What is the point in having a royal family? Watch

Esskeetit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#1
With all this royal wedding news around at the moment it got me thinking.
Ive never understood why we still have a royal family, not trying to offend anyone but to me it seems like they dont actually do anything. i know that any changes and new laws that go through parliament have to go to the queen who approves them but not being funny doesnt she just say yes to anything she gets because if she decided she doesnt like this but all off parliament there would be outrage.
It just seems like they dont contribute much at all to the economy and if anything take away from it like they do not pay taxes at all and with this wedding theyre not paying for it at all either.

Whats everyone thoughts on this?
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 9 months ago
#2
They once used to rule the land before the money changers showed up and either had their heads chopped off (France) or slowly used land taxes/laws to strip them of their powers/assets and make them subordinates (like in UK/Spain etc.)
0
reply
izzy.may18
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 9 months ago
#3
They do stuff for charities behind the scenes but that's all I know, I don't understand why we still have them either
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 9 months ago
#4
I suppose they are considered ambassadors for the country. It's great PR to have the most famous monarchy in the world in our country.

I think this debate will come down to do they help the economy. They are a large pull for tourists and i believe they don't leech as much money off the taxpayer as people say.
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 9 months ago
#5
The constitution of the UK is a finely balanced thing, forged over millennia. The Crown has always been at the centre of that (barring Old Ironsides and the brief tenure of Tumbledown ****). It would therefore be a rather difficult thing to remove that centre of our constitution without doing a lot of boring technical work. In essence, the political incentive is not there for us to attempt it.

Indeed, even if we removed the Royals, they would likely retain some sort of titles (as has happened in some Continental republican countries). They would be on show, have palaces, and so on. If they're going to be on show, we should at least maximise their tourism attraction.
2
reply
LlamaLikeEllie
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#6
Report 9 months ago
#6
(Original post by Esskeetit)
With all this royal wedding news around at the moment it got me thinking.
Ive never understood why we still have a royal family, not trying to offend anyone but to me it seems like they dont actually do anything. i know that any changes and new laws that go through parliament have to go to the queen who approves them but not being funny doesnt she just say yes to anything she gets because if she decided she doesnt like this but all off parliament there would be outrage.
It just seems like they dont contribute much at all to the economy and if anything take away from it like they do not pay taxes at all and with this wedding theyre not paying for it at all either.

Whats everyone thoughts on this?
I personally am for the royal family, and I think they're a positive asset to this country.
1. They do contribute a lot to the economy. The royal family attracts tourism, which brings in around £700 million per year, which I have also added revenue from the crown estate too. We only pay £150 million per year for the royal family.
2. The royal family is paying for near enough the entire costs of the wedding, the only expense of the taxpayer being security. This is true for all the weddings.
3. The royal family act as political ambassadors to the UK. They are unique to our country, and they help form international relations, through things like the Commonwealth.
4. They are part of our heritage as a country.
5. The royal family work hard. Even though it may seem like nothing, they carry out thousands of royal engagements each year, and for someone like the queen who has done that for over 60 years, it's not en easy job. They do lots of charitable work, which heads of states in other countries do not do.
9
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 9 months ago
#7
The French had the right idea
3
reply
username3932588
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#8
Report 9 months ago
#8
they bring in a lot of money for the country from tourism but other than that idk
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#9
Report 9 months ago
#9
Someone has to eat all them swans.

Attachment 745774
4
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 9 months ago
#10
As a nation, we spend a lot more money on a lot worse things. Leave things be. If you constantly keep chipping away at the historical and cultural identity of a country for the sake of it, you end up with bland, mediocre, meaningless society.

Just from the point of view of patronage, tourism and diplomacy/trade, the Royal family pay for themselves a hundred times over. If you take the £150m figure - that's peanuts.

