This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Do you think that we need a royal family?

i have nothing against them but do you think that the royal family should exist.
Argument for getting rid of the R Family

Given that they cosumme soooooooooo much taxpayers money getting rid of them could save use bilions or at least havee better service from the governement.

Argument against:

It is a living patrimony of our country so we should keep it.

Reply 1

goldenbarnes

11

Gentilhomme

getting rid of them could save use bilions

I have no real care for the tradition of it all but getting rid of them would save us millions but lose us billions.

im unsure really

goldenbarnes

I have no real care for the tradition of it all but getting rid of them would save us millions but lose us billions.

Thats if you believe that people actually do come to visit the queen/Buckingham Palace, which i dont think so.

i dont believe we need one, as what importance do they actually serve? Plus they get money from the state when they already have million in the bank, plus waste money traveling in RAF Planes etc.

Reply 4

jpowell

15

We should have the best of both worlds a royal family, but don't give them any money. They are rich enough to pay their own way in the world.

Reply 5

frost105

14

AntiMagicMan

We should have the best of both worlds a royal family, but don't give them any money. They are rich enough to pay their own way in the world.

I agree with you there but the figure head ie the queen should be paid a sum for what she does.

Reply 6

Howard

5

Gentilhomme

i have nothing against them but do you think that the royal family should exist.
Argument for getting rid of the R Family

Given that they cosumme soooooooooo much taxpayers money getting rid of them could save use bilions or at least havee better service from the governement.

Argument against:

It is a living patrimony of our country so we should keep it.

They don't cost "billions"

Reply 7

glance

17

The Royal Family are like the whole nation, but packed up tightly into a few really posh people. They go and represent us, opening supermarkets in Brazil and the like. Without the Royal Family, we would have no identity, and wouldn't be scar the United Kingdom against any Brazilian supermarkets anymore :frown:

Reply 8

Howard

5

john williams

Thats if you believe that people actually do come to visit the queen/Buckingham Palace, which i dont think so.

I agree. I think the "tourist argument" for the monarchy is the biggest load of *******s I've ever heard.

Reply 9

piemonster411

Howard

I agree. I think the "tourist argument" for the monarchy is the biggest load of *******s I've ever heard.

Why? Tourists coming to our country generate money. The monarchy attracts tourists and therefore generates money. What John Williams said is untrue. Believe it or not people do come to England intent on visiting Buckingham palace. So maybe you could expand further on why the 'tourist argument' is a load of '*******s'

Reply 10

thefish_uk

14

piemonster411

Why? Tourists coming to our country generate money. The monarchy attracts tourists and therefore generates money. What John Williams said is untrue. Believe it or not people do come to England intent on visiting Buckingham palace. So maybe you could expand further on why the 'tourist argument' is a load of '*******s'

Because the tourists come here to visit Buckingham Palace and find they can't because the Queen's in or something. Abolishing the monarchy doesn't mean bulldozing all trace of them... in fact it means people can see a lot of the things that are currently kept locked away because of them. France hasn't had royalty for hundreds of years but many people go round the Palace of Versailles and other places!

Reply 11

kellywood_5

17

I accidentaly voted for no but I think we should abolish them since they serve no real purpose and are just a waste of money.

Reply 12

Howard

5

piemonster411

Why? Tourists coming to our country generate money. The monarchy attracts tourists and therefore generates money. What John Williams said is untrue. Believe it or not people do come to England intent on visiting Buckingham palace. So maybe you could expand further on why the 'tourist argument' is a load of '*******s'

Because for example the Palace of Versailles (which is in France, the home of modern European Republicanism) receives far far more visitors than Buckingham Palace. In fact France itself receives three times more visitors each year than the UK despite being unable to allur all these tourists with a Royal Family.

You might also be interested to learn that the most popular tourist attraction in the UK is in fact the "viking center" (in York I believe) which isn't exactly a royal attraction.

The reason people chose to go this place or that place on vacation has nothing to do with the constitutional arrangements of that country. Now, I'm not saying that tourists don't put Buck Palace/Windsor Castle on their sightseeing list while in London but I am saying they'd probably still come to the UK, and probably still visit these places, whether or not the Queen is home to make them a nice cuppa.

Expansive enough?

Reply 13

Howard

5

thefish_uk

Because the tourists come here to visit Buckingham Palace and find they can't because the Queen's in or something. Abolishing the monarchy doesn't mean bulldozing all trace of them... in fact it means people can see a lot of the things that are currently kept locked away because of them. France hasn't had royalty for hundreds of years but many people go round the Palace of Versailles and other places!

Honestly, I didn't copy you! Must be something about great minds thinking alike!

Reply 14

thefish_uk

14

Howard

Honestly, I didn't copy you! Must be something about great minds thinking alike!

Yeah, or us both reading the Republic UK campaign website... :wink:

umm, or something.

But yeah, the Yorvik centre in York? I can understand that being popular, it's cheap, well known and very interesting.

Reply 15

Howard

5

thefish_uk

Yeah, or us both reading the Republic UK campaign website... :wink:

umm, or something.

But yeah, the Yorvik centre in York? I can understand that being popular, it's cheap, well known and very interesting.

Never been to Yorvik personally.

Actually, I'm not a Republican; I'm a Monarchist. But that doesn't stop me finding the tourism argument a bit lame.

Reply 16

blissy

15

I'd like to see what I saw in some other part of Europe:
discounts for people under 25
discounts for members of the EU
I'd love to see the tower of London, for example, but it's so expensive. Why is my heritage so expensive? :frown:

Reply 17

Howard

5

blissy

I'd like to see what I saw in some other part of Europe:
discounts for people under 25(

Under 35 if you please. :smile:

Reply 18

galadriel100

15

I don't like the idea of people inheriting wealth and power. People should work hard and get the benifits, not have them handed down.
The royal family is so wealthy, yet there are people who really need the money they have. Ive seen all the parades and stuff on TV. They must cost a fourtune. The RF should donate that money to charity and make their castles into orphanages or something that would help a greater number of people.

Reply 19

yawn

17

Howard

They don't cost "billions"

There is no information on the 'total' costs of maintaining the royal family and all that it entails.

You can find bits and pieces of costs for various things like the upkeep of the accommodation provided for them and their flunkeys, the civil list costs, security and travel costs etc but no total - that is kept from the eyes of the royal 'subjects' presumably because the public would riot if they knew the true cost to the 'public purse'! :eek:

Who's to say it doesn't cost "billions" altogether? :frown:

Do you think that we need a royal family?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you