Is the Royal family a massive financial unnecessary drain on society?

Question

Is the Royal family a massive financial unnecessary drain on society?

Answer 1

I wouldn't call them a massive drain as the cost to each family is supposed to only be about £1 per year. However they probably are unnecessary.

Incidentally this argument about they are not a drain because of the money they bring in through tourism - I'd like to say I have never seen any of it. I pay for the Royals in my taxes but the income generated goes into private businesses.

I would call the war in Iraq a massive financial unnecessary drain on society.

Answer 2

It's probably not as massive as the Governments drain on society.

Answer 3

I've seen the 'theme park Britain' arguments, and it just doesn't cut it.

If they are just to attract tourists, why not get Charlie or Liz down to Heathrow, to meet 'n' greet people who fly in.

We got rid of that costly old lump of metal, Brittania, and it made no difference to Britains trade overseas (the main argument for keeping it for so long, was that if we entertained foreign businessmen on it, they would be SO impressed, that they would forget the bottom line and give all their business to the UK)

get rid ot this costly anachronism as soon as possible

Answer 4

At around £37 million in 2004, I wouldn't say the Royal family is a massive drain on the public purse.

You could probably get 1 Eurofighter Typhoon for that, maybe... and the Royal contacts may have helped to sell one of the 72 to Saud Royal Family.

It's difficult to say how much tourism is generated by their existence, but I think it's a fair assumption that even without them now, the history of British empire would still keep pulling visitors to one of the most significant nations in the last 1000 years.

Of course that is part of Britains' Royal history, but the past is the past, but we got to draw the line somewhere !?

Furthermore, a dissolution of the Royals could be complex, as large parts of their "private" wealth have probably been acquired from the nation.. should they be stripped of all that ??

On a more egotistical slant, are the people of Britain happy with the implication that there are a bunch of people out there who are proclaimed to be better than the rest of us ?

Does their existence make a mockery of so called democracy ?

On the other hand, do they bring validity (through their "divine" appointment") to the British people, and differential value i.e. "We have a Queeeennn, you dont. hahahahaha"

And even though they no longer have much direct political power, we must not forget that the Royals are still well respected abroad , especially in the worlds current greatest super-power, the USA.

And the Royal conferred privileges still carry a lot of weight.

Personally, being of humble origins, I look forward to the day of demise of all Hereditary Monarchies and other nepotistic social systems.

Answer 5

No- this is actually a common misconception.

The royalty are easily self-sufficient- they raise their money through the rent of their properties to Government.

Furthermore- with their immense capital wealth and the fact a number of Royals and Nobles are prominent financial people- they have access to superlative financial management and wealth creation systems we mortals can only dream of- like offshore hedge funds based in the Bahamas.

No, this 'Royal= burden' is a very silly lie intended to disenchant people from the Monarchy.

But only simpletons fall for it- as I can see you're a very clever, independent sharp thinker.

Like them or not- they're self-funded- and many billions richer than they ever admit- but that's another story.

The EU, fact-finding rorts, travel-expense pilfering and in general both Houses of Parliament are the worst money-wasters. Iraq? Devolution? The list of wasted money goes on, and on, and on- all politician derived.

Did u know many Tory & Labour MP's living in London claimed the full 23000+ pound travel expense gravy train?

Answer 6

It's very worrying that your question has exposed a number of our fellow citizens as being willing to abolish their democratically elected parliament and government, but retain the unelected, hereditary head of state. I despair of the British and their inability to grasp democratic principles.

Answer 7

Yep.

Answer 8

THEY ARE NOT ONLY FINANCIAL BUT SOCIAL PARASITES AND THE MONARCHY MUST BE DELETED FROM EXISTENCE AND ALL THEIR ILL GOTTEN ASSETS DISTRIBUTED AMONGST THE POOR AND NEEDY

Answer 9

im no big fan of the royals, but they do generate loads of money dont they?

Answer 10

Absolutely.

Answer 11

No, not really, the income they generate, for our society, from tourists cannot be sniffed at.

And anyway who would we put on our stamps?

Answer 12

Well Bonzo...by the phrasing of your question I don't suppose I could change your mind....but I think the Queen swore an oath to serve the country and in that she has done a great job...do you know another 80 year old woman who has been in the public eye for so long and has done it with such dignity...It is the one thing left in the UK I think we can be proud of.....I agree some of the lesser Royals do not need the financial assistance...but as for the Queen, and the Prince of Wales, I am all for them...but as I say you are either for or against them....so I don't expect Best answer, but you should consider all opinions, or what is the point of asking the question.

Answer 13

How dare you!

Answer 14

At the start of each reign the Monarch signs the Crown Estates over to Parliamnet, some of this money that goes directly to the treasury goes back to the Queen in the Civil List, she pays taxes on her private income.



If we did not have WORKING royal palaces then people would not visit them in the droves they do (especially Americans).

The House of Commons is a far greater drain on society than the Royals are. On top of the MPs salaries they can claim the same again in expenses, then there's the BILLIONS they've spent on an illegal war in Iraq.

We need a head of State and it would cost just as much if not more to install a President every few years.

Answer 15

no, they're not

Answer 16

They bring in a lot of tourism and support a lot of charities. I'm not exactly a royalist, but I can see they do some good.

Answer 17

Yes - totally.

I don't think that now that Diana has gone that tourists even come here anymore.

Charles and the bulldog are just an embarrassment - who even cares if they turn up to open anything.