Why does it have to have a ‘use’? Why isn’t it enough that it is the grandest of grand old institutions and the very essence of Britishness? (dang - 19 words)
Perhaps that is it’s use… as a big important part of our cultural identity and heritage.
And it doesn’t actually cost us anything at all.
Well, except for Civil List spending of £7.9m pa. And the Property Services grant-in-aid of £15.5m for 2001/2. And the £6.01m Royal Travel grant-in-aid.
Well, a total of £35.3m anyway for 2001/2. It’s not much by comparison with other public organisations and institutions that nobody complains about, but it’s nothing to sneeze about either.
I’ve always been curious as to whether there have been any studies into tourism revenue directly attributable to the existence of royal buildings maintained by public monies. Anyone have any ideas?
Sorry. Those figures excluded police and army security for the royal family.
You’re also forgetting the tax that is being withheld from Royal rents (think Duchy of Cornwall etc.). They only pay on a voluntary basis. IIRC, Charles reduced his from 25% to 10% when he married Di, and never upped it again.
Shirley Ujest, if it wasn’t for the monarchy our newspapers would be pamphlets.
I’m more in favour of a ‘taken to the middle of a forest and shot in the head monarchy’ a la Russia. Hey, there ya go Shirley, another use for them: Target practice.
God DAMN it, vBulletin is such a piece of shit! A nice long eloquent well-thought out post that would make a monarchist out of Cromwell, and I forgot to copy it somewhere safe before entrusting it to this infernal bugware that loses everything if you preview when not logged in.
It’ll have to wait until this evening. Bah!
Crusoe, it’s not much, but here’s a cite (out of date)with a little on Royal inspired tourism…Here…
People go to Egypt to see the pyramids they don’t need the Pharaohs still there. Most of what you mention would still be there. Tower of London etc. does not need the Queen to be a tourist attraction.
Not that it’s any of my business 
We could always get some Disney imagineers in to build an animatronic royal family. People will still get to see the queen waving at them, they can progam Phillip to insult Johnny Foreigner and we won’t have to spend millions.
They are the embodiment of British values. Not the people themselves, but their roles.
There ya go – 14 words. In America the flag is the symbol of liberty, justice and equality. In the UK, the monarch (and to a (much) lesser extent, the other royals) is the symbol of whatever the hell British values are (emotional detachment, unflappability, and the appreciation of a nice cup of tea, perhaps).
Without the royals, Britain becomes a third-rate US wannabe republic of no particular interest. Heck, even Belgium has royals.
…I think you mean aloofness, privilege borne of an outmoded class system, snobbishness, adultery, dysfunctionality, psychosis, corruption, and appreciation of a nice '68 Châteauneuf-du-Pape. 
But without the people (Queenie et al.) you don’t have the big Pageantry shows, Cinderella Carriage, Changing of the Guard and suchlike.
Not that I care much either.
See, in my model we keep the pageantry, keep the monarch, but make the monarchy self-funding, and redistribute the majority of their obscene wealth.
No, no, I’m pretty sure about the tea. 
My wife has met Her Maj, BTW, and had a two-minute conversation with her (that’s either eight minutes or two hours and fifty-eight minutes less than Paul Burrell, depending on your source). She reports that Lizzie is genuinely nice, friendly and “has amazing skin”. I don’t know that any of those things are enough to justify the expenditure, but the spouse is not one to usually fawn over celebrities, so I believe her about the “genuinely nice” part.
Oh, I don’t know. I can envision a way the Queen and the Tower of London would be a great tourist attraction…
I’d still like to know what you were going to say!
[sub]And in the future, save the eloquent posts before attempting to submit them…[/sub]
[BUTLER’S BETRAYALS
Royal secrets in gay love-letters
BACK-STABBING butler Paul Burrell betrayed the Royal Family’s trust— to impress his gay lover Greg Pead](http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/news2.html)
That link might be entertaining for people to read astro, but they’re from the News of the World! A couple of weeks ago they were giving away a “Free Mag - The world’s 50 hottest babes”. Don’t be surprised if they give away a free foil hat to every reader any time soon.
Astro, the News of the World is the sister paper of The Sun. the Sun are out to discredit paul Burrel because he told his side of events about the courtcase to the Daily Mirror, the suns big Rival.
they will try anything to sell papers, including using his sexuality as a weapon against him.
So the handwritten letters on the right hand side of the page, purportedly from Burrel to his boyfriend, are fakes?