God Save the Queen!
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe Will and Kate will possibly surpass that as they have a royal / celebrity status.
I was merely questioning the comment that they pay their own way, the taxpayer puts a lot of money into the Royal Family, so whilst they do generate a lot for us they certainly don't pay their own way.
#33
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
That is an assertion - where is the proof? You may be right, but you may not be.
The key issues are: -
What does the Queen really cost?
What revenue does she create?
How much of that revenue is linked to British heritage rather than the current queen?
What revenue would an alternative create?
The key issues are: -
What does the Queen really cost?
What revenue does she create?
How much of that revenue is linked to British heritage rather than the current queen?
What revenue would an alternative create?
Massively scaling back the headcount of Royals who are supported by the public purse on the other hand, so that for example only first-line relatives of the reigning monarch get security service escorts everywhere they go, or a stately home to live in rent-free with all expenses paid, might be a different story altogether. It would strike exactly the right balance between maintaining tradition, and demonstrating that the country is moving and thinking forwards, IMO.
Last edited by markjmd; 06 February 2012 at 01:13 PM.
#34
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm actually a fan of the Queen and I agree with comments that they generate a lot of tourism income for this country.
I also believe Will and Kate will possibly surpass that as they have a royal / celebrity status.
I was merely questioning the comment that they pay their own way, the taxpayer puts a lot of money into the Royal Family, so whilst they do generate a lot for us they certainly don't pay their own way.
I also believe Will and Kate will possibly surpass that as they have a royal / celebrity status.
I was merely questioning the comment that they pay their own way, the taxpayer puts a lot of money into the Royal Family, so whilst they do generate a lot for us they certainly don't pay their own way.
The Civil List costs a paltry £7million a year, the cost of security is unknown, but is still small compared to the revenue they generate.
The Crown Estate (the estate the Monarch agreed to release the revenues from in return for the Civil List) generated £230 for HM Treasury in 2010/2011.
Add to that the unquantifiable amount that tourism brings, the Royal Family indeed makes very good financial sense.
If you want to be a republican because you think that monarchs are an outdated concept, fair enough, but there is no financial argument against them whatsoever.
Geezer
Last edited by Geezer; 06 February 2012 at 01:24 PM.
#36
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The tax payer put a lot less money and than they generate, so they are remarkably good value for money.
The Civil List costs a paltry £7million a year, the cost of security is unknown, but is still small compared to the revenue they generate.
The Crown Estate (the estate the Monarch agreed to release the revenues from in return for the Civil List) generated £230 for HM Treasury in 2010/2011.
The Civil List costs a paltry £7million a year, the cost of security is unknown, but is still small compared to the revenue they generate.
The Crown Estate (the estate the Monarch agreed to release the revenues from in return for the Civil List) generated £230 for HM Treasury in 2010/2011.
The Civil List is like their expenses - the depth of expenditure to maintain the Royal Family is far more extensive through indirect expenditure.
The Crown estate argument is irrelevant - many landed gentry have hefty tax bills. Queen, or not Queen, owning some massive lumps of land in the UK and running much of it commercial will raise revenue for HM Treasury.
#37
I'm a pragmatic monarchist.
It works fairly well and provides political stability.
Can you imagine what chaos and damage someone like Blair could have done if he had become President/head of state?
It works fairly well and provides political stability.
Can you imagine what chaos and damage someone like Blair could have done if he had become President/head of state?
#38
To be honest I would rather keep the Royal estates as they are. We only have so much family silver to flog, and if you mean the Monarchy should run them commercially then no thanks; the Queen is the sovereign not a fly by night Dragon den wannbe. Seriously bad idea for teh Monarchy to become a business.
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think neither.
The Crown Estates are heritage - no doubting that - but the revenue they generate is not because we have a Queen. Ergo it is neutral to the pro-royal or republic argument.
I can see benefits of royalty, however I generally feel like a republican.
