Ze Royal Family
Discussion
Whilst I wish them no ill it amazes me how many people seem to be taking pleasure in the wedding announcement of two people they do not know and will never likely meet. Add to that in these financial times especially, most people I speak to seem of the opinion that the Royals are a wonderful thing and we should be "proud" to have them.
I fail to see why, in the 21st century, the taxpayer should be expected to contribute anything through their tax to one of the wealthiest families in this country. Still even now we have the poorest giving to the the rich, yet no one complains, if anything people generally are very positive about the Royals, the Queen especially.
The wedding will be a state occasion and I hear the families concerned will pay for "some" of the cost-doubtless not all of it.
The argument the pro royalty camp cite is based on the fact that the Royals allegedly bring in more money in tourism/business etc than they receive in the civil list (£8m odd) which apparently makes them good value for money.
Whilst this may or may not be the case surely its not right? I've no problem with wealth being passed down from generation to generation but SURELY continuing to fund an already very wealthy family with taxpayers cash cant be morally justifiable in the times we now live?
I fail to see why, in the 21st century, the taxpayer should be expected to contribute anything through their tax to one of the wealthiest families in this country. Still even now we have the poorest giving to the the rich, yet no one complains, if anything people generally are very positive about the Royals, the Queen especially.
The wedding will be a state occasion and I hear the families concerned will pay for "some" of the cost-doubtless not all of it.
The argument the pro royalty camp cite is based on the fact that the Royals allegedly bring in more money in tourism/business etc than they receive in the civil list (£8m odd) which apparently makes them good value for money.
Whilst this may or may not be the case surely its not right? I've no problem with wealth being passed down from generation to generation but SURELY continuing to fund an already very wealthy family with taxpayers cash cant be morally justifiable in the times we now live?
DJC said:
I thought the 2 families were paying for the whole shebang, but the taxpayer picking up the security bill?
Given the tourism bounce that the wedding will pull in, on a strictly financial basis I reckon that makes it a good deal for my tax pennies!
+1 even if I didn't agree with it anyway as a bit of a royalist I would say this is pretty much spot on!Given the tourism bounce that the wedding will pull in, on a strictly financial basis I reckon that makes it a good deal for my tax pennies!
highway said:
Whilst I wish them no ill it amazes me how many people seem to be taking pleasure in the wedding announcement of two people they do not know and will never likely meet. Add to that in these financial times especially, most people I speak to seem of the opinion that the Royals are a wonderful thing and we should be "proud" to have them.
I fail to see why, in the 21st century, the taxpayer should be expected to contribute anything through their tax to one of the wealthiest families in this country. Still even now we have the poorest giving to the the rich, yet no one complains, if anything people generally are very positive about the Royals, the Queen especially.
The wedding will be a state occasion and I hear the families concerned will pay for "some" of the cost-doubtless not all of it.
The argument the pro royalty camp cite is based on the fact that the Royals allegedly bring in more money in tourism/business etc than they receive in the civil list (£8m odd) which apparently makes them good value for money.
Whilst this may or may not be the case surely its not right? I've no problem with wealth being passed down from generation to generation but SURELY continuing to fund an already very wealthy family with taxpayers cash cant be morally justifiable in the times we now live?
1. The royal family is a living link to about 1,000 years of historyI fail to see why, in the 21st century, the taxpayer should be expected to contribute anything through their tax to one of the wealthiest families in this country. Still even now we have the poorest giving to the the rich, yet no one complains, if anything people generally are very positive about the Royals, the Queen especially.
The wedding will be a state occasion and I hear the families concerned will pay for "some" of the cost-doubtless not all of it.
The argument the pro royalty camp cite is based on the fact that the Royals allegedly bring in more money in tourism/business etc than they receive in the civil list (£8m odd) which apparently makes them good value for money.
Whilst this may or may not be the case surely its not right? I've no problem with wealth being passed down from generation to generation but SURELY continuing to fund an already very wealthy family with taxpayers cash cant be morally justifiable in the times we now live?
2. The monarch is a hereditary head of state
3. The monarch doesn't get voted in, so doesn't have to suck up to anyone
4. Our present monarch has performed her duties for over 50 years without once complaining or whinging, or nicking money. Compare with Italy. Or France.
5. Our system of government has worked quite well for several hundred years now. Why change it for some slimy greaseball elected President? Do you really want more politicians?
god imagine a sylvio berlusconi type president of the uk...
or even worse - imagine if tony blair was president...
personally its a shame they're getting it over and done with so quick in april. they could've sent will out on a few more trade visits - use some of that goodwill in gettin the uk a few bigger contracts. i'm surprised he wont be going to the world cup bid (he is the FA president) or hasnt gone to abu dhabi
or even worse - imagine if tony blair was president...
personally its a shame they're getting it over and done with so quick in april. they could've sent will out on a few more trade visits - use some of that goodwill in gettin the uk a few bigger contracts. i'm surprised he wont be going to the world cup bid (he is the FA president) or hasnt gone to abu dhabi
highway said:
Whilst I wish them no ill it amazes me how many people seem to be taking pleasure in the wedding announcement of two people they do not know and will never likely meet. Add to that in these financial times especially, most people I speak to seem of the opinion that the Royals are a wonderful thing and we should be "proud" to have them.
