The Royal Family - Does Anybody Care ?

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

The soap opera continues.

It can't work in the social media age.

[Herman 9,712]

 

[kick it off 1,948]

So royal family costs us £67million this year and nurses get a pay rise of £3.50 per week (82.5million). Yet some people still think that the royal family are worthwhile. Bizarre. There are far better ways that 67 million could be spent.

Edited March 5, 2021 by kick it off

[Midlands Yellow 3,929]

How much do they bring in via invisible exports?  In 2018 it was over 590m from tourism, merchandise and the arts. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

How much do they bring in via invisible exports?  In 2018 it was over 590m from tourism, merchandise and the arts. 

That isn't quite accurate to be fair. A huge perecentage of that £590M would still accrue even without them because much of the history is still going to attractive to tourists.

[Daz Sparks 1,148]

After Liz, I would be happy with a republic. 

[Midlands Yellow 3,929]

45 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

That isn't quite accurate to be fair. A huge perecentage of that £590M would still accrue even without them because much of the history is still going to attractive to tourists.

Even so I’d imagine it easily covers royal expenses each year. We may not want it but tourists love it. 

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

6 hours ago, kick it off said:

So royal family costs us £67million this year and nurses get a pay rise of £3.50 per week (82.5million). Yet some people still think that the royal family are worthwhile. Bizarre. There are far better ways that 67 million could be spent.

I think that argument would be better directed at the £22bn that the government wasted on a Test and Trace program that didn't work. You can hold a valid discussion on the merits of the Royal Family, how much they are worth to the economy in tourism, jobs etc, but £67m per year is chicken feed compared to some of the eye-watering sums being wastes in other areas.

Personally I agree with Midlands, the removal of the monarchy would cost us far more than they're worth in tourism. A lot of the ire directed at them boils down to jealousy that they supposedly live very comfortable lives at the taxpayer's expense, but the reality is that they live in a fishbowl of constant media attention. You couldn't pay me any money in the world to live a life so clearly in the public eye as they do.

[Yellow Fever 3,744]

1 hour ago, Canary Wundaboy said:

I think that argument would be better directed at the £22bn that the government wasted on a Test and Trace program that didn't work. You can hold a valid discussion on the merits of the Royal Family, how much they are worth to the economy in tourism, jobs etc, but £67m per year is chicken feed compared to some of the eye-watering sums being wastes in other areas.

Personally I agree with Midlands, the removal of the monarchy would cost us far more than they're worth in tourism. A lot of the ire directed at them boils down to jealousy that they supposedly live very comfortable lives at the taxpayer's expense, but the reality is that they live in a fishbowl of constant media attention. You couldn't pay me any money in the world to live a life so clearly in the public eye as they do.

Disagree there CW.

It not jealousy of their position. For me it's the dismal demeaning soap opera that goes on and on and should have been cancelled years ago. The tittle-tattle and gossip, the divorces & scandals, the petty infighting. Fodder for red tops and the dimmest only.

However - just to spike it up a bit - we often hear about them doing their 'duty' - as if it was an onerous undertaking that nobody else could be found willing to do. Would you want to bet ?  I suspect many of us would quite like a life with no money worries and lots of deference and servants and able to indulge in any of our hobby whims in exchange for a bit glad handing.

Duty my  a r s e.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Yellow Fever

[Canary Wundaboy 1,358]

19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Disagree there CW.

It not jealousy of their position. For me it's the dismal demeaning soap opera that goes on and on and should have been cancelled years ago. The tittle-tattle and gossip, the divorces & scandals, the petty infighting. Fodder for red tops and the dimmest only.

However - just to spike it up a bit - we often hear about them doing their 'duty' - as if it was an onerous undertaking that nobody else could be found willing to do. Would you want to bet ?  I suspect many of us would quite like a life with no money worries and lots of deference and servants and able to indulge in any of our hobby whims in exchange for a bit glad handing.

Duty my  a r s e.

I agree the soap opera is a problem. There are bad apples in every family and ones such as Prince Andrew should be cast out and cut off because they simply act as a distraction and a signal that it's possible to take advantage of their privileged position. But removing the monarchy on the basis of those like Andrew is, in my eyes, offset by the work done by the Queen, Prince William etc who understand and respect the position they are in and do good work for the country on both charity and international stages.

I'll be honest, I'm in a privileged position compared to many. I have a decent job, plenty of money, own my own home and am free (outside my parental duties!) to pursue pretty much whatever hobby I fancy, along with the means to do it. But I also have a private life, I don't have media following me around my every waking moment, waiting to catch me out if I have a cheeky cigar outside a pub or have a chat with a nice girl at a bar. I can live an existence of obscurity and anonymity, to whatever extent I fancy. That's a luxury that isn't extended to them. I wouldn't want every moment of my life subject to that kind of scrutiny, it isn't healthy.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

6 hours ago, Midlands Yellow said:

Even so I’d imagine it easily covers royal expenses each year. We may not want it but tourists love it. 

I don't have a problem with the expense to be fair. I just don't get the love of a monarchy. I don't understand the bowing, genuflecting towards the privileged. That died out a long time ago.

[Barbe bleu 812]

6 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 For me it's the dismal demeaning soap opera that goes on and on and should have been cancelled years ago. The tittle-tattle and gossip, the divorces & scandals, the petty infighting. Fodder for red tops and the dimmest only.

Sounds like the non football section of the pink un.

[Indy 3,283]

I see a lot of conflicts on here, yes the Royal Family certainly cost the country a fair amount but how much do they generate from tourists, probably more than they cost! 
 