The Crown Estates are heritage - no doubting that - but the revenue they generate is not because we have a Queen. Ergo it is neutral to the pro-royal or republic argument.
I can see benefits of royalty, however I generally feel like a republican.
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sheffield; Rome of the North
Posts: 17,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#46
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
"In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-Britain.html
#48
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (11)
That's kind of the whole point, isn't it. If we did switch to a presidential system, the odds are that the has-been politicos who would invariably find their way into office would try their damndest to rig things so they'd get to have their say on all kinds of stuff. At least with a monarchy, you know the head of state will just button it and smile for the cameras
#49
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Constitutional Monarchy is an effective system of governance so my guess is that the republicans on the thread have a very shallow British heritage and are simply jealous of the accomplishments of the Empire. Probably have their roots in a plot we leased like Hong Kong or some piddling outpost of the Commonwealth like Australia or New Zealand.
#50
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
#51
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you don't seem capable of using Google yourself:
"In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-Britain.html
"In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-Britain.html
#52
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Queen is just more experienced.
#53
Scooby Regular
We've had a very different history of royalty in this country. The idea that a monarch should serve the people (or that they actually want to, for whatever reason), and not the other way round, is a rarity.
#54
Constitutional Monarchy is an effective system of governance so my guess is that the republicans on the thread have a very shallow British heritage and are simply jealous of the accomplishments of the Empire. Probably have their roots in a plot we leased like Hong Kong or some piddling outpost of the Commonwealth like Australia or New Zealand.
Perhaps it makes them feel proud sucking up to some antiquated aristocracy that is basically a laughing stock.
Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other.
The money argument is totally irrelevant.
I suppose it is a quaint notion to have a queen and that is about it.
#55
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one were to generalise, one might guess that the Monarchists on this thread are simply living in a past, pining over a long lost empire. They probably have their roots in a plot that hangs of the coat tails of the US and that the tail is somehow wagging the dog.
Perhaps it makes them feel proud sucking up to some antiquated aristocracy that is basically a laughing stock.
Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other.
The money argument is totally irrelevant.
I suppose it is a quaint notion to have a queen and that is about it.
Perhaps it makes them feel proud sucking up to some antiquated aristocracy that is basically a laughing stock.
Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other.
The money argument is totally irrelevant.
I suppose it is a quaint notion to have a queen and that is about it.
#56
Scooby Regular
And what if they cost ten times that?
I hate to bring up the Edinburgh trams again... You're talking about, what, three quarters of a billion pounds for little or no benefit? And where else is there money being wasted in the same fashion to the same extent? The Olympics springs to mind for a start.
It doesn't justify a monarchy, but if someone is looking to make savings to the budget, tens of millions are pretty meagre by comparison. Look elsewhere first; politicians are obscene with resources.
I hate to bring up the Edinburgh trams again... You're talking about, what, three quarters of a billion pounds for little or no benefit? And where else is there money being wasted in the same fashion to the same extent? The Olympics springs to mind for a start.
It doesn't justify a monarchy, but if someone is looking to make savings to the budget, tens of millions are pretty meagre by comparison. Look elsewhere first; politicians are obscene with resources.
#57
Scooby Regular
Constitutional Monarchy is an effective system of governance so my guess is that the republicans on the thread have a very shallow British heritage and are simply jealous of the accomplishments of the Empire. Probably have their roots in a plot we leased like Hong Kong or some piddling outpost of the Commonwealth like Australia or New Zealand.
but you don't dissapoint
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 06 February 2012 at 09:22 PM. Reason: whoops - spelling, damn that Pilates class
#58
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed - My point was more to test the rose tinted spectacles.
Just watched The Kings Speech again.
I love the film - and it highlights the nostalgic view of heritage as well as the absurdity of birthright.
Just watched The Kings Speech again.
I love the film - and it highlights the nostalgic view of heritage as well as the absurdity of birthright.
#59
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts