Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

[Swango1980]

Please read my post again, I made it clear who I believed should be retained and who should go.

When making comments like 'Get rid of' or 'See the back of' it obviously doesn't mean killing them off or putting them into exile, they just need retiring and not replacing.

As I explained it's not just a matter of cost, it's the public perception of people who have achieved nothing much by example representing the establishment. These people look and often act as if they are pompous and privileged, there are more worthy people to carry out minor public ceremony than the likes of the Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester etc.

I reiterate, the core Royal Family are OK with me but I see no useful point in retaining these lesser Royals.

Isn't that just life? If we are talking about the money people have and the houses they live in, then there is absolutely no doubt they are privileged compared to us normal folks. Although, if people look at us from other countries, then suddenly we all look privileged compared to them. After all, what makes us deserve to earn as much as we do, live in the houses we do and enjoy the holidays we do, when other great and good people in other countries live in a shanty town and are exposed to all sorts of disease and violence? There are plenty of people within our own country who could consider many us us as privileged, as we were born in an environment that gave us more money, a better education and better prospects when getting a career. I bet the very fact most of us are members. Most of us are probably members of a golf club, how many people consider us privileged and potentially pompous?

If there are more worthy people about to carry out a minor public ceremony, then what is stopping getting those people in now to do it anyway? The Royal Family do not have a monopoly on this, where they have demanded they are the only ones to carry out such duties. Unless I am missing something? The organisers could were always free to get these more worthy people involved. In fact, I am sure non-Royal Family members have been involved plenty in these sorts of situations. Yet, clearly there is still a big demand for getting Royal Family members in for these things. Their profile and what they represent must obviously still be a huge advantage for these sorts of things, compared to many of these other worthy people that are spoken of.

 

[BiMGuy]

The £1.29 is only the per capita cost of the Sovereign Grant. The sovereign grant doesn't cover the costs of keeping the Royal Family on the road.

Call it a tenner than. Still worth it.

In my opinion there are many things we spend/waste money on that need addressing before the cost of the monarchy is looked at.

 

[PJ87]

Call it a tenner than. Still worth it.

In my opinion there are many things we spend/waste money on that need addressing before the cost of the monarchy is looked at.

Call it £5 a month it would be worth it!

Considering my tax bill I see much more of were the royals spend the money for whatever it is yet I don't see a great return for the many £1000s more in year that's taken off me

 

[theoneandonly]

Why do I need to. You are clearly the expert in this area, so why don't you give us the complete financial break down.

You can split it into various categories, such as:

1. How many tourists come to the country due to the Royal Family (and would not have done otherwise), and how much money do they spend it total

2. How many other tourists visit the country, and how much of their spend was due to the Royal Family (e.g money spent due to prolonging their visit like hotels, food, transport, along with money spent directly on Royal Family activities)

3. How much do we spend on tax for the upkeep of the Royal Family

4. How much of the money we spend, is then put straight back into the economy by employing staff and buying stuff

I'd imagine Questions 1 and 2 are impossible to answer with accuracy, unless someone out there has done extremely accurate surveys? Again, your attitude suggests you have all this detail at your finger tips?

Me ? Not at all. They're a relic that we don't need. Everyone keeps telling me they're cheap and we'll worth it , they bring in billions and stuff.
Irrespective of the money , why on earth should I show someone deference just because you tell me to. They are not special , just another random family.

 

[Swango1980]

Me ? Not at all. They're a relic that we don't need. Everyone keeps telling me they're cheap and we'll worth it , they bring in billions and stuff.
Irrespective of the money , why on earth should I show someone deference just because you tell me to. They are not special , just another random family.

Equally, why on earth should I agree they are a waste of money because you tell me they are? You asked me for a break down of costs, presumably because you wanted me to justify why they were good value for money. Yet, when you tell us they are not good value for money, you do not have the full economic costs to tell us how you came to that conclusion. So, I guess it is stalemate. I've made an educated estimate that they are great for our economy (and diplomacy) based on the information at hand, and the factors discussed. You can't come to the same conclusion, for whatever reason.

 

[Wabinez]

The good thing about this thread, is that it brings about the characters that can be set to ignore as they don't bring any value to conversations.

Watching someone who can't justify any stance apart from a stamp of the feet and a whine that the Royals are relics is pretty funny.

 

[Orikoru]

The good thing about this thread, is that it brings about the characters that can be set to ignore as they don't bring any value to conversations.

Watching someone who can't justify any stance apart from a stamp of the feet and a whine that the Royals are relics is pretty funny.

