[snip]
Bernie said

I actually believe the Royal Family is good for the UK, as it is a big tourist attraction and brings in more than it costs us. It serves no other purpose.

[snip]

Not sure the statement is supported by data:

only one out of the top 10 tourist attractions listed here (and 9th place at that).

what foreign visitors have to say:

Changing the guard at Buckingham Palace no longer holds the appeal for foreign visitors that it once did, research has found.

In fact, seeing the Queen's London home is a long way down the list of major attractions for tourists.

Interest in visiting Buckingham Palace was "not overwhelmingly strong" among all respondents.

Residents in Germany, Norway, France and the Netherlands were particularly dismissive and scored Buckingham Palace only just above a full English breakfast among the things they most wanted to experience in Britain.

Most were also unimpressed by other Royal residences, places with historical royal links such as the Tower of London and properties used as a royal home in films.

Researchers for VisitBritain, the body responsible for promoting British tourism, asked 26,000 people in 26 countries to score Britain as a holiday destination.

source

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

God save the Queen, and help
pay for her upkeep please!

---

I never have understood the survival of the "royalty" class in the 20th and 21st centuries. Who or what made them royal? I guess they are pretty much the same as the rich and famous everywhere else.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Who or what made them royal?

In any family a homicidal efficiency can lead to
public power, as demonstrated by the Royal
families of Europe!

---

I never have understood the survival of the "royalty" class in the 20th and 21st centuries. Who or what made them royal? I guess they are pretty much the same as the rich and famous everywhere else.

Paris Hilton and the Kardashian girls have set the new standard for Royalty. Queen just doesn't measure up any more.

---

3) The royal family have no other function in modern society.

Not in the sort of society that you would prefer to live in. The older you get you more you are turning out to be a closet Cromwellian, not just a Sophist.

So what exactly is their function.

I see you just wasted a whole post rubbishing Es's comments without saying one word as to exactly what actual benefit the Royal Family has for the UK.

Apart from tourism, which was discounted as they apparently aren't actually that popular anymore, I see none.

What positive benefits do you see?

---

What positive benefits do you see?

A very good question.

Firstly I would expect you to support a fellow mod. Patience my dear fellow patience. I am quite happy to let all these anti monarchist people spout their stuff, when they have finished I will reply generally with why I think it should continue and the reasons for it, and the benefits from it. In the meantime I am collecting opinions to refute.

I trust I may continue?

You may continue as you wish but not having any positive thoughts about the Royal Family surprises me.

The tactic of waiting till others have posted and then answering each one line by line seems to me that you don't actually have an argument but have to wait to see what others say then pick the points you wish to answer.

But as it is your thread, please carry on as you see fit.

PS I see you have insulted me again by saying I support someone blindly and have no opinions of my own.

I would only support someone if A) I agree with them or B) I believe they are being unfairly picked on out of dislike

---

I'm just gonna post here what I posted in the paparazzi thread, since this is relevant to both threads.

Well, I'm not British, so I don't have a stake in the argument over whether or not the British Monarchy should be kept in place. But, coming from the Netherlands who have their own monarchy, I do think that having our monarchy is a good thing for our country. They do bring in money, not so much out of tourism, but our royalty does go on trade missions to other countries and so far they have always done a good job representing the Netherlands in foreign countries. In times of national tragedy, our late Queen Beatrix has always proven to be a uniting factor (King Willem Alexander thankfully hasn't had the opportunity yet).

And I do think there is a traditional aspect to it. Our royal family has played a great role in the formation of the Netherlands as a state as well as a nation. They are a part of our history and our culture and our traditions. Preserving them, especially since they exist more as symbols than as a political force, is preserving part of our heritage.

I suspect that the previous mentioned argument do apply to the British monarchy as well, at least to some extend.

It's time for Johnny Foreigner to step up to the plate & teach you Brits just how wrong you are with regards to the Royal Family.

First off, the Royal Family (as a family that is) are not paid for by the taxpayer Full Stop Only the Queen & the Royal Household is covered by the Civil List.

Secondly, the Civil List is fixed at £7,900,000 per annum (up until 2011 - full report for succeeding years not yet available) The Civil List does not fund the official duties of The Prince of Wales or other members of the Royal Family which are met from income from the Duchy of Cornwall [the current Duke of Cornwall is the Prince of Wales) and the Privy Purse respectively.

