The Royal Family is an an aid not a hindrance?? Watch

manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report 7 years ago
#21
(Original post by wn4)
Lets not forget 6% of america is a whole third of our population, so yes that is quite large numbers for a country that ousted the British monarchy. .
We're not talking about numbers though are we (and again, don't be so coy as to think we are)? A statement saying 'Americans went crazy for the wedding' is implying that a large percentage/number of Americans watched and were interested in the wedding - 6% is not even a blip on the radar in terms of overall interest and can even be attributed to the housewives who bought into the whole fairytale thing. Show me wider interest in the population, then saying 'Americans went crazy for the wedding' makes sense :rolleyes:

And when you say remove them, you are aware that most of the cost of the monarchy is maintenance of property, so by removing them you haven't actually saved the government the cost of Buckingham Palace, Windsor castle etc, so i don't think it takes much intelligence at all to realise that actually it will have a negative effect, or do you propose that all royal residences get demolished or sold off as private houses, in which case they will definitely be closed to tourism.
As I've said, I would like to see your source for making the claim that the cost of the monarchy is mainly just maintenance - not that I don't trust you....well I don't actually, as I'm yet to see any evidence on the tourism front either.

With regards to the cost of the monarchy, for every article out there saying the monarchy doesn't cost us, there is another saying it does cost us a considerable amount.
0
reply
PendulumBoB
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#22
Report 7 years ago
#22
(Original post by Square)
I rekcon you will find that we shall have one soon, the added tourism from this recent royal wedding has been predicted into the many hundreds of millions of pounds, if we had no royals we would have no wedding.

end of.
And the massive cost of protecting them at the wedding, the clogged up roads and the damage to the economy due to work days missed-Rollseyes
0
reply
wn4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 7 years ago
#23
(Original post by manchild007)


As I've said, I would like to see your source for making the claim that the cost of the monarchy is mainly just maintenance - not that I don't trust you....well I don't actually, as I'm yet to see any evidence on the tourism front either.

With regards to the cost of the monarchy, for every article out there saying the monarchy doesn't cost us, there is another saying it does cost us a considerable amount.

Well taking the figures directly form the government, which hopefully will be an acceptable source for you, £34.7 million of the £40 million they receive, is for property maintenance and entertaining, i.e. not actually going to the royals but to their function as diplomats, so yes I would say that was the main part of their government payments.

And have you actually watched the OP's link, because i think form alot of what you have said you didn't bother getting yourself informed on what the actual topic was about.
0
reply
manchild007
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#24
Report 7 years ago
#24
(Original post by wn4)
And have you actually watched the OP's link, because i think form alot of what you have said you didn't bother getting yourself informed on what the actual topic was about.
Equally, I can find you a link stating and providing evidence that the royal family actually costs the British taxpayer money. Your point being with this post?

Here is the video;

0
reply
DarkWhite
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#25
Report 7 years ago
#25
(Original post by manchild007)
Lets get rid of drastic and I'll just say a net loss then; how do you know there would be a material net loss to tourism if we got rid of the monarchy? By that I mean, they (the royal family) would still obviously be in the UK, but not in any official capacity of any means. How do you know conclusively that this would affect tourism? Moreover, please stop throwing "Americans" into the foray as if they are blind royalists - I've lived in the country myself for a very long time and as has been shown above, supposedly Americans where crazy for the wedding, it was shown otherwise - unless of course you think 6% of a population is crazy excited territory.

I'm not asking for someone to "go around every stall and ask" and don't insinuate (to further your 'argument') that I am. I just find it hugely surprising that given just 1 of the Top 20 tourists sites in the UK is do with a royal residence (at number 17 at that!) and indeed that without a royal family this tourism would drop, that the royals BEING IN POWER is really a major tourism factor. There is no evidence for it, particularly the latter claim, yet it is always made by royalists :rolleyes:
Let's sort a few things out here.

Firstly, nobody can definitively say whether there would be a loss or not. The best we can do is provide estimates, which is what financial firms do, not TSR users. If all you're going to do is ask for evidence, then you need to rethink a few things, because there isn't going to be any for your side of the argument either.

