The monarchy

Can't see the issue here even if it does cost tax payers money when you work out what money comes in from the tourism side and what they actually cost and let's be honest we will never know that.

I don't know what you're saying

I like the royal family. I'm happy to pay for the upkeep of a Royal palace that will continue to draw visitors and earn revenues for years to come. It's an iconic landmark and if it were publicly owned - we wouldnt even be having this discussion

The royal family are immensely popular throughout the world. I don't buy the argument that they don't generate tourist revenue.
So, yes - i'm more than happy.

Denster wrote:The royal family are immensely popular throughout the world.

Define 'popular'.

Well, according to the polls...

'Your argument is shite'
'So's yours'
ARGH!!!!!!

The Monarchy provides something you just can't put a price on - the potential for upskirt photos of Kate & Pippa.

Checkmate.

Photek wrote:

Denster wrote:The royal family are immensely popular throughout the world.

Define 'popular'.

What Photek isnt

Denster wrote:I like the royal family. I'm happy to pay for the upkeep of a Royal palace that will continue to draw visitors and earn revenues for years to come. It's an iconic landmark and if it were publicly owned - we wouldnt even be having this discussion

If it were publicly owned then it'd be more open to the public. I understand that most people seem happy enough to spend money on the royal family but if more public money is being spent on it then I think wanting more public access is reasonable right?

The repair costs for Buckingham Palace are a poor argument against the Royals as we would have to pay it whether the Queen is in power or not.

I read somewhere that the monarchy generate close to 500 million a year in revenue. I may not like the idea of them, but if that's true, that's a gooseberry fool lot of money. So yeah, I'm okay with this if the numbers are correct, its going to be phased over ten years as well.

Irene Demova wrote:

Fries. Wedges. Crisps? wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

Buckingham Palace to get £369m refurbishment

Undemocratic
Unelected
Needless expenses
Lack of Sovereignty
Need to take back control
Rich Elites

Oh wait that's the EU, I like the Queen because she doesn't talk much. Hey look Netflix has a show about how great she is!

They are immensely wealthy but I have to pay for their home improvement.

I fancy a new kitchen, should I get in touch with HMRC or am I not rich enough to have other people pay my bills?

In the grand scheme of things (I am talking out of my ass here, I don't know) paying for the monarchy isn't that expensive is it?

You are paying for keeping some of your historical culture alive. It's like funding Maori TV channels and Maori language teaching - tbh it is useless but part of our countries cultural history, so why not?

An added benefit is how popular the monarchy is, and how much tourist revenue it would generate. When I think of London as a destination, the main thing that comes to mind is seeing all the palaces and monarchy tourist gooseberry fool.

I would watch royal weddings, coronations and queen speeches on telly - but currently can barely tell you who your PM is or what government is in power.

If only all council housing was this good.

I am against the monarchy first and foremost because I am a meritocrat. Currently in the UK your success as an individual hinges more on who your parents are than what your skills and abilities are, which I think needs to change. All you have to do is look at the background of those who run our governments and major institutions to realise this sad fact. This is wrong not only because it is unfair but because it fails to ensure that the most competent and most able people are in positions of power and bad leadership costs everyone.

The monarchy are a living, breathing symbol of basically everything wrong with this country and how it is run. Of course, I fully admit that abolishing them would not solve this problem. America is a republic and they are just as bad as we are in this respect. Nevertheless, it would send a very strong message that only individual merit should matter. America, for all its faults, at least pays lip service to this idea.

Squinty wrote:I read somewhere that the monarchy generate close to 500 million a year in revenue. I may not like the idea of them, but if that's true, that's a gooseberry fool lot of money. So yeah, I'm okay with this if the numbers are correct, its going to be phased over ten years as well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 91277.html

Good explanation via reddit:

George III had huge debts, so offered Parliament a deal. In exchange for a fixed salary, the land being maintained by the tax payer and the debts being wiped, Parliament would get the rent from the lands.

Today, that salary is around £40m a year, which sounds like a lot, until you realise the rent is £200m a year, which means Parliament pays in £1 and gets £5 back. Seems like a good investment to me.

Now, this repairing business has to be done, but only about once every 50 years, which means the tax payer is paying 4% of what the royal lands will pay them. Doesn't seem unreasonable.

And this is before we start talking about tourism.

As for why we don't just cut the royals out, they still own the land. Yes, it's held for them by a company (Royal land trust iirc), but they still own it. It is their property. Stop paying them their salary and they can just take back the rent, on the lands which they legally own.

Guys, I dont know if you are aware, but the government gets 140 million pounds a year from the rent of royal owned land. So the royals have easily paid way more into the government than they are paying out for this refurbishment.

Do some strawberry floating research.

Edit: what manny said

Anyone else find it scary how anti intellectual some people are? I called someone out on this on facebook and they said this:

what you fail to understand, is that I will do my own strawberry floating research if/when I can be arsed. Why the strawberry float can't you let people post what they want on their own facebook pages? If it enrages you to the point that you have to google gooseberry fool and find sources then unfollow me. I don't need you shitting over the things I post because you have to prove that you are smarter than those around you.

Apparently me pointing out something by googling for sources means I'm super angry.

Yeah, you know what, let's just share stuff that isn't true, and if people believe it who cares! Nothing bad could come of that could it? *cough brexit* *cough trump*

Fade wrote:Guys, I dont know if you are aware, but the government gets 140 million pounds a year from the rent of royal owned land. So the royals have easily paid way more into the government than they are paying out for this refurbishment.

Do some strawberry floating research.

Edit: what manny said

Anyone else find it scary how anti intellectual some people are? I called someone out on this on facebook and they said this:

what you fail to understand, is that I will do my own strawberry floating research if/when I can be arsed. Why the strawberry float can't you let people post what they want on their own facebook pages? If it enrages you to the point that you have to google gooseberry fool and find sources then unfollow me. I don't need you shitting over the things I post because you have to prove that you are smarter than those around you.

Apparently me pointing out something by googling for sources means I'm super angry.

Yeah, you know what, let's just share stuff that isn't true, and if people believe it who cares! Nothing bad could come of that could it? *cough brexit* *cough trump*

And that's why "post-truth" is the word of the year.

There are lots of good arguments against the monarchy. The money aspect really isn't one of them.

I don't get the argument about the income from the Crown Estate, either. When the monarchy are finally rounded up and executed, we just seize all their assets, ensuring the state then receives full income from the estate, rather than just a portion of it.

We do get their full income basically. We just pay them a Salary of £40 Million.

But we get more than 4 times that from them, so they actually make us money.

Then they make us even more money from tourism.