The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

What exactly is the point of the royal family?

At a fair, I was handed a pamphlet that said:

'Please get rid of the royal family. The royal family spend 200 million per year; that is the salary 30,000 nurses on the NHS'

There have been many concerns with the lavish spending of both Kate Middleton and Prince William (both of who seem to holidaying and everywhere), in stark contrast with the relative suffering of the impoverished tax payer

I am not saying that I am against the royal family; I would like to instead say that I am neutral.

However, I am interested to hear the debate this rises about the context they serve in our political hierarchy.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
To those complaining about their expenses I would say : the money the Royal Family spend on their lifestyle is their own. If you object to that, you must also object to the fortunes owned by all our other wealthy families.

Posted from TSR Mobile


You're welcome
Reply 3
Part of Britain's heritage and history, and part of what keeps the country from being an insipid and deceidedly average nation.

They don't really cost very much, and the idea that in their absence, there would be 30,000 more nurses swanning about hospitals is absurd.
Reply 4
The point is tradition. They are related to the families of Europe who have their ancestry in the ancient near East, the Kings of Sumer and Egypt.
I support tradition but **** the monarchy.
Original post by Kasa
At a fair, I was handed a pamphlet that said:

'Please get rid of the royal family. The royal family spend 200 million per year; that is the salary 30,000 nurses on the NHS'


Unfortunately whoever wrote that pamphlet is a buffoon. That '200 million' figure is not based on any sound research (it's pulled direct from Republic's website), and, seeing as if we removed the monarchy we'd have a President, that cost would remain exactly as before.

There have been many concerns with the lavish spending of both Kate Middleton and Prince William (both of who seem to holidaying and everywhere), in stark contrast with the relative suffering of the impoverished tax payer


Those aren't holidays. They are official visits - their current trip to New Zealand and Australia is one in which they have been formally invited to visit by the governments of both those countries and the government of the UK has advised them to go. It's the same principle as Michael Higgins' trip to the UK last week.

I am not saying that I am against the royal family; I would like to instead say that I am neutral.

However, I am interested to hear the debate this rises about the context they serve in our political hierarchy.


Glad that you are approaching the issue with an open mind :smile:

It's a free country and everyone's entitled to their opinion, even republicanism. But if republicanism once had a purpose in this country, it has in the past few decades lost its way and become a crank concern. It bases its assertions on myths and misunderstandings and (in the case of the £200m figure), downright falsities.

Basically, it comes down to this: we need a Head of State (every country has one and it's indispensable, no matter how ceremonial the post is); we need a Head of State that is politically impartial (to ensure the reserve powers they possess are not used to political party advantage); therefore, most parliamentary states avoid directly electing their Head of State. In the UK, we've gone one step further and have a monarchy, which is bound by ancient and strict conventions to behave in a particular way or face removal. It's the classic check-and-balance.
Reply 7
Original post by Kasa
At a fair, I was handed a pamphlet that said:

'Please get rid of the royal family. The royal family spend 200 million per year; that is the salary 30,000 nurses on the NHS'


There have been many concerns with the lavish spending of both Kate Middleton and Prince William (both of who seem to holidaying and everywhere), in stark contrast with the relative suffering of the impoverished tax payer.
It appears you're not taking into consideration the tourist draw the Royal Family pulls in. It's monumental.

I am not saying that I am against the royal family; I would like to instead say that I am neutral.
Last time the English attempted to rid themselves of the Royal Family was during the reign of terror of Oliver Cromwell. To my mind (and since their position as Royals is singularly titular), I think it best they remain just as they are. They hold great appeal on, to mention but one arena, an institutional level.

However, I am interested to hear the debate this rises about the context they serve in our political hierarchy.
Am I incorrect in thinking they have no real political pull? If I am, the general public is extremely misinformed. They're a representative spectacle of England's long and noble history and past. As such they hold immense appeal for me. As the previous poster said, it's the ideal situation of "checks and balances".
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 8
Millions and millions of tourists come to this country to see the royal family and visit their history. They drive a lot of the tourism industry and bring in billions every year.