I know what you've done. You've read this article: http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we...rism/index.php

Let's break it down. It says there's no evidence that supports the tourism case. Actually, there is, published just last year, which shows that it brings around £500m a year into the economy: http://media.visitbritain.com/News-R...earch-5d2.aspx. This only takes foreign tourists into account too. Before you say it's not a reputable source, Republic refers to VisitBritain for its own statistics.

It then discusses how attractons are closed for part of the year, or how many people just want photos, but needlessly forget that other times they are open and generate a lot of income, and that to get here to take a photo, you need plane tickets and somewhere to stay as a bare minimum. So for the people who do come just for a photo, they've already contributed.

The article claims that a VisitBritain survey says that Buckingham Palace doesn't come into the top 20 attractions, but I can't seem to find this survey or any related articles anywhere. Why is this?

What's next? Oh yes, it says that another [seemingly invisible] survey from VisitBritain says that reasons for coming to the UK showed that the monarchy was "well down" the list. I'm not being funny, but this could mean that it was the number 2 reason. A real statistic would be useful, especially one which we have a source for.

It then argues that only central London would see the benefits, but seems to forget that such revenue is donated to the state, not the London economy per-se. This also ignores tourist attractions outside of London.

The quote you keep referring to about top 20 attractions actually reads, " Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes the grade, Windsor Castle at number 17." This quite simply ignores non-residences, historic buildings, and again, income from simply having the tourists to begin with.

Finally, from the very same website, Republic claim that the cost to the UK of the Royal Family is around £120m. Given that we receive around £500m from monarchy-related tourism alone, I think it's a safe bet to say that they do good for the country in an economic sense.

I'll move on to one last matter - non-economic consequences of having the monarchy. Republic argues that it's undemocratic and unaccountable. Now, I'm not being funny, but if you compare the power the Queen has to what she actually uses, I think it's quite clear that she doesn't take the piss. It would be considered rude of the Queen to not give the final approval to a new law decided in Parliament for example, or to decline the request for a coalition government.

If you ask me, the Royals know that they're just there for tourism and patriotism, they do gain a lot from being in their position, and as such they just don't want to risk it.
0
reply
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#26
Report 7 years ago
#26
(Original post by manchild007)
Oh Jebus, here we go again :rolleyes:

Provide any sources which can back up your claim that the royals bring in a great deal of money through tourism (which also shows that without the monarchy thus, the UK would loose a great deal of tourism revenue). I'll save you the time, you won't find one, because THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM UP, yet it is a myth used/made by royalists/the misguided all the time to support keeping a monarchy. Heck of the Top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, only one is to do with the royal residences (i.e. the royal family), which is Windsor Castle at lowly 17.

As for finances (i.e. how much they cost us taxpayers), you can find articles which pertain to the royals being net positive to the country AND net negative in that they cost us.

More importantly, the debate about having a monarchy should be first and foremost be with regards to the constitutionality of the country, not something like money; heck if it is just about money, lets just make Lego Man (with Lego Land being one of the best tourist attractions in the UK and thus bringing in a load of revenue) a member of the royal family.

Here is the video which rebukes the one posted by the OP directly, and points to the actual cost of keeping a monarchy;

The negative rep is because you're being controversial and the feeble TSR minds can't seem to accept that.

Personally I couldn't care less about the royal family considering I'm not even a British citizen but what I do find appalling is the state of tyranny casted by TSR in the form of rep.
1
reply
Get Real
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#27
Report 7 years ago
#27
(Original post by manchild007)
Equally, I can find you a link stating and providing evidence that the royal family actually costs the British taxpayer money. Your point being with this post?

Here is the video;

I won't watch the video, I don't need it to know that the Royal Family cost money to uphold each and every year.

Isn't it something around £50 Million? We spent double that in the first days of the Libyan conflict. We are donating £600 Million to Pakistan. Frankly the cost of the Royal Family is nothing even if financially they put NOTHING back into the country (which isn't the case).
0
reply
wn4
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 7 years ago
#28
(Original post by manchild007)
Equally, I can find you a link stating and providing evidence that the royal family actually costs the British taxpayer money. Your point being with this post?

