For queen and country?

[Postman Pat]

Not really snidey, just a point of view. You could always try and repudiate this:

http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf

Well there are a couple of easy targets:

Cost of security is an estimate reported in the media, including The Daily Mail, May 29, 2011 and The Mirror, July 11 2010.- Hmmmm.... Not the most reliable of sources.
Cost to local councils of visits by the Queen is an estimate based on cost to Romsey Council for visit by the Queen in 2007 (£58,000) multiplied by number of engagements in 2010 (444) - So they are basing all costs of a queens visit based on one council visit in 2007 and assumed that all other costs will be the same regardless of length of visit etc..

For the record I am fairly meh about the royal family. They are good ambassadors around the world for us, but would I care if they were gone.....?? Would rather read about them in the press than no talent X-Factor/BGT/Big brother etc...

 

[Common as Mook]

Not really snidey, just a point of view. You could always try and repudiate this:

http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf

I don't believe that that argument is the be all and end all by any means. Just the use of the word "myth" and then saying no-one really knows doesn't really correlate unless you fal on one side of the fence or the other.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Everything in my being says I should hate the Royal Family but I cannot bring myself to have any real feelings about it. They seem quite a benign entity in our current age with little impact on our daily living. The only thing I sometimes get annoyed about is the amount of land they have commandeered for themselves. Other than that I view them as a slightly grumpy old woman with a comically racist husband, a few kids that probably have quite a restrictive life but as far as I can see try and do the best they can (military service etc), one of whom like to get his junk out and get drunk a lot and a countless number of upper class twits who drink sherry and attend horse races a lot.

Actually, that's closer to how I feel most of the time, I'm just tetchy and nervous this morning.

 

[Turnstile Ted]

For Queen and country

Anti but they do bring us in a bit of money

I am a Republican.If the only reason for the Monarchy and all its hangers on is that it is a boost for tourism, then that is simply pathetic. London Zoo does the same thing in my opinion.

 

[RowleyBirkinQ.C(deceased)]

Everything in my being says I should hate the Royal Family but I cannot bring myself to have any real feelings about it. They seem quite a benign entity in our current age with little impact on our daily living. The only thing I sometimes get annoyed about is the amount of land they have commandeered for themselves. Other than that I view them as a slightly grumpy old woman with a comically racist husband, a few kids that probably have quite a restrictive life but as far as I can see try and do the best they can (military service etc), one of whom like to get his junk out and get drunk a lot and a countless number of upper class twits who drink sherry and attend horse races a lot.

Nicely summed up, pretty much my thoughts.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The royal family are at the pinnacle of a class system that rewards hereditary power and privilege and underpins the class system in this country. Good thing or bad?

Very much bad, and so I have a very strong philosophical objection to the existence of the monarchy. I would consider myself a republican.

In practice, though, I have a great respect for the queen. If and when Charles takes over, I would have a completely different view. I have no respect for him whatsoever, abhor his treatment of his first wife (not that I was a great Diana Fan either,) think he has an extremely worrying ability to interfere in affairs of state trying to impose his (very old fashioned) views and hope it skips a generation if we have to keep the monarchy, which we will.

 

[somerset]

With a population of about 60m, it costs every one of us just over a pound a year, which goes to the Queen. Apparently if she was a business she would be very solvent and successful, as she brings in over 2 billion in tourism etc. This goes to the treasury to help fund many who have never put in the coffers but take plenty out. I don't begrudge my £1 odd a year.

Its closer to £2 per person if you include all the security and transport costs,.... but,.... the Crown Estates alone return close to £350 million a year to the treasury, and that's not counting any residual tourist income that is estimated in the region of £3 billion, not a bad return in my book.

By the way, all the Crown Estate wealth is held in trust for the nation, it isn't and cannot be owned or sold by the sovereign, so in effect it is there forever as an asset for the nation and the nations historic place in the world. ( currently also living history in the making).

 

[somerset]

Very much bad, and so I have a very strong philosophical objection to the existence of the monarchy. I would consider myself a republican.

In practice, though, I have a great respect for the queen. If and when Charles takes over, I would have a completely different view. I have no respect for him whatsoever, abhor his treatment of his first wife (not that I was a great Diana Fan either,) think he has an extremely worrying ability to interfere in affairs of state trying to impose his (very old fashioned) views and hope it skips a generation if we have to keep the monarchy, which we will.

1) ...and a republican system doesn't have a class system, get real for gods sake. 2) ... the system we live in means that any citizen can have his say on matters of public or state interest, if you have a bit more influence ie politicians, celebrities, wealthy people etc etc, your voice will be heard, we all strive for that don't we?

 

[User removed 4]

So, a complete hypocrite then. Doesn't surprise me.

Hypocrite ? Why ? You haven't got a clue about the reasons behind what I said , but I say again , you lot couldn't wait to disassociate yourselves from Britain , thus rendering any input you have redundant, so I'll say again, take heed of your username and mind your own business.

