The English Monarchy

vixdname

I just saw on the ticker tape on Skynews tonight that in the last financial year the upkeep of the monarchy has cost the british taxpayer £32.2 million sterling.

With the UK, like ourselves going through its worst financial storm since ww2 is it really worth spending this kind of money on a family that can well afford to support themselves ?

I'd be interested to hear from any english boardsies and of course any irish ones aswell if you have an opinion on this.

IvySlayer

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

mattjack

Quiet tonight isn't it. ?

Diego Maradona

Hit men don't pay for themselves you know!

John Doe1

leave them alone, Prince Philip is a ****ing legend

mattjack

Diego Maradona wrote: »

Hit men don't pay for themselves you know!

Hows the leg and did you get your rock and roll ?

SocSocPol

their (The UK) own business, judging by the jubilee celebrations they are still very popular.

Diego Maradona

mattjack wrote: »

Hows the leg and did you get your rock and roll ?

Very itchy tbh and no

Patrick Cleburne

Money well spent in my opinion.

KKkitty

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

+1 and really who gives a toss what they're costing the British taxpayers. It's not our money being spent on them anyway. William and Harry are serving their time in the army and most royals do plenty of public duties when foreign dignitaries are in the UK such as meet and greet. During Prince William and Kate's wedding I'm sure enough people came from other countries to see the festivities for themselves and bought commemorative gifts associated with the occasion.

bilston

vixdname wrote: »

I just saw on the ticker tape on Skynews tonight that in the last financial year the upkeep of the monarchy has cost the british taxpayer £32.2 million sterling.

With the UK, like ourselves going through its worst financial storm since ww2 is it really worth spending this kind of money on a family that can well afford to support themselves ?

I'd be interested to hear from any english boardsies and of course any irish ones aswell if you have an opinion on this.

£32.2m isn't really that much money, it's what 50p per person in the UK. I don't think there is an official figure or any accurate way of measuring it but I'd be shocked if the Royal Family don't bring in that figure several times over to the UK economy. Spending £20bn on Trident irks me more as a UK taxpayer than £30m on the Royal Family.

My name is URL

We could have hired them for 2 years instead of buying those e-voting machines. And they'd probably be worth more than €70,000 in scrap too.

JonathanAnon

I think the Monarchy is an anachronism, and should probably be done away with. But you'd have to be impressed by the Queen herself.

She trained as a mechanic during the war, and even though I was up for the Germans, you'd have to be impressed by her willingness to muck in..

hondasam

The royal family are loved in England by the majority, you only have to look at the crowds that turn out to see them to know that.
As for us Irish it costs us nothing so we should not have any opinion on it, it's nothing to do with us.
I actually think the Queen is a remarkable woman and the English should be proud of her.

H2UMrsRobinson

When you look at the cost of the social welfare bill in UK - 32m is a tiny drop in a very large ocean - 0.0003% !

I think they're a bargain. Worth the price for Phillip alone, the others are a freebie.

TeddyTedson

If I could buy Prince Phillip, I don't care how much it would cost, I'd find the cash.

Richard Hillman

Prince Charles raised £123 Million for his charities last year. If he were not a royal there is no way he would have gotten even a tenth of that. Charles also paid over 4 million in tax from his personal wealth.

They are the most famous royal family in the world. They are clearly worth their upkeep.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Regardless of whether they are loved by the majority of the people or whether they make more money than they cost, its still morally wrong to have a hereditary head of state.

Nodin

mattjack wrote: »

Hows the leg and did you get your rock and roll ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl9lfnNS4zU

Jimoslimos

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Prince Charles raised £123 Million for his charities last year. If he were not a royal there is no way he would have gotten even a tenth of that. Charles also paid over 4 million in tax from his personal wealth.

Tourism angle is pure and utter horsetripe. I've never chosen to visit a country based on that reason. I'd still go see the same castles, temples, etc regardless of whether the monarchy was existing or abandoned.

People would simply give to another charity. If the only reason for donating is because it comes with a shiny royal seal of approval (and a possible knighthood) well then sod it.

blueser

Not doing any great harm to us over here so, seeing as they do still seem to be popular among the Joe Soaps over there, I have no objection to them. And Phil the Greek does occasionally come out with some cracking lines.

