Royal Family even better value for money, its official.

Slinwagh · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:12

The costs for the Royal Family for the year 2006 -2007 are £37m or 62p per person, down 0.3% on the year 2005 - 2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6248072.stm

So its actually costing us less to keep them in the finest clothes, eating the finest food and travelling in luxury.

Cutting ribbons has never been so lucrative!

I propose that the Bloor family will do the same job for 31p per person saving the tax payer 50%.

Thank you.

Jokester · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:14

My personal belief is that the royal family generate a lot more wealth for the country through tourism and business links etc than they take out.

Jokester

Welshy · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:16

Yeah, the majority of tourists going to London etc will be wanting to see the Royal bits and bobs

nutcase · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:18

As many faults as the royals have, I think the benefits much outweigh the faults. If we got rid of the royal family I'd look to emigrate asap (and no, that's not an excuse to get rid of them

)

Psycho Sonny · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:19

Jokester said:
My personal belief is that the royal family generate a lot more wealth for the country through tourism and business links etc than they take out.

Jokester

tourism links? come on who in the hell wants to even see the royal family, £37 million just for being born into a certain family, makes me sick, its worse than those eejits on the dole

Biohazard · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:19

I'd rather have the 62pence myself.

I hate the thought of the country artificially keeping these people aloof.

surfsquid · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:19

Welshy said:
Yeah, the majority of tourists going to London etc will be wanting to see the Royal bits and bobs

they can see mine for a fiver :confused:

Welshy · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:27

surfsquid said:
they can see mine for a fiver

You cheap whore you

VIRII · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:27

Psycho Sonny said:
tourism links? come on who in the hell wants to even see the royal family, £37 million just for being born into a certain family, makes me sick, its worse than those eejits on the dole

I wonder how much of that 37 million is wages for staff etc?

PhillyDee · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:43

Psycho Sonny said:
tourism links? come on who in the hell wants to even see the royal family, £37 million just for being born into a certain family, makes me sick, its worse than those eejits on the dole

Errr, most tourists to London . . .

Spleenus · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:43

VIRII said:
I wonder how much of that 37 million is wages for staff etc?

About £11million I believe I saw earlier. That's a lot of jobs generated too as a result of the family.

Dist · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:45

Psycho Sonny said:
tourism links? come on who in the hell wants to even see the royal family, £37 million just for being born into a certain family, makes me sick, its worse than those eejits on the dole

I agree, i dont think a persons bloodline or heritage should make them special. I think the actions people take themselves, not that of their ancestors, is what should make people special.

Burnsy2023 · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:47

Jokester said:
My personal belief is that the royal family generate a lot more wealth for the country through tourism and business links etc than they take out.

Jokester

I agree and I also believe that the Royal Family and particularly the Queen is a defining factor of the UK. IMO 'Ol Liz is one of the best heads of state we could hope for.

Burnsy

Glaucus · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:47

Why dont you any sayers actually do some research and look at how much none and other benefits the royal family give the country. Tourism is one thing, representing us and negotiating on are request is another.

Yes paying a family for the heritage seems a bit silly, but when you delve deeper and see what work they actually do (not just bringing in tourism), it's very good.

No I wont link you go read up yourself.

yak.h'cir · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:50

Thats a lot less then I thought it would be!

For those saying it's a waste of money, as has been pointed a large proportion of the money is keeping people employed, + all the buildings occupied by the royals would probably be kept for tourism should the royal family ever be disbanded, so the cost of looking after them (the buildings) would probably remain the same.

I'd say the huge majority of the people holidaying in England will do so to see its History, keeping the royals keeps that history alive.

Deluxe1 · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:50

Jokester said:
My personal belief is that the royal family generate a lot more wealth for the country through tourism and business links etc than they take out.

Jokester

I agree with him.

Posty · 28 Jun 2007 at 18:52

Royal family is one of the few things i like and glad we still have

Slinwagh · 28 Jun 2007 at 19:36

AcidHell2 said:
................but when you delve deeper and see what work they actually do (not just bringing in tourism), it's very good.................

What "work" do they do ? The hospital would be open regardless of whether one of them cuts a ribbon, the new submarine in built in Barrow didn't need a royal to say a few words, it had already been built and one way or the other was going to be launced.

Work, or a paid jolly?

Glaucus · 28 Jun 2007 at 19:37

Slinwagh said:
What "work" do they do ? The hospital would be open regardless of whether one of them cuts a ribbon, the new submarine in built in Barrow didn't need a royal to say a few words, it had already been built and one way or the other was going to be launced.

Work, or a paid jolly?

your lack of understanding is huge, how about all the foreign meetings and negotiations they do on the UK's behalf.

Go read up on it.

Slinwagh · 28 Jun 2007 at 19:40

AcidHell2 said:
your lack of understanding is huge, how about all the foreign meetings and negotiations they do on the UK's behalf.

Go read up on it.

Foreign meetings or big flash dinner parties at Buckingham Palace.

Who's money did she bet with at Ascot last week !?!?

Being fair I do understand that a lot of the royal families perceived wealth, jewels, paintings for example are actually assets of the state and not the Queens personal assets.

I think between them all they have have enough personal wealth and assets to look after themselves.