I fail to see why, in the 21st century, the taxpayer should be expected to contribute anything through their tax to one of the wealthiest families in this country. Still even now we have the poorest giving to the the rich, yet no one complains, if anything people generally are very positive about the Royals, the Queen especially.
The wedding will be a state occasion and I hear the families concerned will pay for "some" of the cost-doubtless not all of it.
The argument the pro royalty camp cite is based on the fact that the Royals allegedly bring in more money in tourism/business etc than they receive in the civil list (£8m odd) which apparently makes them good value for money.
Whilst this may or may not be the case surely its not right? I've no problem with wealth being passed down from generation to generation but SURELY continuing to fund an already very wealthy family with taxpayers cash cant be morally justifiable in the times we now live?
It's a bit like F1 isn't it?I fail to see why, in the 21st century, the taxpayer should be expected to contribute anything through their tax to one of the wealthiest families in this country. Still even now we have the poorest giving to the the rich, yet no one complains, if anything people generally are very positive about the Royals, the Queen especially.
The wedding will be a state occasion and I hear the families concerned will pay for "some" of the cost-doubtless not all of it.
The argument the pro royalty camp cite is based on the fact that the Royals allegedly bring in more money in tourism/business etc than they receive in the civil list (£8m odd) which apparently makes them good value for money.
Whilst this may or may not be the case surely its not right? I've no problem with wealth being passed down from generation to generation but SURELY continuing to fund an already very wealthy family with taxpayers cash cant be morally justifiable in the times we now live?
The cars sat on the grid of weekend bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to that which is sat on your driveway, but nevertheless the 'racing pedigree' is good for the brand and thus helps to sell more rot boxes on Monday.
Despite the obscene expense, the brand exposure generates sufficient income to fund the racing as well as satisfy the shareholders and pay the employees.
It's an anachronism, but I still feel there is value in the Monarchy. Apart from which, old Phil is f
king hilarious. Someone really needs to give him his own stand-up show.
Not sure whether this has been mentioned on any of the Royal Family threads;
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/11/mi...
So basically the Royal Family have given up their income from the Crown Estates (around £190 million per annum) in return for the Civil List (£38.2 million per annum). Puts things into a different perspective.
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/11/mi...
So basically the Royal Family have given up their income from the Crown Estates (around £190 million per annum) in return for the Civil List (£38.2 million per annum). Puts things into a different perspective.
The argument that the royal family brings in much money in tourist revenue is a little one.
However, saying the royal family costs much is pointless too.
It brings in money, of course, from tourism. But saying 'WHY PAY FOR THE QUEEN, SHE'S WELL LOADED, INNIT' is naive. She has assets, of course, because naturally being descended from a 1000 year old monarchical family you're going to have a lot of inherited wealth. However, her Crown Estate, worth £16 billion, isn't hers. People saying 'But, she's loike a billionaire she is' are idiots. It's held in trust for the Queen by the state, and is mainly art and all the gold in the palaces, it's not actually money, which all the beauty therapists and IT consultants struggle to fathom.
She also pays something like £12million a year in tax, so the fact the royal wedding is going to cost perhaps twice that really isn't horrendous. She is the head of state for heaven's sake, she deserves some security from all the idiot students.
However, saying the royal family costs much is pointless too.
It brings in money, of course, from tourism. But saying 'WHY PAY FOR THE QUEEN, SHE'S WELL LOADED, INNIT' is naive. She has assets, of course, because naturally being descended from a 1000 year old monarchical family you're going to have a lot of inherited wealth. However, her Crown Estate, worth £16 billion, isn't hers. People saying 'But, she's loike a billionaire she is' are idiots. It's held in trust for the Queen by the state, and is mainly art and all the gold in the palaces, it's not actually money, which all the beauty therapists and IT consultants struggle to fathom.
She also pays something like £12million a year in tax, so the fact the royal wedding is going to cost perhaps twice that really isn't horrendous. She is the head of state for heaven's sake, she deserves some security from all the idiot students.
highway said:
Why am I wrong though
Well, firstly if you remove our current head of state, you will have to replace her with another head of state. Do you think a President comes any cheaper and is funded any less by the poor?13p a day is a small price to pay for the most widely respected HofS in the world. HM the Q or another grasping politician every five years elected at great expense? Easy choice. A political HofS fighting with the PM and commons to get their way? No thanks.
Britain is what it is today because we have separation between our head of state and our politicians. This gives us the stability that so many other countries lack.
stevejh said:
Not sure whether this has been mentioned on any of the Royal Family threads;
http://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/11/mi...
So basically the Royal Family have given up their income from the Crown Estates (around £190 million per annum) in return for the Civil List (£38.2 million per annum). Puts things into a different perspective.
Ceratinly doeshttp://notasheepmaybeagoat.blogspot.com/2010/11/mi...
So basically the Royal Family have given up their income from the Crown Estates (around £190 million per annum) in return for the Civil List (£38.2 million per annum). Puts things into a different perspective.
""The Crown Estate income has always been for paying the expenses of government. When the monarch was effectively the government that is the basis on which he or she received the income. It was never private income. Now that the government is the state, the state receives it."
Source: Professor Phillip Hall "
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20d...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff