How is the Royal family financially or constitutionally bad for Britain?

following on from the Prince Andrew thread

so exactly how much do the royals cost us the taxpayer financially or a citizen constitutionally?

there are a few Royal haters on here so now is your time to shine and show us all what a burden they are on they British economy and constitution.

over to you.......

er, why don't you kick off and tell us what a benefit the royal family is?

I've yet to to meet a royal forelock tugger who offers anything beyond 'the tourism' line (which I don't buy)

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which today we call the Civil List.

About 70 per cent of the Civil List expenditure goes on staff salaries. It also goes towards meeting the costs of official functions such as garden parties, receptions and official entertainment during State Visits. The Queen entertains almost 50,000 people each year.

This is now called the Sovereign Grant as from April 2012.

The annual expenditure funded by the taxpayer in support of The Queen’s official duties was over £3m less last year than it was five years ago, Buckingham Palace announced today at the publication of its first Annual Report under the new Sovereign Grant arrangements.

The reduction in expenditure was achieved mainly by an increase in income generated by the Royal Household to supplement the Sovereign Grant and lower expenditure on travel.

The Sovereign Grant Annual Report states that net expenditure for 2012-13 was £33.3 million (including VAT of £1.9 million) compared to £36.5m in 2008-9.
The official expenditure of The Queen is met from the Sovereign Grant in exchange for the surrender by The Queen to the Government of the revenue from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues. The Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were £240.2 million in 2011-12.

So the Queen gets £33.3 million from the Treasury, but the Crown Estate gives the Treasury £240.2 million so the taxpayers are benefiting from the Royal Family.

Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2013/SovereignGrantAnnualReport201213.aspx

finanically indifferent. the cost of the royal family shouldnt really come into it, much of the direct cash given is spent on running state events and palaces, security etc is much the same as have a head of state.

constitutionally indifferent. the role is chairman of the board, expected to sign off everything the board (government) does and do some formalities around appointment of the CEO (Prime minister). the alternative is a president and the many varied ways that are done are either no different or have their own issues (too much/little power).

W.C. said:

er, why don't you kick off and tell us what a benefit the royal family is?

I've yet to to meet a royal forelock tugger who offers anything beyond 'the tourism' line (which I don't buy)

Click to expand...

No...if you want to contribute, answer the question, else go away and start a thread of your own.

.....and of course you don't buy the tourism line, it doesn't fit your clichéd archaic anti establishment agenda does it?......thinking it doesn't make it right matey.

somerset said:

No...if you want to contribute, answer the question, else go away and start a thread of your own.

.....and of course you don't buy the tourism line, it doesn't fit your clichéd archaic anti establishment agenda does it?......thinking it doesn't make it right matey.

Click to expand...

You're calling a Republican archaic?

Thunder Bolt said:

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Crown Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which today we call the Civil List.

About 70 per cent of the Civil List expenditure goes on staff salaries. It also goes towards meeting the costs of official functions such as garden parties, receptions and official entertainment during State Visits. The Queen entertains almost 50,000 people each year.

This is now called the Sovereign Grant as from April 2012.

The annual expenditure funded by the taxpayer in support of The Queen’s official duties was over £3m less last year than it was five years ago, Buckingham Palace announced today at the publication of its first Annual Report under the new Sovereign Grant arrangements.

The reduction in expenditure was achieved mainly by an increase in income generated by the Royal Household to supplement the Sovereign Grant and lower expenditure on travel.

The Sovereign Grant Annual Report states that net expenditure for 2012-13 was £33.3 million (including VAT of £1.9 million) compared to £36.5m in 2008-9.
The official expenditure of The Queen is met from the Sovereign Grant in exchange for the surrender by The Queen to the Government of the revenue from the Crown Estate and other hereditary revenues. The Treasury’s gross receipts in respect of the Crown Estate were £240.2 million in 2011-12.