I’m really disappointed in Harry & Megan still keeping their titles yet talking about our the Royal Family in a very negative way to the US press, if they’ve decided to go and escape the Royal Family then fine, go give up the title and stop your bleating to the public! You chose to leave, so go and live your life!

[horsefly 4,287]

The cost-benefit analysis of the Royal family's contribution to the economy is really a complete distraction from the fundamental issue regarding its constitutional role in providing the head of state through the mechanism of inheritance. It is clearly an absurdity and a contradiction that a mature democracy has an unelected monarch as head of state and not an elected representative. At this current time I think there are more important issues to concern ourselves with, given the Monarchy's recognition that it shouldn't interfere in political decision making (although Johnson seems to have been determined to draw them into constitutional difficulties for God knows what reason). However, the trajectory of the Monarchy is surely toward one very obvious direction and the whole Harry and Megan affair is just another signpost as to where that leads. At some point we will become citizens of the UK and not subjects of his/her Majesty.

Personally I would prioritise reform of the House of Lords well before reform of the Monarchy. The former has a far more corrupting influence on our politics and society than the latter. However, both these unelected bastions of class privilege and inheritance need to disappear before we can truly proclaim ourselves to be a grown-up democracy.

[kick it off 1,948]

12 hours ago, Indy said:

I see a lot of conflicts on here, yes the Royal Family certainly cost the country a fair amount but how much do they generate from tourists, probably more than they cost! 

This is commonly wheeled out but actually holds little relevance. I would wager it would generate a whole heap more if Buckingham Palace etc were open to tourists everyday. Costs also need to be added for security for the "royal" family, etc - the actual estimated cost of the parasites is around £340 million per year.

Nobody visits Versailles given the French don't have a monarchy? (Hint - 10 million tourists per year pay 20 Euros each minimum. That's a minimum of 200 million Euros (probably closer to 600million + with higher price tickets for fountains etc retail, food etc), and I would imagine Buckingham Palace would generate more interest than Versailles).

It's an argument that sounds great on the surface but actually doesn't really stand up very well. In fact, it's fair to say if the monarchy didn't exist, they would generate far more revenue. The fact their finances are shrouded in a veil of legal secrecy should tell you all you need to know about the "net contributors" argument. It's nonsense.

Edited March 6, 2021 by kick it off

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

39 minutes ago, kick it off said:

This is commonly wheeled out but actually holds little relevance. I would wager it would generate a whole heap more if Buckingham Palace etc were open to tourists everyday. Costs also need to be added for security for the "royal" family, etc - the actual estimated cost of the parasites is around £340 million per year.

Nobody visits Versailles given the French don't have a monarchy? (Hint - 10 million tourists per year pay 20 Euros each minimum. That's a minimum of 200 million Euros (probably closer to 600million + with higher price tickets for fountains etc retail, food etc), and I would imagine Buckingham Palace would generate more interest than Versailles).

It's an argument that sounds great on the surface but actually doesn't really stand up very well. In fact, it's fair to say if the monarchy didn't exist, they would generate far more revenue. The fact their finances are shrouded in a veil of legal secrecy should tell you all you need to know about the "net contributors" argument. It's nonsense.

The Tower of London is Britains most visited attraction and no Monarch lives there. 

 

[Herman 9,712]

21 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

The Tower of London is Britains most visited attraction and no Monarch lives there. 

 

Prince Andrew is very close to having a nice little "appartment" there. Or should be.😀

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

Problem with an elected head of state, it would become a money-making scheme for who ever was the incumbent. Knowing that, let's say. they are in office for five years they would be squirreling away far more than £67m a year that the RF costs now. Then there would be jobs created for the hangers on of the HoS and his family and friends, and it would start all over again with the next incumbent. There would be no money-saving element.

[Herman 9,712]

Exactly the same people, every bloody time:

We shouldn't have an elected head of state because it will be too costly etc.etc.etc.

We need to leave the EU because we can't elect the head of state, it's too undemocratic etc.etc.etc.

Do any of you have firm beliefs or do you just make them up to suit whatever argument you're having at the time??

🤨🤨🤨

[horsefly 4,287]

44 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Problem with an elected head of state, it would become a money-making scheme for who ever was the incumbent. Knowing that, let's say. they are in office for five years they would be squirreling away far more than £67m a year that the RF costs now. Then there would be jobs created for the hangers on of the HoS and his family and friends, and it would start all over again with the next incumbent. There would be no money-saving element.

Speculative rubbish! And the issue is NOT about money saving, it's about democracy. The hypocracy is amazing, the guy who rants about a putative unelected and undemocratic EU supports the blatantly undemocratic and unelected monarchy.

Edited March 6, 2021 by horsefly

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

51 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Problem with an elected head of state, it would become a money-making scheme for who ever was the incumbent. Knowing that, let's say. they are in office for five years they would be squirreling away far more than £67m a year that the RF costs now. Then there would be jobs created for the hangers on of the HoS and his family and friends, and it would start all over again with the next incumbent. There would be no money-saving element.

Farage would never become Head of State so as Jim Bowen used to say, your moneys safe.😀

[horsefly 4,287]

41 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Farage would never become Head of State so as Jim Bowen used to say, your moneys safe.😀

I bet they would get the speed boat though.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,181]

Head of state should be done like the EU presidency 

We all get 1 minute each, once we turn 70 or so 

Rolling ticker tape at the bottom of BBC news showing current king or queens name

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

I bet they would get the speed boat though.

And bus fare home