Royal Family - Abolition?
- Thread starter sandy10
- Start date
Associate
http://www.answers.com/topic/british-royal-family
"The monarchy is officially said to cost £36m each year.
This figure does not include the estimated £80m annual cost of security (for the entire extended family).
It also does not cover revenues lost thanks to generous tax exemptions, eg. The Duchy of Cornwall, property of Prince Charles, does not pay capital gains or corporation tax (estimated loss of £20m over past ten years)."
We just discussed this at work and the general answer is about 53 Pence per household in the UK per year.
Of course those figures could be total crap so don't take them as correct.
Still, 53p a year is not too bad I suppose.
EDIT: we were not that far off! 61p on BBC
"The monarchy is officially said to cost £36m each year.
This figure does not include the estimated £80m annual cost of security (for the entire extended family).
It also does not cover revenues lost thanks to generous tax exemptions, eg. The Duchy of Cornwall, property of Prince Charles, does not pay capital gains or corporation tax (estimated loss of £20m over past ten years)."
We just discussed this at work and the general answer is about 53 Pence per household in the UK per year.
Of course those figures could be total crap so don't take them as correct.
Still, 53p a year is not too bad I suppose.
EDIT: we were not that far off! 61p on BBC
Associate
I have this argument with my grandma constantly. I don't see the Royal family server any useful purpose, other than the occasional tabloid frenzy when someone dresses up as a nazi or they sneak a reporter into the queens shower.
I suppose the idea is that they are an example of all things British, dignified, classy. If you really want an example of Britishness these days Johnny Vegas should be our king.
I don't object to the idea of a non political ambassador to the rest of the world, but I don't think the Royal family are the best choice. The fact that the monarch is born into the role is a big problem... you never know who you'll get and you can't get rid of them once they're there. Maybe a stable celebrity ould be voted into the office occasionally. I don't mean the borderline neurotics you get on the front page of the tabloids everyday, but there are more suitable celebrities out there who might actually be pretty damn good at it. Rowan Atkinson, Bob Geldof to name a couple and I'm sure there's more.
In anycase the monarchy in its current form should go in my opinion.
I suppose the idea is that they are an example of all things British, dignified, classy. If you really want an example of Britishness these days Johnny Vegas should be our king.
I don't object to the idea of a non political ambassador to the rest of the world, but I don't think the Royal family are the best choice. The fact that the monarch is born into the role is a big problem... you never know who you'll get and you can't get rid of them once they're there. Maybe a stable celebrity ould be voted into the office occasionally. I don't mean the borderline neurotics you get on the front page of the tabloids everyday, but there are more suitable celebrities out there who might actually be pretty damn good at it. Rowan Atkinson, Bob Geldof to name a couple and I'm sure there's more.
In anycase the monarchy in its current form should go in my opinion.
I don't think they have to go.
I do however think they should have a reasonable budget which is set (and published), most people work within a budget I don't see why they should be any different.
(note I don't know how the royal family funds itself at the moment, if it is already by a set budget fair enough. I just get the impression that they have no concept of money and just do as they please regardless of how much it costs taxpayers)
I do however think they should have a reasonable budget which is set (and published), most people work within a budget I don't see why they should be any different.
(note I don't know how the royal family funds itself at the moment, if it is already by a set budget fair enough. I just get the impression that they have no concept of money and just do as they please regardless of how much it costs taxpayers)
Permabanned
They make more money for this country than they spend, and do a lot of very good diplomatic work, why the helll would we want to get rid of them?
The only thing i can think of is a socialist agenda fueled by the jelousy of the proletariat at those who were born into fortune.
The only thing i can think of is a socialist agenda fueled by the jelousy of the proletariat at those who were born into fortune.
Soldato
no but at least make them pay tax like the rest of us! (oh and no freebies either!)
Associate
No they should not be abolished.
As has been stated, they have a very benificial effect on Tourism (That is why we get so many septics over here) and are part of the countries cultural heritage. When my ancestors went to war, they did it for King/Queen and Country.
God knows this country has lost most of its traditions, so maybe you think being a dreary culturaly viod satelite office of the great EU Empire is something to look forward to.
I know one thing, compared with what we pay the mindless Bureaucrats in Brussels, the Rayal Family costs us nothing and I know who does less to annoy me on a regular basis.
I can't remember the Queen telling me that my Bannana isn't bent enough.
As has been stated, they have a very benificial effect on Tourism (That is why we get so many septics over here) and are part of the countries cultural heritage. When my ancestors went to war, they did it for King/Queen and Country.
God knows this country has lost most of its traditions, so maybe you think being a dreary culturaly viod satelite office of the great EU Empire is something to look forward to.
I know one thing, compared with what we pay the mindless Bureaucrats in Brussels, the Rayal Family costs us nothing and I know who does less to annoy me on a regular basis.
I can't remember the Queen telling me that my Bannana isn't bent enough.
Soldato
JudgeC said:
Damn fine point sir, although i'm sure the socialists who want rid of the queen would rather we left the EU as well, and maybe took our empire back.
Commissario
The Royal Family is what makes Britain Great.
K.
K.
Soldato
I think the system works fine as it is. I don't like the idea of a politically motivated head of state like they have in France or the USA. No matter how powerful a world leader is they always feel inferior to the Queen, just remember the look on George Bushes face when they had the official state visit a couple of years ago. Any head of state will cost lots money, but few will bring in as much as our royal family. I just can't see the point in change for changes sake.
Permabanned
Bring in more money into the country than your sorry ass ever could hope to in your life time.anticonscience said:
Also a lot of diplomatic work which she is unique in providing
Man of Honour
This is probably exactly the same as I say everytime it comes up but the monarchy doesn't bother me in the least, they don't impact on my daily life and they cost me nothing(or as near as damnit) but they do have benefits in terms of tourism, diplomacy abroad, historical importance and at least in theory can halt illegitimate acts of Parliament(should the Queen feel obligated to withold her royal assent).
On a cost/benefit ratio I'd say they were worth it, as a matter of personal beliefs I just don't care enough about them to wish the monarchy doesn't exist.
On a cost/benefit ratio I'd say they were worth it, as a matter of personal beliefs I just don't care enough about them to wish the monarchy doesn't exist.