So the Queen gets £33.3 million from the Treasury, but the Crown Estate gives the Treasury £240.2 million so the taxpayers are benefiting from the Royal Family.

Source: http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2013/SovereignGrantAnnualReport201213.aspx

Click to expand...

Great post. IMO this should have ended the thread.

somerset said:

No...if you want to contribute, answer the question, else go away and start a thread of your own.

.....and of course you don't buy the tourism line, it doesn't fit your clichéd archaic anti establishment agenda does it?......thinking it doesn't make it right matey.

Click to expand...

You really are a MONG at times.

Why shouldn't he ask that question? It's one that deserves to be answered if you're defending the inherited privileged status of these people.

beorhthelm said:

finanically indifferent. the cost of the royal family shouldnt really come into it, much of the direct cash given is spent on running state events and palaces, security etc is much the same as have a head of state.

constitutionally indifferent. the role is chairman of the board, expected to sign off everything the board (government) does and do some formalities around appointment of the CEO (Prime minister). the alternative is a president and the many varied ways that are done are either no different or have their own issues (too much/little power).

Click to expand...

Pretty much my stance. If you do away with them you'll only have to fill the void with something else. We're inflicted with enough power hungry, crooked career politicians as it is. All the elections, the squabbling and all the rest would probably end up costing us more than the current system.
At least at the moment the Royals know they're walking a tightrope with public opinion, that kind of keeps a lid on things. Could you imaging tony blair and his dreadful wife as head of state?!?!? How undignified would that be. I'd much rather someone be born into it.

Just imagine the political bunfight, waste of cash, back stabbing and behind doors corruption if we were to go republic and elect a president!

I'll stick with Her Maj for now. There are far more pressing issues for us to address. Healthcare for all; improving education and skills; addressing the gap between rich and poor; job creation to address the chronic youth unemployment, stopping the culture of runaway consumerism. Our constitution as it stands still allows us to address these.

Notters said:

You're calling a Republican archaic?

Click to expand...

Yes, its a movement as old as any other.

Simster said:

You really are a MONG at times.

Why shouldn't he ask that question? It's one that deserves to be answered if you're defending the inherited privileged status of these people.

Click to expand...

Oh, how terribly modern of you,.. I see you take your lead and intellect from such enlightened luminaries as Ricky Gervais!!... how can anyone compete against that??.

Note: my point to WC was that the OP asked a question by starting his thread, why not attempt to answer it rather than just throwing a question back simply to muddy the waters.

We make money from them however in a modern day democracy having a monarchy is not viable

How is the Royal family financially or constitutionally bad for Britain?

Impossible to answer - the Royal family aren't financially or constitutionally bad for Britain.

Might just as well ask "Why are BHAFC champions of Europe?" !!!

somerset said:

Oh, how terribly modern of you,.. I see you take your lead and intellect from such enlightened luminaries as Ricky Gervais!!... how can anyone compete against that??.

Note: my point to WC was that the OP asked a question by starting his thread, why not attempt to answer it rather than just throwing a question back simply to muddy the waters.

Click to expand...

What? I'm unintelligent because I think you're a total tool?

You kicked off by aggressively telling W.C he was wrong to ask a question himself. If you don't like, why don't you fück off out of this thread?

The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained

Simster said:

What? I'm unintelligent because I think you're a total tool?

You kicked off by aggressively telling W.C he was wrong to ask a question himself. If you don't like, why don't you fück off out of this thread?

Click to expand...

Again, I cant compete with your level of debating supremacy, you have got me beat there sir. ( aggression??... I think you have me beaten there too).

somerset said:

Again, I cant compete with your level of debating supremacy, you have got me beat there sir. ( aggression??... I think you have me beaten there too).

Click to expand...

You're right. I do indeed have you beaten in aggression and debating supremancy.

But the point is, YOU started with the aggression in this very thread, so you can't get àrsey when people with opposing views get aggressive back to you.

Simster said:

You're right. I do indeed have you beaten in aggression and debating supremancy.