Thirdly, the Crown Estate is a very wealthy organisation & as such, has tax liabilities. Royal Family members have an income which is taxed. So, for the sake of argument, lets say that the tax bill for both totals £2,500,000.

Considering the financial scandals of Westminster & the Civil Service over the past couple of decades, is £5,400,000 such a drain on the British Taxpayer? That's £11.11p person per annum in the UK (based on a population of 60,000,000).

I'm pretty damned sure that a "so-called" British Republic would cost the taxpayer a whole lot more than £11.11.

Full Civil List report 2011

Offical Website of the British Monarchy

I'll take the Monarchy & tradition over a useless republic anyday of the week!

Privy Purse

Speaking for Canadians, the Theatrics of paying for a Governor General, representing the Queen in Canada, costs us Canadians $50,000,000+ annually, with nothing to show for it. Period. Full Stop.

Then you're definitely being ripped off :-)

The Queen only costs us £5,400,000 ($8,046,000 Canadian).

I am almost speechless, I am welcoming Sirius's post with open arms, who would have thought it. Maybe misjudgements have been made, if so I hold my hands up. Well done that man.

The 36m cost of the monarchy for the last financial year was equivalent to 56p per person in the country and represented “value for money”.

Cost

Ah terribly sorry Chris, but I'm about to educate you. It seems that you did not read my post sufficiently enough.

I did mention Crown Estates, also, I've just found out why I cannot obtain any Civil List reports after 2011. The government changed everything around (I wonder why?) - It's now called the Sovereign Grant & Reserve.

Sovereign Grant & Sovereign Grant Reserve

"The Queen’s official expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. The Sovereign Grant is calculated based on 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate for the financial year two years previous. The Crown Estate surplus for the financial year 2012-13 amounted to £252.6 million thereby producing a Sovereign Grant of £37.9 million for 2014-15.

Official expenditure met by the Sovereign Grant in 2014-15 amounted to £35.7 million (2013-14: £35.7 million) in line with the previous year. The equivalent of the excess of the Sovereign Grant and other income over expenditure of £2.2 million in 2014-15 was transferred to the Sovereign Grant Reserve (2013-14: £0.4 million)."

So the issue about the Royal Family being parasites on the nation is...

...WHAT exactly?

In effect, the Royal family actually contributes to the Treasury to the tune of £215,000,000 aprrox. per annum.

A funny thing happened on the way to the forum...

...Johnny Foreigner learnt to count :-)

Speaking for Canadians, the Theatrics of paying for a Governor General, representing the Queen in Canada, costs us Canadians $50,000,000+ annually, with nothing to show for it. Period. Full Stop.

Actually I think most of that money goes to maintaining a bunch of historical sites linked to the monarchy as well as a number of ceremonies. Even if you get rid of the monarchy, you'd still be paying for those buildings and those ceremonies would probably still survive in one form or another.

It's time for Johnny Foreigner to step up to the plate & teach you Brits just how wrong you are with regards to the Royal Family.

First off, the Royal Family (as a family that is) are not paid for by the taxpayer Full Stop Only the Queen & the Royal Household is covered by the Civil List.

Secondly, the Civil List is fixed at £7,900,000 per annum (up until 2011 - full report for succeeding years not yet available) The Civil List does not fund the official duties of The Prince of Wales or other members of the Royal Family which are met from income from the Duchy of Cornwall [the current Duke of Cornwall is the Prince of Wales) and the Privy Purse respectively.

Thirdly, the Crown Estate is a very wealthy organisation & as such, has tax liabilities. Royal Family members have an income which is taxed. So, for the sake of argument, lets say that the tax bill for both totals £2,500,000.

Considering the financial scandals of Westminster & the Civil Service over the past couple of decades, is £5,400,000 such a drain on the British Taxpayer? That's £11.11p person per annum in the UK (based on a population of 60,000,000).

I'm pretty damned sure that a "so-called" British Republic would cost the taxpayer a whole lot more than £11.11.

Full Civil List report 2011

Offical Website of the British Monarchy

I'll take the Monarchy & tradition over a useless republic anyday of the week!