We give Pakistan three times that every single year in DFID aid. We spent nearly double that building an airport in the middle of the Atlantic that no-one uses. These are simple examples of things that we spend far more on that do not benefit us in any way at all. You might think the Royal family are oblique, but they're part of the national heritage and do have a positive impact, even if you might choose to believe that it's marginal.
2
reply
Esskeetit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#11
(Original post by Axiomasher)
Someone has to eat all them swans.
thats it youve convinced me
3
reply
Esskeetit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#12
when people say they attract tourism and it brings 700 million a year, not doubting that but id be interested to see how much of that is directly due to us currently having a monarchy. maybe im wrong but i feel like on the whole the world is moving away from societies with monarchies and has been for a long time now
0
reply
Esskeetit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#13
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#13
(Original post by Trinculo)
We give Pakistan three times that every single year in DFID aid. We spent nearly double that building an airport in the middle of the Atlantic that no-one uses.
i know this point is possibly irrelevant but i think id rather do this than pay for security at a wedding that is literally the same as anyone elses just because these people are this persons child
1
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 9 months ago
#14
(Original post by Esskeetit)
when people say they attract tourism and it brings 700 million a year, not doubting that but id be interested to see how much of that is directly due to us currently having a monarchy. maybe im wrong but i feel like on the whole the world is moving away from societies with monarchies and has been for a long time now
How is the world moving away from monarchies? We have seen little movement either way in recent years, beyond Nepal sacking it in in 2008. The European monarchies seem as strong as ever.
0
reply
Esskeetit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 9 months ago
#15
(Original post by Notoriety)
How is the world moving away from monarchies? We have seen little movement either way in recent years, beyond Nepal sacking it in in 2008. The European monarchies seem as strong as ever.
i dont mean in very recent years sorry couldve made that clearer but for sure i think in this country there is less interest in the monarchy
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 9 months ago
#16
(Original post by Esskeetit)
i dont mean in very recent years sorry couldve made that clearer but for sure i think in this country there is less interest in the monarchy
You might well be right, but I am not convinced there is so little interest than anyone beyond gjd800 is having serious talks about republicanism. It would be quite a bore to have a president, in my opinion. They do all the ceremonial stuff, but with less excitement and may I even say "relevance" (look at Governors-General across the Commonwealth -- retired athletes, judges, old Parliamentarians and so on). Or the president might get ahead of himself and become too interventionist, after all they come from a political background very often and are trained to have political views (even with retired judges, see John Kerr, they can forget their training).

To be fair, I would prefer us to take a step back and have greater involvement of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Much better people with life experience than has-been politicians or people who used to be CEO of Iceland.
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 9 months ago
#17
(Original post by Notoriety)
You might well be right, but I am not convinced there is so little interest than anyone beyond gjd800 is having serious talks about republicanism. It would be quite a bore to have a president, in my opinion. They do all the ceremonial stuff, but with less excitement and may I even say "relevance" (look at Governors-General across the Commonwealth -- retired athletes, judges, old Parliamentarians and so on. Or the president might get ahead of himself and become too interventionist, after all they come from a political background very often and are trained to have political views (even with retired judges, see John Kerr, they can forget their training).

To be fair, I would prefer us to take a step back and have greater involvement of the hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Much better people with life experience than has-been politicians or people who used to be CEO of Iceland.
I think they are flat wrong - interest in the Royals is alive and well (as Saturday will demonstrate), and I say that as a lifelong (or as long s I was hold enough to understand) and staunch republican. So yes, I think that you are quite right. I'm very much a minority in this country.
0
reply
shameful_burrito
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 9 months ago
#18
Because reptilians will always lead the humans. The royal family are the reptilian overlords ruling Earth, you cannot overthrow them because their reptilian powers surpass those of pathetic mortals. Why do you think the queen is so old and doesn’t die already? She’s eternal.
2
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 9 months ago
#19
Sell crap to tourists.
0
reply
Axiomasher
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#20
Report 9 months ago
#20
(Original post by Esskeetit)
...Whats everyone thoughts on this?
The continued existence of the royal family as it stands is a rather garish and excessive symbol of privilege. I'm not suggesting that the immediate royal family be done away with but the wider family should certainly not be relying on state support. I suppose I'm saying it should all be scaled back quite a bit, the royal family is, ultimately, an anachronism that needs to be modified in the direction of modesty.
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

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (70)
15.95%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (44)
10.02%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (82)
18.68%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (61)
13.9%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (47)
10.71%
How can I be the best version of myself? (135)
30.75%

Watched Threads

View All