[Closed] What's the point of the royals?

Guessing at the numbers here, but The Royal Family cost £60 000 000 a year to keep.

You can double that, [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_Royal_Family ]since it does not include the cost of security provided by the Police and the Army, the lost revenue of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster and other expenses[/url]

Edit: and does it matter what % of your tax it is, the overall cost and money could be spent on worthwhile causes.

That's an incredibly Anglocentric view

You don't need to go as far afield as the americas etc to illustrate the Anglocentric viewpoit....

and does it matter what % of you tax it is

OK, so it's £120m, not £60m.
Still, you could build [url= http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/documents/crs_543267.pdf ]3km of 6 lane motorway[/url] for that or fire [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12806709 ]240 cruise[/url] missiles at a sandy country somewhere.
Much better value for money.

Or build, equip and staff a couple of health centres or something...

Or, to put it another way, it's about 1/160 of the cost of the [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/may/31/health.lifeandhealth ]NHS's failed computer system[/url].

Or a new school or two.

Why always use negative examples to try to prove a point?

Or 1/250 of the cost of the [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8561286.stm ]high speed rail link[/url].

And year on year it starts clocking up, £1 200 000 000 over 10 years etc...

If you get woodworm it's gonna cost, but these parasites are in a league of their own.

The riots only cost the tax payer £100 million, seems a bargain.

You can buy meat for cheaper than most redwoods stuff so why not give it a go?
It is not just about absolute cost but also about the principle.

I thought you didn't like people who live in publicly funded housing Graham? 😀

But I agree with you in this case, their accents are awful.

Why always use negative examples to try to prove a point?

Ok, forget about the money.
Some of us despise the institution for what it is and what it represents, not what it costs.

How do you feel about them otherwise?

Yes, it would be better to spend the money on something that would be a positive benefit to more people, but as wastage goes, they're nowhere near as bad as a lot of other tax payer funded things.

See, this is purely a question of how much something costs, in monetary terms. What about the social aspect of all this? This is something that is routinely ignored, and then we wonder why people riot and stuff....

i dont know, but one day i hope to rule he country and when i do they will be executed in a public way..and it will be horrific 🙂

What's the point of the royals?

Could say that about any one really .....

Reality TV Stars ( sic)

So called celebrities ..

over paid kick ballers

people who winge about how unfair life is, then do **** all to change theirs .... ( or go on a looting spree )

Truth is there is not a lot of point to most things in this world,

but there are still a lot of pointless things that bring joy to millions in differant ways

Rainbows,
Music,
Nature at it's best
Mountain Bikes
Trail Centres
Football

oh and the Royals .... if no one cares about them how come around 1 million made a trip to London not long back on the off chance of getting a glimpse of the latest person to join the firm ?

They may not seem relevant to you but they still have a place in society ... like it or not

no issue with the concept at all. largely ceremonial the big five Q, DoE, charlie, anne and jedward do much much more than anybody elected would ever do, we dont have to hane more elections every 65 years we dont have to have retirement plans we get a good deal anybody know anybody else Q's age who works as long as she does ( ie not free to do what she might want to do ie play in garden with corgis.) no we get a good deal.
i'd rather stand up for my country lead by a monarch rather than tony blair.. sure we could scale back the expense but jedward both have jobs and i'm sure over the next 20 yrs we ll see a modern monarchy develop i dont see bill and cath living in buck house for instance.
long may they rule over us.. ( well wear ermin at least)

I am surprised to see the number of people on here who would like to see them gone (each to their own).
Personally I think as a country we have given away far too much tradition and far too many values and are in danger of becoming just another European Country dining out on past glory.
I still have pride in being British and what the country stands for. Part of that pride is based on the culture and values of Great Britain, although they seem to ebb away every day...

Whatever the Royal Family costs to maintain (including security etc.), it brings in far more financially than it costs - a given fact. Americans flock here in their droves, and it ain't for the weather or Swinley Forest.

Just my thoughts..

Loads of people are born with the genes that make them more likely to be rich and have privileges

Take that bastid Rooney, why should him and his mates get all that money just because they have the right genes?

TBH, I reckon I've had a privileged life too, healthy family of my own and even managed to foster a few more that brought us happiness
The royals [or footballers] have nothing I want thanks

Do Harry and Will get paid for being in the Forces? I wonder about that sometimes.

Anyhoo's it's all going "understairs" isn't it, I mean whatshername married an ex Rugby player t'other week..

I'd be quite happy with the Russian solution.

Can't see us ever ditching the royals.

I enjoy my life, and if i had to decide what was ditched on order for me to save £1 on my tax bill the royals would be nowhere near the top.

I still have pride in being British and what the country stands for. Part of that pride is based on the culture and values of Great Britain, although they seem to ebb away every day...

What like being an failing colonial power, still reveling in the fac tthat we have historically taken whatever we chose by force, leaving in our wake horrendous turmoil that carries on for centuries, or a system based on nepotism and privilige that actively gravitates against achieving excellence and therefore reversing that decline?

1) there's a lot of meet & greet that needs to be done running a country - so either elect a president (as in Eire) to do it or have a hereditary one. They still cost so any figures quoted for the royalty also include this. Getting rid of the Royalty would not save £60m - particularly as the upkeep of the palaces etc.... would still need to be paid for.
2) many cultures in the world (e.g. Arab nations & Japan) still have royalty - it gives greater credibility having our own.
3) Military are loyal to the royalty not gov't = seperation of authority is essential in any democracy. So just as the judiciary need to be independent from gov't but answerable to it, so does the military.
4) Tourists - what we pay for royalty is paid back in tourism. The tourists like the fact that the royalty are still here.
5) Longevity - the Queen can advise the PM on all the world leaders as she's met many of them or their predecessors.