Here is the video;

Im afraid this video has woeful gaps in the information, for a start the government actually owns the crown estate, not the royal family, so no they are not worth £7billion, the royal family does not pay inheritance tax on property that is used for civil uses, but does pay income tax on their private wealth, the part about visitors to the palaces, either way the government is paying for the up keep, and you cant say that football makes more money so the royals don't contribute. Oh and their ownership of the land is nothing to do with the government, a republic would not remove their private land so would not help the problem of not being able to develop on the land.

And a final note, Prince Charles scuppering that development was one of the best things the royals have done as it was a hideous development proposal, but that doesnt change the fact that the Qatari developers still bought the site for just under £1 billion pounds, which the video maker failed to mention
2
reply
Josh_Dey
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#29
Report 7 years ago
#29
(Original post by manchild007)
Oh Jebus, here we go again :rolleyes:

Provide any sources which can back up your claim that the royals bring in a great deal of money through tourism (which also shows that without the monarchy thus, the UK would loose a great deal of tourism revenue). I'll save you the time, you won't find one, because THERE IS NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS CLAIM UP, yet it is a myth used/made by royalists/the misguided all the time to support keeping a monarchy. Heck of the Top 20 tourist attractions in the UK, only one is to do with the royal residences (i.e. the royal family), which is Windsor Castle at lowly 17.

As for finances (i.e. how much they cost us taxpayers), you can find articles which pertain to the royals being net positive to the country AND net negative in that they cost us.

More importantly, the debate about having a monarchy should be first and foremost be with regards to the constitutionality of the country, not something like money; heck if it is just about money, lets just make Lego Man (with Lego Land being one of the best tourist attractions in the UK and thus bringing in a load of revenue) a member of the royal family.

Here is the video which rebukes the one posted by the OP directly, and points to the actual cost of keeping a monarchy;

You are so right. I don't understand how you got 3 negative reps? I would give you positive if I didn't reach this stupid rep limit.
0
reply
FlamingIceCubez
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 7 years ago
#30
(Original post by Steevee)
The Republicans have no argument other than 'But they're not elected!!'

And frankly that's no argument at all. Long live the Royals, Long live the Monarchy and Long live the Queen!
Exactly this.
If we didn't have a monarchy, this country would lack history. Those saying that we should get rid of the Royals - how would you feel if you were born into royalty but got stripped of it when you'd done nothing wrong?
I'd rather have a Queen Elizabeth than a President Cameron, and if you think otherwise, you're a Tory and so I don't value your argument anyway.
1
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#31
Report 7 years ago
#31
(Original post by PendulumBoB)
And the massive cost of protecting them at the wedding, the clogged up roads and the damage to the economy due to work days missed-Rollseyes
The 200 million brought in every year makes up for that. Plus the Royal wedding is meant to be worth over 100 million in tourism to London
0
reply
PendulumBoB
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#32
Report 7 years ago
#32
(Original post by Aj12)
The 200 million brought in every year makes up for that. Plus the Royal wedding is meant to be worth over 100 million in tourism to London
Don't give me that; there have been no real studies as to how much they really bring in, it's just speculation.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#33
Report 7 years ago
#33
(Original post by PendulumBoB)
Don't give me that; there have been no real studies as to how much they really bring in, it's just speculation.
Well the first number is actually proven. The money comes from profits made off lands owned by the royals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ap...-tourism-boost

n the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade.

When you think 1 million people were in London just for the Royal wedding its hardly a jump to believe this figure is it?

Obviously the 6 billion figure is the worrying bit. However that is a one off. In the long term the Royal family is value for money.
0
reply
PendulumBoB
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#34
Report 7 years ago
#34
(Original post by Aj12)
Well the first number is actually proven. The money comes from profits made off lands owned by the royals.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ap...-tourism-boost

n the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade.

When you think 1 million people were in London just for the Royal wedding its hardly a jump to believe this figure is it?

Obviously the 6 billion figure is the worrying bit. However that is a one off. In the long term the Royal family is value for money.
1. The money would come into our coffers even without the Royals as things such as the crown estate would become public property and make little difference to the country except for the fact that we would not have to pay to protect them which practically ofsets this figure anyways.

