at least the royals are the ‘classy’ side of celebrity – otherwise we would just have Katie Price in all the papers…

Without the tax earned as a byproduct of having a world famous royal family and the associated income the taxpayer would be worse off, not better.

If every ‘benefit scrounger’ was as productive we’d be living in some kind of utopia!

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..

On what, exactly?

TurnerGuy +1 and they’d only replace them with some dumb president Katie Price for President anyone or perhaps you’d prefer Kerry Katona?

Plus, theoretically, the military are loyal to the royals and not the politicians which is supposed to separate the powers. The same with the judiciary.

molgrips – Member

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..

ive no idea, keeping her safe (police etc) will be a massive cost, the upkeep of buckingham palace and all the staff etc? keeping her in general i have no idea, but thats what i read….she can generate as much as she wants, but it shouldnt cost the taxpayer money to do it….

being royalty is like winning the lottery (every week)

chiefgrooveguru – Member

Without the tax earned as a byproduct of having a world famous royal family and the associated income the taxpayer would be worse off, not better.

If every ‘benefit scrounger’ was as productive we’d be living in some kind of utopia! chiefgrooveguru

rubbish, alot of other contries dont have kings or queens and do you see them struggling for money (USA for instance?!?!?!?!?!??!)

we work, we pay taxes, we have a good business and industries, the royal family is an attraction, just like florida walt disney, does the US government fund that?!?!??!

rubbish, alot of other contries dont have kings or queens and do you see them struggling for money (USA for instance?!?!?!?!?!??!)

It isn’t a case of ‘struggling’ for money – the poster just said we would be worse off.

My big worry is that the facade of being “Royal” is based on being a member of a particular family. It was the case therefore that to maintain the perception of being “Royal” it was necessary to breed with other Royals. Clearly, due to the demise of other royal families around the world the “royals” are now having to dip their bread in our commoners gene soup to avoid the possibility of horse faced or elephant eared genetic mutations. 😯

Therefore by that token Will and Harry were only 50% royal, and Will and Kate’s offspring will only be 25% royal. So the question is when does the Royal wee stop being royal and become piss?

the royal family is an attraction, just like florida walt disney, does the US government fund that?!?!??!

Ooh, now there’s a conspiracy theory! If Disney is like many other large US corporations then you can bet that there is a vast amount of stuff going on behind the scenes which would amount to something similar.

yeah why and what proof do you have that we would be worse off??!?!?!?!?

why would the taxpayer be worse off exactly? england will always generate plenty of tourists, regardless of whether the royal family exists….i dont go on holiday to spain/bulgaria/italy to see there royalty do i?

people would come and visit england because its a cool place to be, with a fascinating way of life and general hustle and bustle of london and the likes….they dont all come just to sit and take a photo of buckingham palace….

if we want to generate money that way then the queen should be considered a busniess, running costs and pay for her own business and staff and claim the profits like a business…

id have no problem with that, as im sure many other would’nt i do however mind paying taxes for the already rich, to get richer

i moan about somebody claiming £70 a week benefits, so that is a mere fly in the ointment compared to £35,000,000 a year ..

BENEFIT SCUZZERS 4 LOIFE!

the royal family is an attraction, just like florida walt disney, does the US government fund that?!?!??

No, but it does fund the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Yosemite, Smithsonian etc etc etc etc.

i moan about somebody claiming £70 a week benefits, so that is a mere fly in the ointment compared to £35,000,000 a year .

If it were just one person benefit scrounging then yes, but it’s not it’s millions. Adds up to a lot more than HRH’s bill.

they dont all come just to sit and take a photo of buckingham palace

Sure about that? 🙂

.i dont go on holiday to spain/bulgaria/italy to see there royalty do i?

I don’t know, do you?

But there is clearly huge interest in our royal family (hence the coverage it is getting tomorrow). I was in the unfortunate position to be in the USA the day after Di died and you wouldn’t believe the coverage it was getting, the people giving me their sincere condolences (!!!!) in the street etc. That love of the royals surely converts to tourist activity. For example – how many people go to London on holiday so they can visit Buck Palace etc? Without the family in place it would just become another monument rather than a meaningful location with the guards etc to visit.

comparing them to one family though?? a family of 2 elderley oaps, a son and a couple of grandchildren? and then the 100000000 more people on the bandwagon we have to employ because of them?

all funded for by us the taxpayer?

i wonder just how much the royals have ACTUALLY physically paid towards this wedding.

i bet not a penny and they will still make 10’s of millions from the rights to it….