But the point is, YOU started with the aggression in this very thread, so you can't get àrsey when people with opposing views get aggressive back to you.

Click to expand...

Please quote my aggression so that I may be 'educated'. You see I don't even know where I have posted aggressively, perhaps you can identify it in a reply, then I can see the error of my ways... ta..... do I need to use the words Tool, Mong and Fuuck?.... I will try harder in future if that's the case, thanks for the pointers.

To 'Disband' the Royal Family would cost millions more than keeping it. There is a far bigger picture beyond the couple of million they make from some tourists stood outside the gates of Buckingham Palace and taking pictures

1- The Commonwealth, NOT all but most actually enjoy having the queen as a figure head. The Queen is not just a political figure head but also a religious figure head. We spent hundreds of years going around the world telling everyone how great our country was and our way of life was that people saw us as a shinning light that they follow them religiously aswell. Places like Fiji, Ghana and Jamaica.

2- HM Armed Forces. The Royal Air Force, Royal Navy and 90% of the Army have Royal in there Regiment names. Meaning exactly that, they belong to the Queen. Despite popular belief the Military is the Queens NOT the Governments, and the Government seeks the Queens approval to send the Military anywhere, just because she does not sit in Parliament arguing with the rest of the time wasters it doesn't mean she is not asked.

Also from point 1 there is a several hundred if not thousand Commonwealth Soldiers serving in the British Military.

If the Royalty was to go so would are Military effectively as we know it. The Military is there to protect the Country and the Queens People.... hence the saying "FOR QUEEN/KING AND COUNTRY". If the Goverment had control of the Military and the Police then you would almost have no protection for the countries people. Take the recent riots in London, there was a reason the Military were not used, because turning the military against its own people would be catastrophic, who would be there to protect the people of the UK IF the Police stepped out of line. Hence why for the time being it is still controlled by the Queen. This leads nicely onto my next point

3- Toursim. I know people don't 'buy it', however like it or not if you took away the Royal Family you would simply cripple London and alot of peoples lives. Business, restaurants and shops all rely on the pull of the Royal tourist attractions to make the money. Get rid of the up keep of the Royal Family and you would see Buckingham Palace, Tower Of London, Horse Guards, Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle, Edinburgh Castle all go into a state of disrepair, not to mention all the Parks around London which are 'ROYAL' parks now open to the Public. What do you think the local outcry would be if the bulldozers moved into the Royal Pavilion and knocked that down The Military which as I previously said about is also a massive tourist pull, Edinburgh Tattoo, Changing of the Guard, Trooping the Colour, believe or not but Remembrance Day. Its nothing without Royalty.

4- Royal 'Endorsements' & Charities. There are literally 100's of Charities not just in the UK but abroad in which the Royal family endorse and help to keep, and without they would not exist. Battle of Britain Memorial flight, Royal British Legion, St Dunstans Hospital all receive "Royal Donations'.

5- Royal Engagements. Yes there expensive but when they do go places it gives hope to millions. When the Queen or Prince (s) are present it is bigger than a rockstar turning up. Look at 2012 what a year, what a year to be proud to be British.

6- Imagine the country which is so proud of its history, its Military, the things we take for granted. I can assure you getting rid of Royalty would change this country for the worse.

If you really want to look at public money spent and wasted ...... how about the 72 million the Government just GAVE to Syria considering we now dont recognise the current Syrian Government and voted against military action, who got the money?? The rebels I take it?? So we a publicly funding Terrorism!! who sanctioned that without even voting on that.
The millions we are putting into Libya which I believe to currently stand at over 100 million. The money we have spent funding other countries to bail them out of financial problems!
How much did the local change in speed limits around Brighton just cost?? 150'000 I heard, who wasted our local money??

I would think that if you are questioning our Royalty and money spent on them, then I would hope you question the public money spent on foreign countries first!

I also do make any apology for any spelling mistake or punctuation errors, just so people don't waste their time telling me that!