An example of how popular they are: over 2 billion viewers tuned in to watch the royal wedding world wide. They form part of our image which in all honesty is a joke so we need them to represent what is left of this god ridden country
Reply 9
There have been many concerns with the lavish spending of both Kate Middleton and Prince William (both of who seem to holidaying and everywhere), in stark contrast with the relative suffering of the impoverished tax payer

So? They're independently wealthy. They're not using taxpayers' money.

Oh, and FYI, anyone in this country who is "impoverished" will be receiving hugely more in services from the state than he is paying in tax.
Reply 10
Suprising that many people here are supporting a group of individuals that they are not even related to.
I am a republican but when I think objectively about it, the English have done such a good job of abandoning their heritage, ethnic identity and nationalism that I think getting rid of the monarchy would be opening a Pandora's box of ****
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 12
To entertain Americans of course.
Reply 13
Original post by Peju
Suprising that many people here are supporting a group of individuals that they are not even related to.

Actually, through the Plantagenets, I am distantly related to them but that's neither here nor there with respect to my support of the Monarchy.
Reply 14
Original post by MJ1012
To entertain Americans of course.

The Windsors have a good deal of support among their own countrymen. Let's not blame everything you dislike on "the Americans", k?
Reply 15
Original post by Frocio
The Windsors have a good deal of support among their own countrymen. Let's not blame everything you dislike on "the Americans", k?


Yes, I blamed the royal family on the Americans... :rolleyes:
Reply 16
Original post by MJ1012
Yes, I blamed the royal family on the Americans... :rolleyes:
Kindly respond to the post I wrote. The Royal Family is the topic. I hardly think they remain in place solely for the benefit of Americans, as you suggested.
They actually help boost the economy with all these tourists that they attract :biggrin:
Reply 18
Original post by Frocio
Kindly respond to the post I wrote. The Royal Family is the topic. I hardly think they remain in place solely for the benefit of Americans, as you suggested.

It was not a fully serious post, I thought that was evident. But really their point nowadays is for the public image of our country (which God knows why it's one people want) which caters to a host of countries but one of the main audience is America shown by their interest in royal events in recent years.
Original post by Frocio
Actually, through the Plantagenets, I am distantly related to them but that's neither here nor there with respect to my support of the Monarchy.


Well I'm related to Charlemagne. Stephen Fry said so.

Original post by Frocio
The Windsors have a good deal of support among their own countrymen. Let's not blame everything you dislike on "the Americans", k?


I would suggest that he might not have been completely serious.

edit: as he has now pointed out himself.

Original post by gladders
Unfortunately whoever wrote that pamphlet is a buffoon. That '200 million' figure is not based on any sound research (it's pulled direct from Republic's website), and, seeing as if we removed the monarchy we'd have a President, that cost would remain exactly as before.



Those aren't holidays. They are official visits - their current trip to New Zealand and Australia is one in which they have been formally invited to visit by the governments of both those countries and the government of the UK has advised them to go. It's the same principle as Michael Higgins' trip to the UK last week.



Glad that you are approaching the issue with an open mind :smile:

It's a free country and everyone's entitled to their opinion, even republicanism. But if republicanism once had a purpose in this country, it has in the past few decades lost its way and become a crank concern. It bases its assertions on myths and misunderstandings and (in the case of the £200m figure), downright falsities.

Basically, it comes down to this: we need a Head of State (every country has one and it's indispensable, no matter how ceremonial the post is); we need a Head of State that is politically impartial (to ensure the reserve powers they possess are not used to political party advantage); therefore, most parliamentary states avoid directly electing their Head of State. In the UK, we've gone one step further and have a monarchy, which is bound by ancient and strict conventions to behave in a particular way or face removal. It's the classic check-and-balance.


This is a great post, particularly the last para. :congrats:
(edited 9 years ago)

Latest