Do we actually need the Royal family?

[fantastica]

I dont think we do yes people say they bring billions in but they also take billions for them selves as well

Prince Charles has his own company,the Queen and all of the royal family pay tax-I think you'll find they bring in more than they take...x

Prince Charles' company is exempt from Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. Think they only pay Income Tax voluntarily and they are also exempt from Inheritance Tax.

 

[discoclare]

I dont think we do yes people say they bring billions in but they also take billions for them selves as well

Prince Charles has his own company,the Queen and all of the royal family pay tax-I think you'll find they bring in more than they take...x

Prince Charles' company is exempt from Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. Think they only pay Income Tax voluntarily and they are also exempt from Inheritance Tax.

Prince Charles pays income tax voluntarily, however I think most other royals have to pay income tax, the rules are a bit different for monarch and heir.

I am not sure that they are properly exempt from inheritance tax either. Some properties are exempt from inheritance tax when being passed down from the monarch, but residences such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace aren't technically owned by her anyway (they are owned by the state I think), the monarch is allowed to reside there. Though she does own some other property.

 

[discoclare]

Many Republics have good tourist industries without a monarchy and surely if the monarchy was abolished then tourists would actually have more access to historically important sites. Although the Queen may have not really used her powers, there is always a chance that someone could in the future.

What extra historical sites are you referring to? there is very few places that are royal related places that are not public and those few are because they are lived in residence. Would you want people trapsing through your home taking photos?

I was referring to the lived in residences, and obviously they shouldn't be open whilst they are occupied, but i'm not sure they should be lived in at all.

Out of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only 1 is anything royal, so I don't really know how or where all these figures come from.

But they are open while occupied. Well both Windsor Castle and Buck Pal are open while Queenie is in residence, but obviously you can't go into her bedroom! But you can go round huge portions of both properties while she is there.

 

[Pearls18]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

 

[Harveysmum369]

I dont think we do yes people say they bring billions in but they also take billions for them selves as well

Prince Charles has his own company,the Queen and all of the royal family pay tax-I think you'll find they bring in more than they take...x

Prince Charles' company is exempt from Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax. Think they only pay Income Tax voluntarily and they are also exempt from Inheritance Tax.

Prince Charles pays income tax voluntarily, however I think most other royals have to pay income tax, the rules are a bit different for monarch and heir.

I am not sure that they are properly exempt from inheritance tax either. Some properties are exempt from inheritance tax when being passed down from the monarch, but residences such as Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace aren't technically owned by her anyway (they are owned by the state I think), the monarch is allowed to reside there. Though she does own some other property.

Sandringham is owned by the Queen herself I think,I know her father George VI brought it from his brother-so not sure if that is 'private' property?x

 

[lhancock90]

Personally i think the Monarchy are incredibly important.

Firstly because as has been stated over 2 billion in tourism and trade. Around times like the jubilee, births, weddings that amount is exceeded by a fair amount.
Example, the Royal Wedding of Kate and Wills generated more profit than it cost. (I did have the figures somewhere!)

Secondly because i think they are a massive part of what makes us, us. As a country. Our Royal Family is vastly respected worldwide. It may be a dying tradition but personally i think its a lovely one. I love our Queenie!

Thirdly and finally, the Queen does have some power, as has been said she signs off on laws, she can intervene in political affairs if she sees fit. I quite like the idea that theres a safety net. That the Queen can reel in the Primeminister etc. I like that somebody is keeping a safe watch.

 

[fantastica]

Many Republics have good tourist industries without a monarchy and surely if the monarchy was abolished then tourists would actually have more access to historically important sites. Although the Queen may have not really used her powers, there is always a chance that someone could in the future.

What extra historical sites are you referring to? there is very few places that are royal related places that are not public and those few are because they are lived in residence. Would you want people trapsing through your home taking photos?

I was referring to the lived in residences, and obviously they shouldn't be open whilst they are occupied, but i'm not sure they should be lived in at all.

Out of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only 1 is anything royal, so I don't really know how or where all these figures come from.

But they are open while occupied. Well both Windsor Castle and Buck Pal are open while Queenie is in residence, but obviously you can't go into her bedroom! But you can go round huge portions of both properties while she is there.

Fair enough, didn't know that!

 

[fantastica]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

 

[hayz_baby]

One other thing tho.. I can't remember it all fully and tbh this doesn't have much to do with the question but i find it interesting.. There is a certain time when the queen is allowed into parliament/commons. During that time there is a ceremonial door shut in her face as a sign that she has no right in parliament. Obviously it is staged as such but still.. What a funny country we live in!

 

[lhancock90]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

 

[smokey]

I dont think we do yes people say they bring billions in but they also take billions for them selves as well

If your referring to "living on tax payers money" id look into that if I was you because they don't.
Only public functions get payed for with tax money, personal living is payed for by their own jobs, business, and funds.
Even the public functions only equates to 80p per tax payer per year.

 

[smokey]

Many Republics have good tourist industries without a monarchy and surely if the monarchy was abolished then tourists would actually have more access to historically important sites. Although the Queen may have not really used her powers, there is always a chance that someone could in the future.

What extra historical sites are you referring to? there is very few places that are royal related places that are not public and those few are because they are lived in residence. Would you want people trapsing through your home taking photos?

I was referring to the lived in residences, and obviously they shouldn't be open whilst they are occupied, but i'm not sure they should be lived in at all.