2. Yes there were loads of people in London, but the multy billion pound loss completely puts the country in the red for the financial impact of the wedding. As well as the fact that the consumer has limited budget and so a short term windfall for the couuntry will be ofset by people, not spending their money on would they would have spend it had the wedding never taken place.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#35
Report 7 years ago
#35
(Original post by PendulumBoB)
1. The money would come into our coffers even without the Royals as things such as the crown estate would become public property and make little difference to the country except for the fact that we would not have to pay to protect them which practically ofsets this figure anyways.

2. Yes there were loads of people in London, but the multy billion pound loss completely puts the country in the red for the financial impact of the wedding. As well as the fact that the consumer has limited budget and so a short term windfall for the couuntry will be ofset by people, not spending their money on would they would have spend it had the wedding never taken place.
Well no they would't actually. Land belongs to the royals government merely gets the profits due to an agreement made with King George I think it was back in the 1700 hundreds. We get rid of the monarchy then they get their land back. Plus if they did become public property a lot of the tourism brought in goes down because without a living monarch and royal family a lot of places loose some of their attraction. Protection for the royal family costs 50 million a year.
0
reply
Gromit94
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#36
Report 7 years ago
#36
(Original post by manchild007)
which is Windsor Castle at lowly 17.
Have you seen the amount of people who gather outside Buckingham Palace just to have a look? They're not counted in the fancy statistics for tourist attractions- and if you're into statistics they're saying nearly 3 billion people watched the royal wedding, that almost half the world's people.

If 3 billion people care enough to watch the wedding, then they almost definitely know who the Queen is. What other country's ambassador is known by half the world's people? Plus the Queen is non-partisan (to a certain extent) and has no real political invovlement, unlike other Presidents and has helped soften the Commenwealth's reputation and emphasis British invovlement.

Long live the Monarchy!!!
0
reply
PendulumBoB
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#37
Report 7 years ago
#37
(Original post by Aj12)
Well no they would't actually. Land belongs to the royals government merely gets the profits due to an agreement made with King George I think it was back in the 1700 hundreds. We get rid of the monarchy then they get their land back. Plus if they did become public property a lot of the tourism brought in goes down because without a living monarch and royal family a lot of places loose some of their attraction. Protection for the royal family costs 50 million a year.
Nearer to £100million but whatever.

No the crown estate is property of the sovereign and so if the old gorl was not longer the sovereign then it would no longer be hers but would be passed on to the people. Besides even if it did go to her, these people aren't particually bright and we would soon reclaim it in inheritance tax.

Also about the tourism way more people flock to France and their palaces even though they got rid of their monarchy, so anyone who uses the tourism argument is either deluded or a liar.
0
reply
Iqbal007
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 7 years ago
#38
(Original post by anoushka1)
I'm not a royalist but I am annoyed at people who say that we pay the Royal Family to do nothing and that they contribute nothing to society, when in fact they are a great help to the economy for the small price we pay them. Also as can be seen on Friday, the royal wedding was a reason for patriotism and bought many people in the UK closer together, showing that there is support for the monarchy.
It is part of what British tradition and culture is based on

Anyways here the clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
Actually the government pays them money for the use of the large amounts of land they own through out the country.....
I know what you mean and understand, however i still dont like the fuss over them especially the anthem about how God should save teh Queen..... he should save us all not just her, we are all the same
0
reply
U.S Lecce
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 7 years ago
#39
Alright, most people in the uk want to keep the monarch, we get it! Stop rubbing it in. :rolleyes:
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#40
Report 7 years ago
#40
(Original post by PendulumBoB)
1. The money would come into our coffers even without the Royals as things such as the crown estate would become public property and make little difference to the country except for the fact that we would not have to pay to protect them which practically ofsets this figure anyways.
Just to clear something up, the Royal Family didn't handed over their land to Parliament, they only agreed to hand over the profits. The land is still owned by the Crown and operated by the Crown Estate, a private corporation. If you abolish the Monarchy that won't change the fact that the land is owned by the Crown Estate and the Royal Family own the Crown Estate. Bringing up arguments about the past and whether or not they should own the land won't help either, because legally the only options for the Government would be to offer to buy the land or to nationalise it. They can't just take it and it won't magically become public property.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (553)
37.82%
No - but I will (115)
7.87%
No - I don't want to (103)
7.05%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (691)
47.26%

Watched Threads

View All