Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You can't be serious? The government complain about people on the dole living off £53 a week, wonder how much she's living off a week and they're thinking of introducing a bedroom tax wonder how much Buckingham Palace's tax would increase then...Oh wait.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Hate republicans.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SkaGirl9)
    You can't be serious? The government complain about people on the dole living off £53 a week, wonder how much she's living off a week and they're thinking of introducing a bedroom tax wonder how much Buckingham Palace's tax would increase then...Oh wait.
    The difference is people on the dole do NOT contribute many millions/billions into the economy from tourism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S1L3NTPR3Y)
    You realise the £36.1 million is for upkeep of her palaces, paying the royal staff and other Royal expenses, she won't be going on a shopping spree on the weekend down the Kings Road with her grant. These costs would be the same or higher if a Presidency was in place.

    + We get an added economic bonus and feel-good factor from having a monarch, it provides a sense of stability and grandeur.

    Think about it like this if the monarchy in the UK was like the Saudi Arabian monarchy with 15,000 members who all spent their wealth extravagantly and ran the country as a cut throat autocracy the revolution would have occurred centuries ago.
    That £36.1m excludes a lot of costs such as security and royal visits. A presidential system would be cheaper as well, as we wouldn't be paying for things like helicopter rides and cricket matches for the presidents extended family.

    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    And if we had a largely ceremonial President like many countries do, she'd be elected into the role anyway with her popularity!

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/ma...record-support

    Again, the monarchy as an institution has a complete lack of transparency, the royals are exempt from the freedom of information act, and I would imagine that support for her would fall if we had complete transparency.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexh42)
    The difference is people on the dole do NOT contribute many millions/billions into the economy from tourism.
    Neither does she, the only royal residence in the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK is Windsor Castle at 17th. If we had no Queen then tourists aren't all of a sudden going to decide against coming here. Royal residences account for way less than 1% of tourism revenue.

    If anything if we had no monarch we could open up Buckingham palace fully, all of its grounds and art collections.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    This is exactly the kind of rubbish I'm talking about! I can understand some republic arguments but this one is just absurd!

    She has not been given any money, she has just been allowed to keep more of HER OWN money.

    Based on your calculation, The Queen already funds £3.30 TAX credit for everybody, including YOU- she pays us, we don't pay her!
    It's only HER money because WE make her famous and an attraction that brings in money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexh42)
    The difference is people on the dole do NOT contribute many millions/billions into the economy from tourism.
    Also each person on the dole doesn't cost as much as the Queen travelling here and there, having their own staff living in a palace i doubt there's a big difference in the cost of the royal family than what they actually bring to the economy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Neither does she, the only royal residence in the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK is Windsor Castle at 17th. If we had no Queen then tourists aren't all of a sudden going to decide against coming here. Royal residences account for way less than 1% of tourism revenue.

    If anything if we had no monarch we could open up Buckingham palace fully, all of its grounds and aren't collections.

    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    It's only HER money because WE make her famous and an attraction that brings in money.
    Who's right?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    Who's right?
    me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JubilantYou)
    The True Cost of the Royal Family[/video]
    That silly video has been completely debunked by this one below

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    She's not paid.

    The properties she owns employ many hundreds/thousands of people.
    If simply employing people is revenue positive, then wouldn't the government be better off simply employing unemployed people?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It isn't pay, it's the cost of running the office of Head of State of the United Kingdom. The UK does this more cheaply than many similar nations
    Actually... no. The British Royal Family is the most expensive royal family in Europe. Look how frugal the Danes are by comparison.

    And if you want and English-speaking, common-law example, the Australian Governor-General costs about 1/3 of the British Royal Family.

    The increase in costs partly derives from the spiralling cost of maintaining the very large properties belonging to the state, such as Buckingham Palace - the latter is open to the public much of the year and acts as a major tourist attraction.
    People wouldn't visit if Britain was a republic? That explains why Versailles is a ghost town
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    me
    http://media.visitbritain.com/News-R...earch-5d2.aspx

    Sightly tenuous, but...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    http://media.visitbritain.com/News-R...earch-5d2.aspx

    Sightly tenuous, but...
    That includes places such as the Tower of London, which isn't owned by the monarch anymore and also places like St Paul's Cathedral. That tourism revenue is going no where regardless of the monarchy situation.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Monarchy is so outdated. I can't stand the way this hereditary and anachronistic institution are hero worshiped by the redneck majority in Britain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yorkshire.lad)
    bloody stupid, my fathers friends have lost their jobs, he is on the verge of almost losing his and the queen gets paid so much for sitting on her fat arse doing jack **** apart from waving and being admitted to hospital with the runs/****s.
    What a disrespectful thing to say.

    I might be so rude as to say if your father's friends were such an asset they wouldn't have lost their jobs, or would easily have found others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    Who's right?
    Both of us. Everything Dave says is true, I'm just saying that your claim that it's her money is true but only because we present her as this big attraction, it could be anyone in her position, it's not like she has any particular talent. So it IS her money in a way but that doesn't mean she should keep it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chadya)
    What a disrespectful thing to say.

    I might be so rude as to say if your father's friends were such an asset they wouldn't have lost their jobs, or would easily have found others.
    How dare you say **** like that, the council had to let them go because they simply could not afford to pay their wages, the whole departments budget was cut by 50%. Fathers who were the only source of income for their families lost their only source of money coming into the house.

    Please dig a hole and crawl into it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by manchesterunited15)
    Both of us. Everything Dave says is true, I'm just saying that your claim that it's her money is true but only because we present her as this big attraction, it could be anyone in her position, it's not like she has any particular talent. So it IS her money in a way but that doesn't mean she should keep it.
    Very few of the properties are royal attractions.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    By 'privately' do you mean by her 'private' income from the duchies?
    Whether you do or not is really a matter of semantics, but I certainly didn't "mean" only that income - I meant the whole range of her private income, which includes money from estates (whether including the Duchy of Lancaster or not), her investment portfolio and all that nonsense.
 
 
 
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.