Out of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only 1 is anything royal, so I don't really know how or where all these figures come from.

So they should just live under a bridge rather then homes their family has owned for hundreds of years that they pay for themselves or through historical grants set up in bonds and shares of business to pay for them.

 

[fantastica]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

 

[smokey]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Each royal member is allowed to have 3 charities that they have a royal stamp on (they have loads of others but only 3 each royal approved) the ones that have been royal approved make over 300% more after they get their seal then what they did before so if you think about normal charity work as to royal charity work there is billions of pounds differance that they make just by having a royal seal of approval.

 

[smokey]

One other thing tho.. I can't remember it all fully and tbh this doesn't have much to do with the question but i find it interesting.. There is a certain time when the queen is allowed into parliament/commons. During that time there is a ceremonial door shut in her face as a sign that she has no right in parliament. Obviously it is staged as such but still.. What a funny country we live in!

Its called opening season, its not actually the queen that gets it slammed in her face but Black rod, her messenger.
The monarch hasn't been into the house of commons since 1642 so sends their messanger to to open the season of commons which gathers all the mps and lords together.
The door is slammed as a reminder that they have the right to exlude anyone but then is reopened to show acknowledgment that that exlusion doesn't apply to the soveriegns messengers.

The Queen does attend for ceremonial purpuses but doesn't actualy go int to the house of commons but instead remains elsewhere.
The part of the ceremony I find funny is when she travles their each year they have to send a MP as hostage to Buckingham palace to be flogged and beheaded if the monarch isn't returned
Its back from when the government and monarch didn't get along

 

[smokey]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

 

[fantastica]

Many Republics have good tourist industries without a monarchy and surely if the monarchy was abolished then tourists would actually have more access to historically important sites. Although the Queen may have not really used her powers, there is always a chance that someone could in the future.

What extra historical sites are you referring to? there is very few places that are royal related places that are not public and those few are because they are lived in residence. Would you want people trapsing through your home taking photos?

I was referring to the lived in residences, and obviously they shouldn't be open whilst they are occupied, but i'm not sure they should be lived in at all.

Out of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only 1 is anything royal, so I don't really know how or where all these figures come from.

So they should just live under a bridge rather then homes their family has owned for hundreds of years that they pay for themselves or through historical grants set up in bonds and shares of business to pay for them.

Aren't a lot of the main ones state owned? Why do they deserve that privilege? I'm not saying that though, but the argument of tourism seems to come up time and time again with no real evidence, and going by other popular attractions, if these places were empty then it would really be a boost for tourism. I really don't understand why they are entitled to all of this, it's not even a case of it just being in the family...they are exempt from any inheritance tax on the privately owned residences.

 

[LoraLoo]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

Thanks for this post Smokey actually didn't realise half of that!

 

[fantastica]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

I thought any money they make is put back into the government, or wherever, and then they are given an allowance out of a sovereign grant? A lot of their businesses are quite unethical as well, a complete contradiction of all this charity work they do.

To me, it's not even about whether they make money for the country, whether they do a bit of charity work or whether or not they cost the taxpayer more than they make or whether they are good people or not...it's the fact it's undemocratic, and no unelected individual should have access to that power (even if it is not used, she has directly given those powers to the government and do bi-passing the usual procedures) and no individual elected or not should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act or exempt from prosecution/arrest.

 

[fantastica]

Plus not forgetting all the work they do for charity.......

They could do that regardless, they don't need to be 'royal' to do charity work.

Yes but as prominent figures they are more likely to raise money from the public.

Also lets not forget that William and Harry both have jobs.

But their charities spend just as much on fundraising as any other charity, and they would still be famous even in a Republic.

Having a job and doing a little bit of charity work shouldn't mean that they get all of those privileges ahead of other people, they are paid a ridiculously high amount for what they actually do. A head of state should not be be based on how much charity work someone does or the fact they have a job, and if it was then there are many more people that would be more entitled to be head of state than them.

Sorry who do you mean paid by? they are "paid" by their employers, business deal, stocks and bonds, land rent they own, property rents .
They are not "paid" by the government apart from state and public affaires ie business trips to other countries for functions and state business which is fair enough (there are over 3000 every year)
Things like the royal train, the brittania and the aeroplane where all done away with years ago because she decided they where too costly.
But their actual income is money thay make for themselves.
The queen own loads of land and rents it out for farming, Prince Charles has his own farms one of which he actually works himself a lot of the time and sells his own produce of meat, dairy, fruit and veg (along with a huge supply of local farms and produce from small farmers) from the farm in his shop he owns near us called Windsor farm shop.
That's just a tiny example of how they make their own money, same way everyone else does its just that they have had hundreds of years of making businesses and passing them down along with inherited funds

I thought any money they make is put back into the government, or wherever, and then they are given an allowance out of a sovereign grant? A lot of their businesses are quite unethical as well, a complete contradiction of all this charity work they do.

To me, it's not even about whether they make money for the country, whether they do a bit of charity work or whether or not they cost the taxpayer more than they make or whether they are good people or not...it's the fact it's undemocratic, and no unelected individual should have access to that power (even if it is not used, she has directly given those powers to the government and do bi-passing the usual procedures) and no individual elected or not should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act or exempt from prosecution/arrest.

Actually i'm not sure on the above, as Charles' businesses are to fund him, but as far as I know the Queen gets the grant, I don't know about the rest of them.