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

[Hayley90]

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

He would have got one as he completed 28 days of a tour
Any soldier who serves in theatre for 28 days or more is entitled to claim a medal. Not all of them do though. X

 

[3 girlies]

i like having a royal family, we have a queen, i'm proud to say that, not that they do much! if i was a queen i wear my crown all the time incase people forgot who i was & Id definately watch corrie on my throne

...sorry for not debating as such but being a queen would be kinda fun

 

[quaizer]

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 agree with this and think you put it wonderfully!

I would much prefer William to abdicate though, so Harry would be our King

 

[Hayley90]

Thanks

I read through it and changed it about 6 times

Also just to add - Diana was "The People's Princess" - i think her Son's are the same. Definately more down to earth than the Queen, Philip or Charles could ever be.

x

 

[quaizer]

Thanks

I read through it and changed it about 6 times

Also just to add - Diana was "The People's Princess" - i think her Son's are the same. Definately more down to earth than the Queen, Philip or Charles could ever be.

x

I agree with this too! Harry is my favorite He's a bit of a bad boy lol xx

 

[Hayley90]

I like him, simply because he is nearer to my age haha and he went to afghanistan like my OH did, and when my OHs hair got long & his beard grew, he resembled Harry i just think he is a sweety... this could turn into a singles ad for Harry...GSOH, physically fit, good career.....inheritance

 

[quaizer]

He's young enough to be my toyboy, lmao!

I think Harry is the way forward. I cant help but think that William is a bit up himself. Harry could take the Royal Family in a whole new direction and finally bring them into this era. xx

 

[Hayley90]

I think William is the brains & Harry the brawn

Clearly we could do very well with 2 kings. now THAT is modernisation of the Royal family

 

[tasha41]

I live in Canada, I am happy with and proud of the way things are.

It's part of your culture and traditions (and ours somewhat here, the Queen is our head of state).

Personally I think heritage should be protected, it is nice that though times have changed countless times, the monarchy still stands... through wars, map lines being erased and redrawn, pandemics, improvements in human rights, discoveries in science, etc. Some consistency is nice.

 

[MommyMichele]

Sorry to butt in but may I ask a quick question?

How much is being made on tourism versus how much it's costing for the upkeep? Is your country bringing in more because of those that come to see all things royal or are all things royal costing more to keep?

Personally, as a possible future tourist, I would still come just to see the sights if there were no actual royal family in residence. I would actually be visiting for the history of your country, to learn things, not to try and see a member of the royal family.

 

[tasha41]

IDK I'd be wanting to see the guards at Buckingham Palace etc if I flew out there, they wouldn't be there if there wasn't a Queen to guard lol. Charles and Camilla visited my city last year and there was a crowd of thousands waiting there.

 

[marley2580]

See people don't just come here to see them/palaces etc. They also come to see landscape/history etc. BUT the state visits the royal family carry out raise the UK's profile abroad, meaning that people are more likely to consider coming here. I think they actually are quite good value for money.

 

[Serene123]

I don't even live in another country and I love going into London to see the palace. It's just part of England for me.

 

[Kimboowee]

I like having a Royal Family but think it would be ideal if they could change a few things - like has been said before on this thread - They should live by example, alot of Britains had to make cut backs yet they didnt. And they definately need modernising - I think when the Queen steps down/dies Charles should just pass King onto William. And extended family should live like the rest of us.
The hangers on need to go like that princess micheal of whatever her name is - she gives The Royals a bad name

 

[TattiesMum]

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.

I agree with this actually:

Many of the 'Royal Buildings' are actually owned by the State rather than privately owned by the Queen .... if we no longer had a Royal Family as such then those buildings (Buckingham Palace for example) could be opened to the public, which would actually bring in a HUGE amount of additional revenue.

Tourists don't come here to 'see' the Queen and her family - they come for the heritage .... which would still be here whether or not we still had a 'working' Monarchy.

The figures quoted for the Civil List expenditure (ie 50p per year per person) doesn't even come close to the real amount of money that they cost us with security, private flights, helicopter jaunts to the golf course and so on.

For me the Monarchy is an outdated anachronism ... it simply has no place in a modern society

 

[jaye944]

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

There is a lot of things that this country is well known for and why tourists come here and only 1 of them is the royal familly

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!

if you thing of where tourists actually live and stay a SMALL percentage is London. so no thats wrong, the only people who will suffer
is the over priced vendors selling 99's for a fiver to japanese tourists
and the hot dog sellars giving salmonella to the rest

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!

Think you'll find in taxes a lot more goes to there upkeep

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!

what?? no she doesnt about 400 years ago the monarch had the most power in the land, however after the Magna Carta was signed. Most of the power went to parliament. They made up the laws but the King had to make it official by signing it.

The same rule still applies but if the Queen doesn't like the new law and rejects it, she will have a rebellion on her hands as parliament is voted in by the people , so we actually have a hand in making the laws, where as she is just there as an accident of birth.

The only responsibility she has is making certain people in the land Lords or Ladies.

Great Britian has a constitutional monarchy. And the sovereign has no real power. She is onlya figurehead. The only thing that she does is ceramonial . She awards titles to people etc.. She does not get involved in political and she rarely vetos any bills and send them back. She allows mostly anything that the majority decides on. Although most seem to think that the monarch plays a very important role in the way the country is run.

But most importantly of all she is also the commander in chief of the british armed forces

IMVHO a total waste of time and space, they have the best medical care, when any trouble happens you can bet you bottom dollar they'd be whisked away to an underground bunker.

What amazes me most and I have the most admiration for is the 1000's of people living on a shoestring bringing up there famillies the best way they know how to

 

[AppleBlossom]

If it wasn't for the royal family there would be no royal variety performance and therefore no britain's got talent

Lol joking. I'm not bothered by them. They seem a bit pointless but I suppose it's a part of our country and heritage that we should be proud of plus they bring in a small amount of tourism and go over to different countries raising the UK's profile. But if they left tomorrow I wouldn't really care

 

[buttonnose82]

I stand by what i said earlier, i would like them to stay ..... IF they began to be self sufficient, and also would want to see them treated as equals in regards to taxes etc and not let off just because of who they are

If our taxes pay for them then they should lead by example ..... simple

 

[SKATERBUN]

If it wasn't for the royal family there would be no royal variety performance and therefore no britain's got talent

Lol joking. I'm not bothered by them. They seem a bit pointless but I suppose it's a part of our country and heritage that we should be proud of plus they bring in a small amount of tourism and go over to different countries raising the UK's profile. But if they left tomorrow I wouldn't really care

I think its one of those things we are stuck with in the UK, Our queen has the biggest prominance in the whole world. I doubt if we will even switch to the Euro before the next decade. But i really think they have far too much money, this does need looking at, considering this country is billions in debt.

 

[buttonnose82]

we wouldn't be accepted into the euro any time soon because of the debt we have anyway!