BIKE THIEVEZZ HAVE NOTHING ON THESE GUYSZZ

mastiles_fanylion – Member

.i dont go on holiday to spain/bulgaria/italy to see there royalty do i?

I don’t know, do you?

But there is clearly huge interest in our royal family (hence the coverage it is getting tomorrow). I was in the unfortunate position to be in the USA the day after Di died and you wouldn’t believe the coverage it was getting, the people giving me their sincere condolences (!!!!) in the street etc. That love of the royals surely converts to tourist activity. For example – how many people go to London on holiday so they can visit Buck Palace etc? Without the family in place it would just become another monument rather than a meaningful location with the guards etc to visit.

i dont go to look at the royalty no, i go to look at naked ladiez on the beach 😆

and i agree, it doesnt make it right though does it? people are infactuated with the most pointless and ridiculous things in life…

media propaganda probably sourced from the royal family, sways anyones impartial views on this to a massive event turning it into something that means very little….

its a wedding for 2 people who have been fed on silver spoons and will continue to do so for years to come for no reason what so ever other than being born……

i can only say i appreciate the elder generation, when probably the royal family meant something getting excited by all this…but for anyone born after 60/70’s i cant see how it just goes down as one big rip off/con/show…it just goes above and beyond my head, perhaps if they were running things id have a sense of pride for the occasion, but below the royals are MP’s and the likes and they are just as bad, the whole heirarchy is terribly corrupt here….

the rich getting richer

rubbish, alot of other contries dont have kings or queens and do you see them struggling for money (USA for instance?!?!?!?!?!??!)

The US is owned by China. But… their last head of state was Dubya. You really want that?

its a wedding for 2 people who have been fed on silver spoons and will continue to do so for years to come for no reason what so ever other than being born

Yeah but you wouldn’t complain if you never had to worry about money, lived in a series of amazing places, got to see the world for free, got to meet loads of really interesting people. Then get to bang Kate’s back doors in…

Anyone know of a proper “profit / loss” statement on the royals? How much do they cost vs how much they bring in via tourism etc. i.e. our return on investment?

Surely this must exist???

Rank Country International tourist arrivals
1 France 74.20 million………….. Republic
2 United States 54.88 million…… Republic
3 Spain 52.23 million …………… Constitutional Monarchy
4 China 50.88 million ……………Republic
5 Italy 43.24 million ……………..Republic
6 United Kingdom 28.20 million .. Constitutional Monarchy
7 Turkey 25.51 million …………..Republic
8 Germany 24.22 million …………Republic
9 Malaysia 23.65 million …………Federal Elective monarchy
10 Mexico 21.45 million………….Republic

I see how that monarchy thing really makes a difference for the toursim industry. Thank god for the Royals where would we be without em eh?

What real influence do they have on how the country is run apart from procedural pomp?

If they had any influence, maybe. But they don’t

off the top of my head they
Calls elections
Signs act to make them law
Chooses who forms a government
Weekly meeting with the PM
Royal prerogative
so it is above that of any other non elected citizen by some margin

What does the tax payer actually pay for then with regards royalty?

it costs the taxpayer something like 35 million a year to keep the queen..
On what, exactly?

Can you not google and educate yourself on the topic whilst also telling us what you think despite not knowing?

BB – That is an abstract piece of information. Why else do people visit the UK other than to see the royals? What percentage of those visits are because of our heritage? Why are people travelling to other countries? Weather? Other seasonal activities? Ancient history?

Crap stats, BB. The question is not whether a monarchy brings in more tourists than countries without one, it’s does a monarchy bring in more tourists than would otherwise come to the SAME country without a monarchy.

Your table does nothing to answer that question.

Calls elections
Signs act to make them law
Chooses who forms a government
Weekly meeting with the PM
Royal prerogative

Those things are all absolute formalities.

High 5s Molgrips….

🙂

They do have their uses – if Henry 8 hadn’t been the man he was we might still be ruled by the church – does that appeal more ? (Sweeping generalisation and possible ulterior motives involving leg-overs, aside)

I think they are mostly harmless.

if Henry 8 hadn’t been the man he was we might still be ruled by the church – does that appeal more

He just didn’t fancy the Catholic Church’s rules so created a Church of England instead…

…I think.

(I may have needed to wiki or google that one 🙂 )

if Henry 8 hadn’t been the man he was we might still be ruled by the church

What, like France and Italy are?