It's funny how similar this debate is to most of the golf-related debates we get here.
"I like it because it's traditional."
"I don't like it because it's outdated and stupid."
And repeat.

The problem here when you talk about the money aspect is that it's unquantifiable anyway. It's always mentioned about tourism they apparently bring in, but you can't put a number on that when you don't know how many people would still visit the UK regardless. So we're just back to I like it, I don't like it.

All threads go the same way. Just check the LIV thread. 350 pages of I like it, I don't like it.

 

[Swango1980]

It's funny how similar this debate is to most of the golf-related debates we get here.
"I like it because it's traditional."
"I don't like it because outdated and stupid."
And repeat.

The problem here when you talk about the money aspect is that it's unquantifiable anyway. It's always mentioned about tourism they apparently bring in, but you can't put a number on that when you don't know how many people would still visit the UK regardless. So we're just back to I like it, I don't like it.

All threads go the same way. Just check the LIV thread. 350 pages of I like it, I don't like it.

No, you cannot put a number on it. However, that does not mean the conclusive answer, in terms of probability, it 50% either way. Taking a completely objective and logical approach, it is probably possible to come up with a very strong case on what their value, or lack of value is to the economy. Most of us are users of a Golf Forum, and despite what some say, I'd be surprised if anyone had any actual expertise on the subject. People search Google, read papers and possibly form opinions based on the communities they are in.

I'm certainly no expert, but when we talk about their cost to the British people, I'm still confident they are great value. When some criticise the money we spend on them, and indicate what a waste it is, they struggle to quantify that. At best, they seem to tell us how much the Royal Family directly costs the tax payer. However, even when they do, it is not a lot of money. Whether you look at it per capita, or even if you look at it as an overall figure, and compare to how much the tax payer spends on other things, or what the super wealthy earn.

However, even when people use the argument about how much it costs the British tax payer, they do not tell us where that money goes directly. It doesn't all go into a black hole, never to be seen again. It does not all get shipped out to other countries. How much of this money is spent on wages, payment to individuals and companies? In other words, how much of that money is directly fed back into the economy? Then there is the money it generates. There will be direct income they generate that I am sure are measured and out there for all to see? Then there is the unknown incomes that others benefit from, simply by tourists by being there.

To me, it seems obvious that they are vastly beneficial to the country economically, even if the entire Royal Family sat on their backsides and played PlayStation all day. But, clearly they do not do that.

 

[Bdill93]

No, you cannot put a number on it. However, that does not mean the conclusive answer, in terms of probability, it 50% either way. Taking a completely objective and logical approach, it is probably possible to come up with a very strong case on what their value, or lack of value is to the economy. Most of us are users of a Golf Forum, and despite what some say, I'd be surprised if anyone had any actual expertise on the subject. People search Google, read papers and possibly form opinions based on the communities they are in.

I'm certainly no expert, but when we talk about their cost to the British people, I'm still confident they are great value. When some criticise the money we spend on them, and indicate what a waste it is, they struggle to quantify that. At best, they seem to tell us how much the Royal Family directly costs the tax payer. However, even when they do, it is not a lot of money. Whether you look at it per capita, or even if you look at it as an overall figure, and compare to how much the tax payer spends on other things, or what the super wealthy earn.

However, even when people use the argument about how much it costs the British tax payer, they do not tell us where that money goes directly. It doesn't all go into a black hole, never to be seen again. It does not all get shipped out to other countries. How much of this money is spent on wages, payment to individuals and companies? In other words, how much of that money is directly fed back into the economy? Then there is the money it generates. There will be direct income they generate that I am sure are measured and out there for all to see? Then there is the unknown incomes that others benefit from, simply by tourists by being there.

To me, it seems obvious that they are vastly beneficial to the country economically, even if the entire Royal Family sat on their backsides and played PlayStation all day. But, clearly they do not do that.

I think we mostly agree with you mate.

Long live the King.

 

[Piece]

How do you put a price on history and world standing?

Remove the Monarchy and overnight we become an insignificant, vanilla, irrelevant nation. IMHO. If that's what some want, then that's what you'll get. If we're extra lucky, we'll get a lovely President in a grey suit or grey dress.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

The same goes for both sides of the argument.

Really? You think we've missed the last two weeks of MournHub?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see.

That makes no sense

 

[Voyager EMH]

Does anyone need to perform 'royal duties'? What do they do that could not be performed by someone 'non-royal'?

