"Are the Royals worth the tax?" poll discussion

pollypenny

Glyn, the Crown Estates were the country's estates from when the monarch meant something!

GlynD

pollypenny wrote: »

Glyn, the Crown Estates were the country's estates from when the monarch meant something!

And they still are, however you cannot brush away an income of £210,700,000 with a trite comment. It remains that the royals cost the taxpayer nothing. They, and their estates create vast amounts of funding and employment. Follow the links and tell me I'm wrong AFTER you've read the information provided.

pollypenny

You are being selective. So the income belongs to 'us, the people, anyway. The Feudal system is long since dead.

And even if they cost us 2p , I object to the adulation of prats like Charles, who has been talking to people in Georgia on 'farming' for heaven's sake.

GlynD

pollypenny wrote: »

You are being selective. So the income belongs to 'us, the people, anyway. The Feudal system is long since dead.

And even if they cost us 2p , I object to the adulation of prats like Charles, who has been talking to people in Georgia on 'farming' for heaven's sake.

No, the income does not belong to "US". The income belongs to the Crown. It has been agreed by previous monarchs and our present Queen that this money should go to the exchequer as we have a constitutional monarchy which has the Crown as its figurative head. There is a huge difference.

Prince Charles does not get a penny from the exchequer, so he doesn't even cost you anything.

I re-iterate: the Crown is self-sufficient and belongs to the people. That means the monarch (who IS the Crown) and the (much whittled down by the Queen) Civil List do not cost the taxpayer one single penny.

Might I suggest, most respectfully Polly, that you and others who disagree with "paying for the royals" check out what I'm saying to see the truth of the matter. It's pure hysteria whipped up by the media.

GlynD

pollypenny wrote: »

......The Feudal system is long since dead

.....I object to the adulation of prats like Charles, who has been talking to people in Georgia on 'farming' for heaven's sake.

To take those two comments directly:

1. The feudal system is not dead. Much of it is still in law (particularly in Scotland) although aspects have been abolished.

2. I urge you to read more on the role Prince Charles has created for himself as "monarch in waiting". (he has waited longer than any prince in British history). The good he does in agriculture, the National Trust, for the youth of the UK (particularly so-called "deprived" youth) etc, etc, etc.

Again, most respectfully, I believe you are intelligent enough to do a Google search and find relevant items rather than just joining the "beat the royals" gang who read the Sun newspaper and other red-tops or gutter-press publications.

lkate

I really don't like to Royals and what they stand for. In my eyes, it's just another way for England to cling onto the last bit of culture they have left and that is why such a huge fuss was made over the royal wedding (which by week 1 the coverage had bored me!)
Although I have to say, I liked the fact that Kate and William don't take themselves too seriously and you can tell they really love each other.

Secondly, is anybody actually aware that their real name is not Windsor.... So all this England vs. Germany crap has to stop. The royal family is German, they changed their name to Windsor at the start of World War 1!!

And the fact that we spend millions on homoeopathic medicines (which have absolutely no evidence to suggest they work and do not have to go through the same scrutiny as other real medicines) simply because Charles likes it! I mean seriously.... come on!

GlynD

lkate wrote: »

..........Secondly, is anybody actually aware that their real name is not Windsor.... So all this England vs. Germany crap has to stop. The royal family is German, they changed their name to Windsor at the start of World War 1!!............

!

In fact the current royal family is Germano/Greek, or to be totally exact, Germano/Dano/Scots/Greek. Although the Queen's ancestry is Germano/Scottish, Phillip was "Phillip of Greece" before they married and as his Germanic family were invited to become the monarchs of Denmark and subsequently of Greece.......well, I'm sure you see what I'm driving at.

The myth is further dispelled for the younger heirs to the throne because Diana Spencer could trace her heritage back to the Conquest which means that the younger princes have a lot of pure English blood in them.

It's just another one of these myths that the Sun (and others) throw up when there's no valid news to print.

As I've said before - don't take my word for it. Use Google and find the truth (or disprove) of what I'm saying. No point in being hysterical over these things when they can so easily be proved/disproved.

Stuart_W

Given how well the lively and chatty Phillip Schofield, flanked by the authoritative Julie Etchingham did on ITV1 during the royal wedding, compared to a rather over-formal-verging-on-disinterested Huw Edwards on BBC1, and the great advert for marriage that the royal wedding was, perhaps we can keep the royal family afterall - and just abolish the BBC instead.

It's not just me that thought ITV did a better job - so did this Guardian blogger along with various others too.

ITV chose to forego advertising (at a rough cost of £7 million according to some reports) during the day and I thought did a very good job. I thought Huw Edwards was at best emotionlessly over-formal, and at worst certainly patronising towards women he was describing as some of the guests arrived.

Events like this are surely what the state corporation was made for. But the commercial offering was so much better.

So let's make a real money saving change. Scrap the BBC!

This would save significantly more money for us mere peasants than changing the monarchy.

aidnolan

Ernisius wrote: »

France probably has at least as much tourism as UK, and they got rid of their monarchy.

There wasn't really much of a tourism industry at the beginning of the 19th century. Maybe if that whole French Revolution thing hadn't happened they'd be earning even bigger tourist bucks like us Brits

GlynD

aidnolan wrote: »

There wasn't really much of a tourism industry at the beginning of the 19th century. Maybe if that whole French Revolution thing hadn't happened they'd be earning even bigger tourist bucks like us Brits

I don't think anyone could have conceived how big the monarchy and associated pageantry would become in the tourist field. I know for a fact they take account of it now but previous changes to the monarchy agreed with parliament were to be seen to be representing the people better. The first time the French kicked their royals out during the Revolution scared the bejasus out of other European nobles and some changed radially because of it. Given that we are a Constitutional Monarchy (thank you Mr de Montford), the people, in the shape of parliament can make suggestions which are taken seriously and acted upon when expedient or necessary.

Ultimately the British Monaarchy is an extraordiary institution. It's a job no-one would want and it's almost the last vestige of the concept of "born to duty" which used to be a common facet of life for the aristocracy, as well as royalty. It doesn't matter if a major player in the royal family suddenly decides tyhey don't want to play the game anymore. They have to keep going whether they like it or not. Fortunately we have had a succession of monarchs since (and including) George V who have taken the job and the people very seriously indeed.