Just a few reasons why a President can't do the job as effectively as Royalty (plus we get the occasional extra day off for Deaths / Marriages)

Whatever the Royal Family costs to maintain (including security etc.), it brings in far more financially than it costs - a given fact. Americans flock here in their droves, and it ain't for the weather or Swinley Forest.

Is it the roayls that they come to see, or the buildings/events?

The buildings would still be there. We could still have the changing of the guards, etc.

When those Americans get home, they can tell their kids that they can be head of state one day, if they work hard. We're stuck here telling our kids that they're not as good as the Windsors.

What like being an failing colonial power, still reveling in the fac tthat we have historically taken whatever we chose by force, leaving in our wake horrendous turmoil that carries on for centuries, or a system based on nepotism and privilige that actively gravitates against achieving excellence and therefore reversing that decline?

Better than being french.

miketually - Member
We're stuck here telling our kids that they're not as good as the Windsors.

the Queen can advise the PM on all the world leaders as she's met many of them or their predecessors.

Certainly she can, "Oi Blair Boy go kill that Sadam fella I used to entertain and we used to support" and "Do you think going into Afganistan is a good idea BlairBoy?, you do.. ahh go on then, but don't take my boys with you"

You state she has influence, then why did she agree to thses examples.

I think you'll find she's marionalised somewhat by biggoted fat Civil Servants with fek all alse to moan about.

Does the queen appoint Bishops to the Lords? There's a problem, right there.

You state she has influence, then why did she agree to thses examples.

marginalised somewhat by biggoted fat Civil Servants with fek all alse to moan about.

Is it the roayls that they come to see, or the buildings/events?

They come for the Royals, they are frigging obsessed with them. All the American tourists I've met are well up on the lives of the current Royals, way more than most Brits.

If I may interject at this juncture.

There isn't actually any "point", to anything.

Message ends.

As you were.

"We could still have the changing of the guards, etc."

they would however, be guarding nothing surely? 😉

They could be "guarding" an elected president

Selle Royal? Good saddles them.

Personally I think as a country we have given away far too much tradition and far too many values and are in danger of becoming just another European Country dining out on past glory.
I still have pride in being British and what the country stands for. Part of that pride is based on the culture and values of Great Britain, although they seem to ebb away every day...

Ah, let's all stand on deck, salute and sing 'God save The Queen', as we slip down into the icy depths....

[img] [/img]

When those Americans get home, they can tell their kids that they can be head of state one day, if they work hard. We're stuck here telling our kids that they're not as good as the Windsors.

This. Here is Wisdom.

Sadly, however:

Better than being french.

This is just jingoistic, ignorant and insulting.

What's the point of the royals?
Could say that about any one really .....

Reality TV Stars ( sic)

So called celebrities ..

over paid kick ballers

The difference, though, is that reality TV stars, celebrities and footballers earn their salaries (a disputed point, maybe, but their wages don't come out of the public purse).

In one sense, this entire discussion is meaningless - because the royal family don't have to justify their existence to anyone. They're not like companies/brands etc; they don't have to validate their contribution to society to please shareholders.

But that's also the problem, I reckon. These days we ask questions about the state of society (lefty moaning or not) and expect to get answers. Everyone's telling us that society must be cost efficient, from top to bottom. Supposed wastage is eliminated. Yet the royal family continue.

So the original question continues. Is there a point to the royals? Because if there isn't, there's a good case for their expenses to be eliminated.

point of the royals..?

soft porn for old people surely..?

Better than being french.
This is just jingoistic, ignorant and insulting.

Yes it is and it was said tongue in cheek in regards to a lot of the comments on here.

I'm proud to be British, Proud of my heritage, and proud that I live in a somewhat civilized Nation that gives all a good standard of living something that our forefathers have worked hard for.

There are a hundred issues with the nation that need addressing well before the typical Royal Bashing.

Is there a point to Constitutional Monarchy in 2011?

What's the point of the royals?
Could say that about any one really .....
Reality TV Stars ( sic)

So called celebrities ..

over paid kick ballers

we could if all these did these activities as a result of the fact their parents did it and they were automatically given the right to do it ....oh your parent is a footballer excellent so are you etc.

Yes it is and it was said tongue in cheek in regards to a lot of the comments on here.

Oh well sorry but I din't see the sarcasm in your voice, you see...

There are a hundred issues with the nation that need addressing well before the typical Royal Bashing.

One of the biggest issues we ned to confront is the social and economic divide created by our deeply entrenched undemocratic class system, at the 'top' of which sits the Monarchy.

So, I'd say that dealing with the issue of an unelected head of state sitting atop an anachronistic, unprogressive, undemocratic system of social order is actually a priority.

Loads of people are born with the genes that make them more likely to be rich and have privileges

Take that bastid Rooney, why should him and his mates get all that money just because they have the right genes?

What if Rooney's son got to play for England and get paid loads by Man Utd, even if he's shit at football? And his son. And his son...

Oh well sorry but I din't see the sarcasm in your voice, you see...

Yeah my fault needed a 🙄 or maybe a 😉 but I had Liz and Phil giving me grief in my ear at the time.

So, I'd say that dealing with the issue of an unelected head of state sitting atop an anachronistic, unprogressive, undemocratic system of social order is actually a priority

But surely the handover of the majority of power to parliment and using the Royals as a symbol is what we have been doing in modern times. I think the use of them as a representative is very benfical to the country and the politics being left to the people we vote for.

At least this sentence has a point.

yes that why every week the PM visits the monarch...because they are remote from power and just a figure head IIRC it is why we are a constitutional monarchy as well 🙄