Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

[theoneandonly]

Exactly my thoughts. The Royal Family seems to be a stable investment, like investing in gold.

I can sell investments for a profit. Hopefully..... Not sure what I get from the RF, what tangible return do I get for my investment?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I’ve not seen a single event that has pulled our country and other countries together so tightly as the queens death, it says it all.

Like Amanda, you've clearly only seen what you want to see.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Like Amanda, you've clearly only seen what you want to see.

The same goes for both sides of the argument.

 

[chrisd]

Like Amanda, you've clearly only seen what you want to see.

Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy

Replace someone they have little chance to remove with someone they have little chance to remove? I'm not sure Russia was the best option to use there

 

[GreiginFife]

Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy

I'm pretty sure they tried that... didn't like it very much.

 

[theoneandonly]

Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy

?? Probably not. Nick ii and that lot weren't exactly popular.

 

[Swango1980]

I can sell investments for a profit. Hopefully..... Not sure what I get from the RF, what tangible return do I get for my investment?

I'm pretty sure the economic benefits of the Royal Family have already been discussed? Are you only considering money that you can see go directly into your own bank account, and ignoring the money generated within the economy as a whole as a result of the existence of the Royal Family.

 

[PJ87]

I'm pretty sure the economic benefits of the Royal Family have already been discussed? Are you only considering money that you can see go directly into your own bank account, and ignoring the money generated within the economy as a whole as a result of the existence of the Royal Family.

Can anyone send him £5 a year and be done with it

Infact there enough of us to chip in to make it less than 50p

 

[theoneandonly]

I'm pretty sure the economic benefits of the Royal Family have already been discussed? Are you only considering money that you can see go directly into your own bank account, and ignoring the money generated within the economy as a whole as a result of the existence of the Royal Family.

How much money do they generate?

 

[theoneandonly]

Can anyone send him £5 a year and be done with it

Infact there enough of us to chip in to make it less than 50p

It was £1.29 the other day. Make your mind up.

 

[Swango1980]

How much money do they generate?

Loads

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I consider the £1.29 the monarchy cost me as money well spent, given the sort of people that seem to be annoyed by them being there.

In the grand scheme of things they are a minor distraction. If you give the subject more than a few seconds thought you need to find yourself something more worthwhile to worry about.

 

[theoneandonly]

Loads

You can't answer then. Great .

 

[theoneandonly]

I consider the £1.29 the monarchy cost me as money well spent, given the sort of people that seem to be annoyed by them being there.

In the grand scheme of things they are a minor distraction. If you give the subject more than a few seconds thought you need to find yourself something more worthwhile to worry about.

The sort of people , oh deary me.

 

[Swango1980]

You can't answer then. Great .

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?

 

[chrisd]

Replace someone they have little chance to remove with someone they have little chance to remove? I'm not sure Russia was the best option to use there

I think it was perfectly ok to use that as a comparison. Would a King be empowered to "press the button" , I doubt it .

 

[PJ87]

It was £1.29 the other day. Make your mind up.

Keep up. I did the fag packet maths and if you go extreme the most cost it can be is £5 a year

So enjoy your £5

 

[SocketRocket]

"See the back of" is similar to "got rid of" and "thinning down". These are the spouted simplicities I mentioned earlier. They lack clarity and details.
I asked the question earlier in this thread. Exactly who are we talking about and how would you like to see their roles changing and why? The Crown Estate will continue to generate revenue and if the Sovereign Grant can be reduced, the extra amount remaining in the treasury will not amount to much that can make much of a difference to us citizens. Perhaps it could be spent on the essential repairs and maintenance of the parliament buildings?
The "Royal Core household" that you mention has automatically been reduced ("thinned out" maybe) from the Monarch, 4 children and 8 grandchildren to a new Monarch 2 children and 5 grandchildren. Harry and his household are not in receipt of any Sovereign Grant money.
So who else, other than William and Kate, would you find acceptable to perform royal duties? Of those who already perform these duties, would you rather that they did nothing at all? Edward and Michael of Kent, the Duke of Gloucester and the King's sister are all well past retirement age. Personally, I'm OK with them performing some functions when Charles and William are not available or can not be in two places at one time. Not allowing them any role at all at any time, will not affect the Sovereign Grant.

I am finding it difficult to understand what exactly some people mean on this thread when their postulations lack clarity or detail.

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.

 

[backwoodsman]

I consider the £1.29 the monarchy cost me as money well spent, given the sort of people that seem to be annoyed by them being there.

In the grand scheme of things they are a minor distraction. If you give the subject more than a few seconds thought you need to find yourself something more worthwhile to worry about.

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.