The Student Room Group

Am I the only one who actually likes the Royal Family?

It seems to me (and I might be generalising) but it's usually British people who are against the monarchy for some reason and Non-British people are usually the ones who regard them to be an integral part of the history of the country.

All I hear is "they take our taxes" etc. but they earn the UK far more in tourism and generate more income than they actually take in.

I for one am happy about having a monarchy.

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
I'm pretty sure there's no actual proof of whether they earn more or spend more. I think if there was a conclusive way of measuring that we would have our decision as to whether it's worth abolishing them.
Unfortunately, no you are not the only person who likes them.
the only reason why no one will bother to remove the monarchy is because they're so utterly irrelevant.
Reply 4
I don't mind them because they help tourism
Unfortunately not. Imagine if we got rid of them and carried on using the properties for tourism, we could even open up the palace fully for the first time ever. So expenditure is drastically cut and tourism vastly increases by eager tourists wanting to see parts of the palace nobody has ever seen before.
i like them
I like Harry. I bet he's the funniest and drunkest person at parties.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by adamsmithqm
It seems to me (and I might be generalising) but it's usually British people who are against the monarchy for some reason and Non-British people are usually the ones who regard them to be an integral part of the history of the country.

All I hear is "they take our taxes" etc. but they earn the UK far more in tourism and generate more income than they actually take in.

I for one am happy about having a monarchy.

There's no way of measuring whether this is the case or not so this is an empty statement.

I don't personally like them and I understand why some people are irked by them being put on a pedestal by birthright.

However, I grudgingly put up with them because they don't interfere in politics and I'd rather have the world's finest constitutional monarchy than a second-class republic.
Reply 9
This country would be in a severely worse place than it is if it weren't for the Royal Family.
I really don't think abolishing them would change tourism all that much. :dontknow:
It's not like people come to actually meet the Royal Family, they come to look at the palaces and such.
Reply 11
I don't see the fuss because all they've done is be lucky enough to be born into the royal family (i.e. out of the right vagina, great achievement m8)
The Royal Family costs the taxpayer £37.4m (Source - BBC NEWS).
The Royal Family brings in £9.3m in tourism (Source - The Guardian).

You work the rest out.
Reply 13
I love them, especially Charles.
Reply 14
I'm a fan.
Reply 15
I'm not overly fond of the monarchy, as although they're irrelevant, they are still undemocratic. I'm also not so sure as to the validity of the idea that they attract tourists. Seriously, how many people do you think believe they'll get to see/meet royalty?

Original post by ryan9900
This country would be in a severely worse place than it is if it weren't for the Royal Family.


And your evidence for such a bold claim is?
(edited 10 years ago)
You and about 75% + plus of Brits.

TSR is not representative of Britain.
Reply 17
I'm very "right wing" but I think they're as verminous and parasitic as the people on benefits,
in fact they're far worse because they get *more* for doing *less*
we are such a stupid country in some respects, at least politically

Original post by ModernScholar
The Royal Family costs the taxpayer £37.4m (Source - BBC NEWS).
The Royal Family brings in £9.3m in tourism (Source - The Guardian).

You work the rest out.


I'd go so far as to say they cost around £200 mil in terms of all the security and other costs;
the queen gets £40mil~ a year but that's not covering everything else and all the other payments to the other royals and their costs

Original post by Daniellejo.
I really don't think abolishing them would change tourism all that much. :dontknow:
It's not like people come to actually meet the Royal Family, they come to look at the palaces and such.


agreed: the french palace of versailles (the main pre-republic palace of the louie xiv) gets about x10 as many tourists as buckingham palace
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 18
Original post by Genocidal
I'm pretty sure there's no actual proof of whether they earn more or spend more. I think if there was a conclusive way of measuring that we would have our decision as to whether it's worth abolishing them.



Original post by tengentoppa
There's no way of measuring whether this is the case or not so this is an empty statement.

I don't personally like them and I understand why some people are irked by them being put on a pedestal by birthright.

However, I grudgingly put up with them because they don't interfere in politics and I'd rather have the world's finest constitutional monarchy than a second-class republic.


The Crown (ie HM the Queen) owns the landholder known as the Crown Estate. This owns over £8bn in land and property, and has an annual profit of around £250m. Prior to 2012 HM was paid by the Civil List where the Treasury just gives her some pocket money. After this date, HM receives 15% of the Crown Estates profit. The Crown Estate despite being owned by HM passes all of its profit to the Treasury. ie the Queen pays in £250m and receives back around £40m. You tell me she gets more than she gives.

Incidentally each monarch since George III has passed on the profits from the Crown Estate to the government. So yeah...

On top of that, HM the Queen, HRH the D of E and all of their family are a great boost to the UK economy. HRH's the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are incredibly popular, so much so that Kate can sell out a dress just by wearing it. People pay to see them. They're ambassadors for the UK, travelling all over the world representing us and the rest of the Commonwealth. The Queen works (or worked, she's slowing down a bit now) harder than you and she's in 87 years old. 87! Did she retire at 60? No she did not, she is the people's servant and she knows it.

On top of that, they're kind of cool and Kate... Well... :love:

References:
The Crown Estate - Financial information
The Crown Estate - History
BBC
Daily Mail
Kate Middleton is fit
(edited 10 years ago)
Peoples servant please :lol: such a hard life isn't it? Theres a reason normal people retire in their sixties, its called doing honest hard grafting 9 till 5 on five days a week for over fourty years.

Quick Reply

Latest