Lyaiera

Hows about Ireland makes my family into an Irish monarchy. I can make the odd howler like Philip when I'm after a few, I can dress up in an SS uniform for parties like Harry, I can wave just as good as the queen, I can flash my arse just as good as Will's wan. You'd get a package deal with me all for the low low price of giving me a plane, a boat, a train, a few castles, some priceless artworks and jewels, some land in the middle of the major cities in Ireland and a few million spending money a year. I figure after a few years of me doing all that I'll be able to turn a tidy profit for the Irish tourism industry. The fact that I make off with oodles of cash over everyone else for no good reason shouldn't make any difference to you.

ejmaztec

Lyaiera wrote: »

Hows about Ireland makes my family into an Irish monarchy. I can make the odd howler like Philip when I'm after a few, I can dress up in an SS uniform for parties like Harry, I can wave just as good as the queen, I can flash my arse just as good as Will's wan. You'd get a package deal with me all for the low low price of giving me a plane, a boat, a train, a few castles, some priceless artworks and jewels, some land in the middle of the major cities in Ireland and a few million spending money a year. I figure after a few years of me doing all that I'll be able to turn a tidy profit for the Irish tourism industry. The fact that I make off with oodles of cash over everyone else for no good reason shouldn't make any difference to you.

The word "pedigree" appears to be missing from this post.:P

prinz

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Tourism angle is pure and utter horsetripe. I've never chosen to visit a country based on that reason. I'd still go see the same castles, temples, etc regardless of whether the monarchy was existing or abandoned..

So because you wouldn't do it it must be horsetripe? I'm not big into flower shows so that must mean the tourist angle to the flower trade is horsetripe... except the Floriade 2012 is expected to draw 2 million visitors to an expo site in the Netherlands.

Run_to_da_hills

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

In that case we should have a monarchy. :P

Nodin

ejmaztec wrote: »

The word "pedigree" appears to be missing from this post.:P

....as well as "eyes close together".

Lyaiera

ejmaztec wrote: »

The word "pedigree" appears to be missing from this post.:P

That's true. I suppose if my ancestors didn't take all that for me by force and through marriage I just don't truly deserve it like the Saxo Coburg Gothas.

Toby Take a Bow

hondasam wrote: »

As for us Irish it costs us nothing so we should not have any opinion on it, it's nothing to do with us.

So nobody should have an opinion about anything that doesn't directly affect them?

Regarding the issue at hand, 32m pounds seems a little low in upkeeping such a huge family. Are they just taking into account the queen, Charles and his kids?

Skid

vixdname wrote: »

I'd be interested to hear from any english boardsies and of course any irish ones aswell if you have an opinion on this.

All Welsh and Scottish Boardsies logged off in anger at this point.

prinz

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Regarding the issue at hand, 32m pounds seems a little low in upkeeping such a huge family.

Is that you Padraig Flynn?

Jimoslimos

prinz wrote: »

So because you wouldn't do it it must be horsetripe? I'm not big into flower shows so that must mean the tourist angle to the flower trade is horsetripe... except the Floriade 2012 is expected to draw 2 million visitors to an expo site in the Netherlands.

It is horsetripe when you claim all revenue from visiting tourists to royal palaces is due solely to the presence of an existing monarchy.

I've been to a few, e.g., Hampton Court. Buildings and gardens were lovely and the history was interesting, but I would have went anyway

Useless analogy btw

ejmaztec

Nodin wrote: »

....as well as "eyes close together".

No,they don't have to be that close together

hondasam

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

So nobody should have an opinion about anything that doesn't directly affect them?

No you can have an opinion on anything you want but who funds the royal family is nothing to do with anyone except the people who are paying for them, ie not us Irish.

prinz

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It is horsetripe when you claim all revenue from visiting tourists to royal palaces is due solely to the presence of an existing monarchy.

Who made that claim?

ejmaztec

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's true. I suppose if my ancestors didn't take all that for me by force and through marriage I just don't truly deserve it like the Saxo Coburg Gothas.

That's the beauty of history, use force to get everything you want, then pass a law making it illegal for anyone else to do it to you or your descendants.

H2UMrsRobinson

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Just reading what she has to do every day and her in her twilight years. Sounds exhausting and terribly dull. There's a lot to be said for the hereditary element of the royal family. I actually think its good that the throne is inherited. Being born into the life is the best preparation for it. She clearly has a sense of duty and loyalty to her country and subjects. Would I want to replace the royals with a term of office, voted for by the nation? Personally no. Democracy gave us the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Browne. Do we need another power hungry, overambitious, sneaky, underhand prick as head of state instead of our lovely Queen? No. Long live Betty!

Happyman42

Diana's death proved very profoundly to the Windsors that they live on a precarious knife edge of public support I think. Most in Britian seem to tolerate support for the monarchy, but it's usually those who regret the passing of the empire that get out and wave the flags.
If the royals f**k up then you see the more vitriolic anti royalists coming to the fore. They where pathetically forced to respond to Diana's death. and I think it fundementally scared them, they have behaved very differently since.