Henry 8 was just jumping on the bandwagon for his own personal benefit. Martin Luther was the real brains behind that.

The question you pose [molgrips] is unanswerable as you well know
However the fact that when she is not here it does not seem to affect visits indicates that it does not matter.
How many tourists actually see the Queen anyway
IMHO they are not coming to the UK solely because of the monarchy like you may go to Oktober fest solely because of the festival for example
Egypt gets some tourists for their monarchy iirc. They have been dead a long time.

Those things are all absolute formalities

In any critically important system, formality is what matters.

Your table does nothing to answer that question.

and didn’t seek to thanks very much, those are your issues not mine… However regardless of whether you want to take a blinkered and dare I say out of date view of royalty, what it indicates clearly is that royal watching is not a priority for the vast majority of tourists. In this instance by a factor of about 3 : 1, (and thats presuming that all visitors to Spain, the UK and Malaysia came solely due to the Royals which is also clearly not the case). So rather than banging on about the self evidently flawed argument that the royals are justified by tourist revenue how about moving on to some other point, preferably one with some form of validity.

I think they are mostly harmless.

Apart from the ones who call in hit squads on philandering Princesses…

(Allegedly)

How much does it cost Ireland / France for their President?
That role, that the Royalty take, is still required and you can’t run the country (like the French/Irish Prime Minister) and do all the meet & greet required.

Therefore by that token Will and Harry were only 50% royal, and Will and Kate’s offspring will only be 25% royal. So the question is when does the Royal wee stop being royal and become piss?

Ahhh but you forget that by now we’ve all got Royal blood because we’re all related to Charlemagne, or in my personal circumstance to the original Duke’s of Buckingham.

what it indicates clearly is that royal watching is not a priority for the vast majority of tourists. In this instance by a factor of about 3 : 1

How did you figure that out?

And anyway even if you’re right a quarter of all tourists making a trip here partly because of the Queen would still be significant.

So rather than banging on about the self evidently flawed argument that the royals are justified by tourist revenue how about moving on to some other point, preferably one with some form of validity

I’m not banging on about that, I’ve no idea if they pay for themselves. All I’ve done here is ask genuine non-rhetorical questions.

What I really want is an end to sh*t reasoning and some actual data and vitriol free discussion 🙂

What I want is an end to sh*t reasoning and some actual data and vitriol free discussion

You’re in the wrong place.

Lol.. yeah what was I thinking?

id love it if wills turned up at the alter, only to decline to marry on the final verse and state he loves ‘botty’ instead then runs off with elton john into the sunset 8)

Those things are all absolute formalities.

🙄 weekly briefs from the PM on all important matters of national and foreign and security matters is a formality REALLY? Bit pointless telling someone with no political power.
What happens if they refuse to sign laws or call an election next week?
The powers are more than ceremonial they are real you may wish to believe the monarch will never use Crown powers and will follow the will of the elected representatives or that these are mere formalities but that is not what the law says the Crown enacts legislation [ from Her majesty’s Government] etc and can do these things

What I really want is an end to sh*t reasoning and some actual data and vitriol free discussion

Well you have brought a lot to the table haven’t you. What does it pay for who is it for it etc Lets be honest this does not look like your specialists subject area but I hope you leave less ignorant than you entered the debate
Nice answer CPT

How did you figure that out?

Out of those top ten world tourist destinations 294 million visitors went to countries with no royal family. Therefore royal watching was self evidently not a factor in their travel choice.
104 million went to countries with royal families, therefore if you make the obviously flawed assumption that those that did made their travel choice 100% due to the royal family thats a ratio of approximately 3 : 1 clearly and unquestionaly making a choice to go somewhere for reasons other than royalty, even with the figures heavily weighted in favor of the pro royal argument. So tourism being the big winner really doesn’t stack up even with that very simple assessment.

The reality is the vast majority of tourists will never see or come close to a member of the royal family, nor have any real expectation of doing so. So its not them that they come to see is it?

if you make the obviously flawed assumption

What’s the point in that?

In reality, a lot of people come to see the sights of London – one of the big ones is the changing of the guard. Which probably wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for the royals. So it’s one of the things that makes London a draw.

The original point I was getting at was that I think some (or a lot) of the money that the taxpayer spends is for upkeep of the Q’s buildings and houses. Which we would quite possibly do anyway because they are historic monuments and tourist draws in their own right.

And in other news republicans demonstrate that 2+2=5