This is so full of errors I suspect trolling. Grienspace, if this is the smartest you can do, then you and the royals are just made for each other. Here we go.
The 37 million is not ‘my’ figure. It is derived from the sites I cited and not seriously contested.
You have no idea how much the royals have cost me. Some people pay more taxes than others. Some people, such as the Queen until a few years ago, pay none at all.
Also, there is more at stake than just the direct cost of money going to the royals - what about the things we lack, as a society, because the royals and their lavish tastes take up a disproportionate share of resources? Just to take one example, £37m would pay for a lot of rail track and signal repairs. The lack of these repairs cost the lives of 35 people at Clapham, 7 at Southall, 31 at Ladbroke Grove and 4 at Hatfield. Personally, I’d rather have those people alive than pay for the Queen Mum to go to another horse race meeting.
And you have no idea what monumental disruption they cause every time they go anywhere. London is quite congested enough, thank you, without the kind of disruptive ‘security’ farce we have to endure every time one of the parasites attends a film premiere or opens a museum.
I have never been to a SG concert, but if I did I would be exercising my choice, plus it’s a case of one fee per one show. I get no choice about supporting the royal family, and I have to pay the tax to support them every single year, like it or not. The two situations are not analogous.
£37m is a massive amount of money. Obviously, if you find another big number (such as the population of the UK) and divide one by the other, you get a small number, such as 61p. Big deal. What’s your point? Then you know how to do division? I’m sure we’re all terribly impressed.
The various points at stake are: do these people deserve this amount of money?; could we have the supposed benefits of the RF at a reduced cost, thereby freeing some of that money for things we desperately need, such as hospital beds, school books and railways that work?; why should I work hard to support someone like Princess Michael of Kent when she doesn’t work hard to support me in return?; at one point in the development of a civilised society does feudalism become redundant?**
As it happens, I would dearly love to live in the States, which I regard as my ideal home. And lots of American people do not have a gun, or want to own one. But these comments have absolutely nothing to do with the points under discussion, or with the OP.
Incidentally, I notice you didn’t answer my question - how much do you pay in taxes to support the Royal Family? If you want whatever you think they are good for, you can pay for them pal.
I’m not sure what you are trying to argue here. Is this list supposed to make it look like she does a lot of work? An organisation writes to the QM asking for her endorsement as a figurehead. A few flunkies make some decisions about which invitations it would be politically desirable to accept. Maybe the QM reviews the list and says yes to some, no to others. Someone else types the letter and signs it on her behalf. The organisation get to put the QM on their list of sponsors. Big deal. Hard work? I don’t think so.
**
Depends what you call an ‘engagement’. Sitting in a banquet hall at Buck Palace eating a nice dinner could be considered ‘an engagement’. We have a lot of old people in this country who would dearly love that kind of engagement, but instead they’re stuck in freezing cold homes eating out of tins of economy food that they can’t afford to cook.
I know a guy in his 90s who works 6 days a week in a butcher’s shop, making ground beef and washing the surfaces, often not going home until 9pm in the evening. He’s worked hard all his life, and real work, hard work too. Why does he deserve any less than the pampered old QM?
And have you ever seen a royal performing a royal engagement? I’ve seen three at close-quarters (Phil, Chuck, Di) because I happened to making the documentary of the event. It’s just not work! The chauffeured limo, the red carpet sycophancy, the big lunch (prepared to their exact requirements), shake a few hands, chat amiably to a few people, receive a few gifts, a few waves, then off home. And for this they get a slice of 2.37 MILLION quid per year? It would be laughable if it wasn’t such an idiotic waste of money.
I once covered Phil making a tour of a double-glazing factory. And do you know what? They had to install a new lavatory, one which had never been used, just in case Phil wanted to go while he was there. And this instruction came from Buck House. How arrogant do these people get?
Oh come on Ianzin, you provided the 37 million pound figure.
I took you at your word. If you know its wrong than provide us with accurate information, It didn’t cost you personally that much did it? We can all argue about the merits of any individual item in a budget and you will likely find disagreement on each one. The fact is the majority of you guys don’t think giving up 3 cigarettes a year is too high a price.
I don’t know,what we pay here in Canada but I expect it is very little. We do cover the Queens expenses when she is here.We are grateful to you Brits.
One thing that’s obvious whenever Americans talk about the royal family is that they think there is only one in the world. The last holdout in a modern age. That’s not true at all. There may be more individuals under monarchs now than when 200 years ago.
The point about the Royal Family’s charitable role is that the charities themselves don’t expect them to do anything: it’s enough that their name appears on the headed notepaper. When it comes to serious charitable fundraising, outright snobbery is always the best policy. Persuading some of the very rich to offload more of their wealth onto the charities concerned may not be the ideal system, but the sums involved almost certainly outweigh the total cost of the monarchy.
They are a complete waste of time and money. And I’m a royalist! The simple fact is that there is zero point in maintaining a royal family if they have zero political influence.
Personally, I’d much rather have Charles III (at least he’ll give a toss about the environment!) or William IV in charge of the country, than corporate brown-nosing See You Next Tuesdays such as Blair and Thatcher.
I wasn’t trying to defend the monarchy, as I’m an American, but was defending the people who, through no choice of their own, happen to be in the Royal Family. Sure, they get paid a lot, and don’t really have to do much for it, but there’s not much they can do about the situation. The duties and responsibilities they do have, however, they seem to take seriously.