Lyaiera

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Just reading what she has to do every day and her in her twilight years. Sounds exhausting and terribly dull. There's a lot to be said for the hereditary element of the royal family. I actually think its good that the throne is inherited. Being born into the life is the best preparation for it. She clearly has a sense of duty and loyalty to her country and subjects. Would I want to replace the royals with a term of office, voted for by the nation? Personally no. Democracy gave us the likes of Tony Blair and Gordon Browne. Do we need another power hungry, overambitious, sneaky, underhand prick as head of state instead of our lovely Queen? No. Long live Betty!

In fairness Ireland has been doing well in regards to figureheads. The last three (the ones I know from my lifetime) have all been pretty decent. Mary Robinson is one of the most inspirational Irish women around, and Micheal D. has done a great job so far.

Jimoslimos

prinz wrote: »

Who made that claim?

Show me the figures that explicitly link revenue from tourism to the actual presence of a royal family.

Actually it is much worse than simply visitor numbers to royal palaces. There's some suspect maths and dodgy guesswork by Visit Britain, the tourism authority.

Don't believe me? Take a look at this from their own website

VisitBritain wrote:

Britain’s Monarchy generates well over £500 million a year from overseas tourists, new research from VisitBritain reveals.

Our "culture and heritage’’ in the widest sense - extending from theatres, galleries, to pubs, Premiership Football, castles and stately homes - generated £4.6 billion in total spending by overseas tourists in 2009, and supported 100,000 jobs, the report said

But within that total one-in-eight of those sites – ranging from the Tower of London to The Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh and Ruthin Castle in Wales – are associated with Monarchy. The report reveals that foreign tourists who visited them generated £500 million of spending, directly and indirectly. (1)

http://media.visitbritain.com/News-Releases/Monarchy-brings-in-500-million-a-year-from-foreign-tourists-says-VisitBritain-research-5d2.aspx

Now, I don't know about you - but I imagine most people who visit the Tower of London are doing so for the history of the place, rather than any link to the current monarchy. Actually reading down the list - the current home of the monarchy, Buckingham palace only comes 10th, behind the more historical sites.

prinz

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Show me the figures that explicitly link revenue from tourism to the actual presence of a royal family..

You came on to rubbish a claim nobody had actually made on the thread. Well done you.

Chuck Stone

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

Bullshit.

The slave mentality is alive and well in many.

Biggins

Happyman42 wrote: »

...They where pathetically forced to respond to Diana's death. and I think it fundementally scared them, they have behaved very differently since.

That woke them up to reality more so - that was a game changer.
...They had it coming!

Patrick Cleburne

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

And Charity and youth projects and helping young people get back into work and education and many other projects. They are fantastic for the UK. I hope her Majesty can live on to 100 and reign over all UK citizens.

Jimoslimos

prinz wrote: »

You came on to rubbish a claim nobody had actually made on the thread. Well done you.

See second post on thread.

Happyman42

Patrick Cleburne wrote: »

I hope her Majesty can live on to 100 and reign over all UK citizens.

Will she make the cheque out to herself then?:D

prinz

Jimoslimos wrote: »

See second post on thread.

OK, I will..

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

It is horsetripe when you claim all revenue from visiting tourists to royal palaces is due solely to the presence of an existing monarchy.

Still don't see any claim that all revenue from tourists to royal sites is solely due to the presence of a currently reigning monarch.

laoch na mona

if England want a monarch thats grand as long we don't have one im happy

Toby Take a Bow

hondasam wrote: »

No you can have an opinion on anything you want but who funds the royal family is nothing to do with anyone except the people who are paying for them, ie not us Irish.

Right. It's just confusing when you specifically said that we shouldn't have an opinion on it.

There are also a fair few Irish who do pay for their upkeep.

prinz wrote: »

Is that you Padraig Flynn?

Ha. Yeah, I should've said that it was a low amount of money for a family with such (I would assume) enormous overheads and expenditure.

Jimoslimos

prinz wrote: »

Still don't see any claim that all revenue from tourists to royal sites is due to the presence of a currently reigning monarch.

Where do you think the notion people have that the royals bring in more revenue from tourism comes from?

Did they just imagine it, or is it perhaps more likely media spin on VisitBritain tourist stats?

neil_hosey

not my country, i couldnt give a crap

mike65

Is there not something innately amusing about the Irish sounding off about some other countries titular leader?

How much does it cost to run the Irish presidency and do the people of Britain have a view on it I wonder?*





























* the answer is no.