 

[Bulldog]

Its closer to £2 per person if you include all the security and transport costs,.... but,.... the Crown Estates alone return close to £350 million a year to the treasury, and that's not counting any residual tourist income that is estimated in the region of £3 billion, not a bad return in my book.

By the way, all the Crown Estate wealth is held in trust for the nation, it isn't and cannot be owned or sold by the sovereign, so in effect it is there forever as an asset for the nation and the nations historic place in the world. ( currently also living history in the making).

The Crown estate income belongs to the treasury not the royals, so I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. And I would love to see your evidence that the royals generate £3 billion in tourist revenue that would not come in without them?

 

[Soulman]

Actually, that's closer to how I feel most of the time, I'm just tetchy and nervous this morning.

"slightly grumpy" this morning eh, maybe the Queen has a few days like this.

 

[User removed 4]

They get right on my tits and should all do one as far as I'm concerned. If I have to see another seasoned journalist acting like a three year old whilst Harry pretends to be a soldier or that old hag mumbles something incomprehensible or old big ears comes out with more cod eco philosophy or the dead Greek one insults another foreigner I think I may actually top myself.

How does Harry "pretend" to be a soldier ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The Crown estate income belongs to the treasury not the royals, so I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. And I would love to see your evidence that the royals generate £3 billion in tourist revenue that would not come in without them?

The Civil List Act 1837 was an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, signed into law on 23 December 1837.
It reiterated the principles of the civil list system, stating that the newly-accessioned Queen Victoria undertook to transfer all hereditary revenues of the Crown to the Treasury.

 

[somerset]

The Crown estate income belongs to the treasury not the royals, so I'm not sure why this keeps coming up. And I would love to see your evidence that the royals generate £3 billion in tourist revenue that would not come in without them?

That's what I said, "held in trust for the nation", they were handed over, if that's the right word, sometime in the mid 1700's. As for the tourism income, listen, tourism income in this country is estimated at £20billion ish, most conservative ( with a small c) estimates drawn from tourist surveys reach the conclusion that the main driver for the average tourist coming here is our history and the royal family, living or otherwise...... be honest, in most cases you have to admit, they don't come here for our weather and beaches do they?

 

[Soulman]

Its closer to £2 per person if you include all the security and transport costs,.... but,.... the Crown Estates alone return close to £350 million a year to the treasury, and that's not counting any residual tourist income that is estimated in the region of £3 billion, not a bad return in my book.

By the way, all the Crown Estate wealth is held in trust for the nation, it isn't and cannot be owned or sold by the sovereign, so in effect it is there forever as an asset for the nation and the nations historic place in the world. ( currently also living history in the making).

Well over a year that £2 would not even get me a pint of Harvey's . Everyday we see articles in the paper about people getting money from the taxpayer for doing rock all. As for the argument about the cost of protection for the Royals, i bet it's a darn sight cheaper than what we pay for protecting certain people who hate this country, not to mention the cost of jails. So i'll raise my two thirds full glass to a woman that at the age of 86, still puts more cash into the treasury than she takes out.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

How does Harry "pretend" to be a soldier ?

Indeed - I doubt many people on NSC have actually fought at the frontline !

 

[somerset]

Well over a year that £2 would not even get me a pint of Harvey's . Everyday we see articles in the paper about people getting money from the taxpayer for doing rock all. As for the argument about the cost of protection for the Royals, i bet it's a darn sight cheaper than what we pay for protecting certain people who hate this country, not to mention the cost of jails. So i'll raise my two thirds full glass to a woman that at the age of 86, still puts more cash into the treasury than she takes out.

Well said....

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Well over a year that £2 would not even get me a pint of Harvey's . Everyday we see articles in the paper about people getting money from the taxpayer for doing rock all. As for the argument about the cost of protection for the Royals, i bet it's a darn sight cheaper than what we pay for protecting certain people who hate this country, not to mention the cost of jails. So i'll raise my two thirds full glass to a woman that at the age of 86, still puts more cash into the treasury than she takes out.

Perfectly said. Let's not also forget that some of the Royals have actually put their lives on the line for this country - Prince Andrew and Prince Harry to name but two.

 

[Hungry Joe]

How does Harry "pretend" to be a soldier ?

I wasn't being entirely serious.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

1) ...and a republican system doesn't have a class system, get real for gods sake. 2) ... the system we live in means that any citizen can have his say on matters of public or state interest, if you have a bit more influence ie politicians, celebrities, wealthy people etc etc, your voice will be heard, we all strive for that don't we?

I didn't say a republican system would not have a class system.

My objections are more along the lines of the Michael Palin character close to the beginning of Monty Python and the Holy Grail who is in conversation with the king and, when told that he is King of this country (or whatever), says "Well, I didn't vote for you."

The idea of someone inheriting a position purelu because of an accident of birth I think is morally repugnant.

EDIT - PS - that doesn't necessarily stop people who do inherit, like that, being decent people - viz; the Queen.