They need to be there representing the monarch by agreement with the monarch.
Such as presenting people with OBEs etc.

 

[BiMGuy]

Really? You think we've missed the last two weeks of MournHub?

No, I think you’ve probably gone looking for it so you can be extra offended by it.

My Mrs has watched loads of it. Other than walking past newspapers and the odd bit on TV that has been on whilst I was in the room. I’ve seen very little of it. In fact most of what I’ve encountered about the whole thing has been the discussion on here.

It was fairly easy to avoid if you wanted to.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Please read my post again, I made it clear who I believed should be retained and who should go.

When making comments like 'Get rid of' or 'See the back of' it obviously doesn't mean killing them off or putting them into exile, they just need retiring and not replacing.

As I explained it's not just a matter of cost, it's the public perception of people who have achieved nothing much by example representing the establishment. These people look and often act as if they are pompous and privileged, there are more worthy people to carry out minor public ceremony than the likes of the Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester etc.

I reiterate, the core Royal Family are OK with me but I see no useful point in retaining these lesser Royals.

But if the King believes the qualified architect Duke of Gloucester is the most worthy and appropriate person to represent him opening a civic building, who will tell the King, "No!"?

 

[Swango1980]

But if the King believes the qualified architect Duke of Gloucester is the most worthy and appropriate person to represent him opening a civic building, who will tell the King, "No!"?

The people it effects? If it is clear nobody wants a certain person their to perform such a gesture, then I guess nobody would really turn up? Does the King want to send an individual to do something to an empty crowd?

However, I'm guessing if the Duke of Gloucester is involved in such things, people come along for the occasion. Now, maybe many more would prefer it if David Beckham, Graham Norton, Gary Lineker or Mo Farah came along and performed the same duty. However, it is unlikely that such people would do this unless they were very directly involved in it, or were paid a whopping big fee. And, maybe there is a "nobody" who could do the same thing. However, although they might be a great person, if they are a nobody then pretty much by definition, nobody else will really care, if they do not know who the person is. At any rate, the attraction of a Royal Family member is less about who they are individually (albeit that will still be an attraction for the high profile ones), but what they represent. They are living representatives of what Britain means to a lot of people, that includes the cultural / historic element

 

[Voyager EMH]

The people it effects? If it is clear nobody wants a certain person their to perform such a gesture, then I guess nobody would really turn up? Does the King want to send an individual to do something to an empty crowd?

However, I'm guessing if the Duke of Gloucester is involved in such things, people come along for the occasion. Now, maybe many more would prefer it if David Beckham, Graham Norton, Gary Lineker or Mo Farah came along and performed the same duty. However, it is unlikely that such people would do this unless they were very directly involved in it, or were paid a whopping big fee. And, maybe there is a "nobody" who could do the same thing. However, although they might be a great person, if they are a nobody then pretty much by definition, nobody else will really care, if they do not know who the person is. At any rate, the attraction of a Royal Family member is less about who they are individually (albeit that will still be an attraction for the high profile ones), but what they represent. They are living representatives of what Britain means to a lot of people, that includes the cultural / historic element

But the opening of a civic building has little or nothing to do with drawing a large crowd of onlookers. It is a royal recognition of the work that has been done building it and those who will make use of it. Given that the King and the Duke of Gloucester both have a huge interest in the built environment how can anyone say someone else would be more appropriate to give royal recognition to the work done?

 

[Swango1980]

But the opening of a civic building has little or nothing to do with drawing a large crowd of onlookers. It is a royal recognition of the work that has been done building it and those who will make use of it. Given that the King and the Duke of Gloucester both have a huge interest in the built environment how can anyone say someone else would be more appropriate to give royal recognition to the work done?

Apologies, I misread the context of your post.

You are right, who should tell the King No? Maybe Banchory Buddha or theoneandonly would be best placed to do that?

 

[chrisd]

That makes no sense

Try reading it

 

[Crumplezone]

Call it £5 a month it would be worth it!

Considering my tax bill I see much more of were the royals spend the money for whatever it is yet I don't see a great return for the many £1000s more in year that's taken off me

I'm not bothered about them either way, but as far as I can tell, the royal family are self financing. Their income comes from royal estates which they pay to the government who gives them 25% back. So in effect, they monarch pays 75% income tax. Couple this with the money they bring in through tourism and souvenirs etc, at most they cost us nowt and at best actually contribute financially. Even when the stuff the government pays for is taken into account. However the question is how they came to possess said royal estates in the first place. Though they don't actually own it as they can't sell any of it.