Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    thought people in the oxbridge section would be interested by this article i've found; i've no idea where else to start this thread, so bear with me

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

    £37 million ; now that is a hefty sum; anyone think the monarchy should be scraped. I'm sort of divided on this issue, because the idea of having kings and queens is cool, and the history related to it, etc, but i dont agree with the taxpayer having to foot their bills - they should get a job like that dutchess who went to work in the USA - (can't remember her name)

    Phil
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't an Oxbridge topic no matter how hard you might try, Phil.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It only costs 61p to the taxpayer. If you abolished the monarchy, you would probably get at the most 10p back, since the government spends the money on their new president. You can't even buy a Mars Bar for 10p. £36 million isn't exactly a lot of money in government spending terms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That's quite an opinion-setting title. I can't find an article called "BBC Costs Taxpayers £2.6 billion a year", "EU costs £160 billion a year" or "EU accounts fail to account for £3 billion spent each year"
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by JonD)
    That's quite an opinion-setting title. I can't find an article called "BBC Costs Taxpayers £2.6 billion a year", "EU costs £160 billion a year" or "EU accounts fail to account for £3 billion spent each year"
    The BBC provides greater value for money than the royals if that is it's cost to the taxpayer! It also provides much greater entertainment value as well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phil23)
    thought people in the oxbridge section would be interested by this article i've found; i've no idea where else to start this thread, so bear with me

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

    £37 million ; now that is a hefty sum; anyone think the monarchy should be scraped. I'm sort of divided on this issue, because the idea of having kings and queens is cool, and the history related to it, etc, but i dont agree with the taxpayer having to foot their bills - they should get a job like that dutchess who went to work in the USA - (can't remember her name)

    Phil
    £37 million is absolute peanuts.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The BBC provides greater value for money than the royals if that is it's cost to the taxpayer! It also provides much greater entertainment value as well.
    The BBC is the greatest institution for the perversion of minds in the country.

    Signed

    A.Puritan
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    The BBC is the greatest institution for the perversion of minds in the country.

    Signed

    A.Puritan
    :call: As Mr. Puritan picks up the phone to complain to 'Points of View'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    :call: As Mr. Puritan picks up the phone to complain to 'Points of View'
    I'd rather write being sure to sign off with,


    Disgusted
    Tunbridge Wells.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also remember that the palaces, historical buildings, and the mere fact that we have a monarchy bring in floods of tourists. Look at the tat on offer at the Tower of London. I think we should give less to the Royal Family, but keep them in some sort of constitutional, figurehead of the nation kinda way.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'd rather write being sure to sign off with,


    Disgusted
    Tunbridge Wells.
    lol - that old codger from Tunbridge Wells still figures in 'Letters to the Editor' in the Daily Mail - or was it the Sun?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by FarnhamBoy)
    Also remember that the palaces, historical buildings, and the mere fact that we have a monarchy bring in floods of tourists. Look at the tat on offer at the Tower of London. I think we should give less to the Royal Family, but keep them in some sort of constitutional, figurehead of the nation kinda way.
    How about keeping them in a zoo instead? That way we could be sure that tourists would be paying money to see them, rather than assuming that is why they come 'in floods'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FarnhamBoy)
    Also remember that the palaces, historical buildings, and the mere fact that we have a monarchy bring in floods of tourists.
    That might be true. But it is nevertheless a pretty piss poor argument for a constitutional arrangement. Since when did any country arrange its constitution for the benefit of a bunch of fat Americans and camera clicking Japs?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I think the Royal Family for this country brings more money than it consumes. Tourism brings loads of money: and why do you think people visit UK, to enjoy the cold rainy climate or to actually have a look at the history and its evidence?37 mil isnt much(in fact a tiny amount) for a country with 4th largest economy in the world.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    How about keeping them in a zoo instead? That way we could be sure that tourists would be paying money to see them, rather than assuming that is why they come 'in floods'.
    Nice one!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IZZY!)
    I think the Royal Family for this country brings more money than it consumes. Tourism brings loads of money: and why do you think people visit UK, to enjoy the cold rainy climate or to actually have a look at the history and its evidence?37 mil isnt much(in fact a tiny amount) for a country with 4th largest economy in the world.
    is it the 4th largest? thought it was like 7th?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    well 4th most successful and competitive.lol.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I say we should stop paying for them full stop and take all their property. They still have a loada money to live on, if not they can go the departmenty of social security and get some cash. They might find it hard to fill in all those forms though.;
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phil23)
    thought people in the oxbridge section would be interested by this article i've found; i've no idea where else to start this thread, so bear with me

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4119194.stm

    £37 million ; now that is a hefty sum; anyone think the monarchy should be scraped. I'm sort of divided on this issue, because the idea of having kings and queens is cool, and the history related to it, etc, but i dont agree with the taxpayer having to foot their bills - they should get a job like that dutchess who went to work in the USA - (can't remember her name)

    Phil
    The benefits of the royal family far outweigh this very mediocre £37million.
    If we need to save money, we should pull out of Europe, NOT turn out backs on one of the biggest generators of revenue in the country, and a fine national institution.
    Jeez, much of the world would kill for a royal family that carries as such prestige as Britains...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Much more has been wasted in extra expenditure in foreign affairs such as the Iraq War which costs more than the royal family.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,492

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Will you be tempted to trade up and get out of your firm offer on results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.