personally know very little about the Queen, and i think she is slightly alienated from the public - whereas her grandsons have grown up in the public eye, with their fair share of troubles along the way - they are seen as "normal" guys. I would MUCH rather they rule this country, as more well-rounded experienced individuals, and hopefully they would bring with their youth a little more transparency to the whole Royal Family & prove what they are worth.

When the Queen came into "power" as it were, she had experienced very little by herself - just a princess, wrapped in cotton wool. William & Harry are the opposite and you would hope they carry a little bit of the "common folk" attitude with them, as they know more about life in the real world.

SO no, i dont think THEY are a waste of money - but they need to cut back & perhaps hand the reins over to someone a little fresher who can bring a new attitude to the way the monarchy acts & behaves & ultimately spends its money.

Ugh. This is so jumbled, will definately edit...

I felt so so sorry for poor Harry when it was cut short, he was gutted and i don't blame him, stupid media putting his life and the life of everyone in his troop at risk like that he was only days away from completing it too

 

[Hayley90]

Buttonnose - me too
I read that the british media had a pact to keep quiet to keep him & his troops safe, which they stuck to, and it was US media that planned to run a story or something?

I cant remember. Him & Liam were there at the same time, so it was SO scary watching the press released footage of him over there...thinking "my guy is there too " while Harry got to fly home. He did well though, was brilliant. Liam loves him for that.

Think its awesome he was commanding planes under an alias, imagine if you were a pilot and you found out who you were talking to!!!

 

[buttonnose82]

I had heard that as a result he didn't receive his medal (because he didn't complete his tour) .... is that true?? because that seems very unfair if it is