Privy Purse

The Civil List is an article of history, since 2011, the Monarch has received a grant based on a percentage of income from the publicly owned Crown Estates (don't let the name mislead you, George III gave them up so in order to have his debts paid by the Exchequer). The grant is currently about £40M, and the true cost of the Monarchy is about £300M, once the costs of police, security, ceremonies, etc is factored in (source).

So, Johnny Foreigner, please, by all means, tell us Brits how wrong we are about the Royal Family, though a word of advice, when you do so, please take time to get your facts straight.

Having said that whether £300M is the right number for the price of a Head of State is not of particular interest to me. While many chose to dismiss the powers of the monarch as merely ceremonial, they overlook what happened in Australia in 1975, and those exiled from the Chagos Archipelago may also disagree. Powers such as these should be vested in a democratic institution with no higher authority than the public that elected officials into these institutions. While the Head of State is not elected, Britain can never truly be democratic.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

OK I have not commented on cost at all I asked:

"What positive benefits do you see?"

I suppose costing us only 55p a year each is good but has little to do with my question.

And who does the "Duchy of Cornwall" belong to, well the royal family, could that income be better used to fund other things?

Chris said at the beginning of this thread:

The Royals do it because they have been brought up and trained, yes trained, to understand that it is their duty to support and be part of the British Monarchy. Yes of course there are "perks" that ordinary people don't get, but ordinary people don't live in a fishbowl 24/7 either.

Yes trained, OK so lets see how well that training has worked.

Take our current heir to the throne Prince Charles.

He unfortunately fell in love with a married woman, and as his forebears did took her as his mistress.

His mistress then arranged for a "nice girl" to be his wife. Arranged marriage, yes that is a tradition.

Make sure you have an "heir and a spare" then go back to the mistress. Yep that's good training.

That whole saga was not one that made the royal family look good in many peoples eyes and just showed they are totally out of touch with reality.

I am actually not anti-royal and if Charles bows out and allows William to take the throne then there might just be hope. What the monarchy needs now is younger blood not a pensioner.

---

So, Johnny Foreigner, please, by all means, tell us Brits how wrong we are about the Royal Family, though a word of advice, when you do so, please take time to get your facts straight.

Thank you for confirming my suspicions in calling the Government Muppets. This was a stated fact from Officials & who am I to disbelieve that?

"The Queen’s official expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate."

So if YOUR facts are correct, then government officials are nothing but liars. Thanks for that :-)

Also, no mention of a foreigner standing up for your QUEEN? Instead attack Johnny Foreigner because his facts are not correct? Just what are facts & who provides them?

What proof is there that THOSE facts are true in light of what you posted & what officials have stated?

Yes trained, OK so lets see how well that training has worked.

Take our current heir to the throne Prince Charles.

He unfortunately fell in love with a married woman, and as his forebears did took her as his mistress.

His mistress then arranged for a "nice girl" to be his wife. Arranged marriage, yes that is a tradition.

Make sure you have an "heir and a spare" then go back to the mistress. Yep that's good training.

That whole saga was not one that made the royal family look good in many peoples eyes and just showed they are totally out of touch with reality.

The reality is that there are literally thousands upon thousands worldwide that does that. After all, they are human just like the rest of us. Should that be held against them?

Doesn't those that govern do that as well? Charles can be commended on one point...

...he likes women whereas those that govern like little boys.

I know who I would prefer to stand up for.

Okay you get rid of them thereby saving $50,000,000. Will the Canadian taxpayers see any of that annual saving going to deserving causes?

IMV, Charles should give the country a "double" coronation. If he survives his mother, become King for 6 months then abdicate in favour of William.

But all this has nothing to do with supporting the principle of a Royal family. It doesn't matter which individuals in it are liked or not at any one time.

Yes it does have a direct bearing on how people view them and how they are not"trained" to be royal as Sirius said

The reality is that there are literally thousands upon thousands worldwide that does that. After all, they are human just like the rest of us. Should that be held against them?

Which was of course exactly my point, they are human and behave as such they are not trained and are not "special"

But you are correct my views have nothing to do with want you wish to hear.

I bow to you superior status and intellect I will not trouble this thread again as I know you believe a moderator has no right to an opinion.

---

Okay, I was being a bit mischievous :-)

But what a spectacle - 2 Coronations (Of course we can afford it - Just get the ass lickers, thieves, con artists, tax avoiders & tax evaders, to hold off the gravy train for a year).