Personally, I doubt that the British would ever get rid of the monarchy. Tradition is very strong in Britain. For example, the official residence of the Sovereign is St. James Palace (and ambassadors are not ambassadors to the United Kingdom, but to the Court of St. James) despite the fact that every sovereign since Victoria has actually lived at Buckingham Palace. And there are a couple towns that annually are required to pay a fee of a couple shillings to whichever of the Cinque Ports they recieve protection from. I simply cannot imagine British society adjusting to life without a monarchy.
Actually, he’ll be George the 7th when he takes the throne.
The Queen Mother wanted to be one of the people during the war? if she realyy wanted to be one of the people, she could have moved into a tenement housing estate and lived on rations like the rest of London at the time.
I, for one, cannot understand what makes these people any more special than anyone else, or me for that matter. They aren’t my intellectual superior, they havent done anything of note in the last 100 years (if not longer). They are simply famous for being famous. Any job they tried, they fell on their asses.
simply put, I wouldn’t let any of them get my place in the queue for the bar.
The book mentioned how the family made a big deal out of how frugal they were during the war, while they were actually getting far more ration coupons than they were supposed to have: butter and eggs and champagne and all that.
To have the Windsors/Battenburgs. Consider us in the USA-we have the Kennedys!
Anybody contemplating doing away with the RF ought to consider just who will be taking their places! The head of the clan (Joe kennedy) was a ruthless businessman and bootlegger-also you Brits should remember that this bum was advising Washington that you were headed for defeat (while german bombs were falling on London).
Jack kennedy was president for 3 years-an administration marked by mediocrity and the loss of Cuba-of course, he became a secular saint (by virtues of a bullet).
The third generation of the clan are terminal morons-Joe kennedy is a business failure, his uncle Ted (6-term US senator) is a hopeless alcoholic and womanizer, and his son (Patrick) bought his seat in congress from RI.
What a tawdry excuse for royalty!
I find the tone of many of the Brit replies knocking down the Royal Family disturbing. There is no question that the decline of the British Empire, at its height less than one hundred years ago, coincided with the decline in the popular support for the monarchy. Under Victoria, her navies and armies and citizens distinguished themselves in the name of the queen. Now they bicker over spending a paltry 60p a year per person in support of the Queen. Oh if their great great grand parents could se them now.
Sorry Grienspace but I will not buy into that point about the RF’s ancestors squirming in their graves unless you can look at my ancestors and those of other ordinary Britons who were systematically exploited by feudalism, denial of basic rights, and taxation to support lifestyles they could not even dream of.For centuries people on my social level did not even have clean drinking water and the only medical care was one step removed from witchcraft.Do not use that argument without balancing it against conditions for the population as a whole.
Maybe my ancestors are cheering from their pauper burial pits over this.They have waited long enough.
Egkelly Maybe you are not enamoured of the Kennedy clan after only a couple of generations but imagine how folk like myself feel about the muppets that call themselves my betters and have done so for hundreds of years.
Note that if you have a beef against your presidency then you can express opinions against the holder and even participate in changing it, unfortunately I cannot and would probably get accused of treason by our media for doing so.
The Royal record of infidelities, Nazi sympathisers, drunks, military rejects, alchoholism, betrayals of cousins for fear of spreading Bolshevik sympathies to the UK(and that is only in this century) does not speak to me of a family who should recieve such largesse from anyone in the world, least of all the British public.
I would not accept this behaviour from my own children, I don’t see why I should pay to support a tribe like that.
Really interesting discussion. I’d never thought about the issue of “what’ll we replace them with?”, but it makes sense, nature abhorring vacuums and all that.
BTW, egkelley, the Kennedy analogy is a strawman. We’ve had plenty of (temporarily) influential political families, but they aren’t comparable: Tafts, Roosevelts and, yes, Bushes. For all the recycled Kennedy nostalgia, they’re a waning flash in the pan.
Maybe I’m deeply confused (won’t be the first time) but around the time of Diana’s death wasn’t there some noise about the Queen considering paying taxes? I was appalled that she hadn’t already, and got even more discombobulated working my mind around…I dunno. She’s the symbol of state and therefore the funds floweth toward her, rather than a “First Citizen” who anted up as a matter of course?
No offense intended to anyone; this is quite genuine Ignorance speaking here.
That said, I’m a painfully linear American who’d just as soon not have the Royal Circus over here. Lord knows we have spectacularly stupid/lurid/clueless, etc. residents in the White House but they all go away in their turn and make room for new insanities. Keeps the blood pumping, the dust cleared out and the comedians dizzy with prime material.
I don’t think I’d be out of line in saying that the British probably could care less whether you find our support, or lack of, for the Royals disturbing. No offence meant.
You said it: the decline in popular support for the monarchy was coincidentally linked to the decline in Britain’s fortunes. The world was a changing place; it’s just as likely that it was those changes that brought about the decline in the monarch’s popularity.
As already stated, the main problem non-Royalists have is the principle that we cannot be a true democracy while we have this anachronistic relic in place. The costs issue you seem fixated on is an added thorn in the side: it’s not the amount per person that annoys, it’s that I don’t see why I should support this institution financially when (a) it does not contribute anything useful towards my life, and (b) that they are more than capable of supporting themselves without public money better spent on the infrastructure of this country.
I bear no ill will towards the Royals as individuals; I’d be happy for them to carry on as they see fit. I just don’t see why I should pay for it, or why they should have any vestige of political power.
You’ve made your feelings clear towards the Royals. So have the British dopers that were asked to contribute to this thread. What’s your point in arguing about how disturbing you find our opinions?
I was merely posting tongue in cheek and I thought the winking smiley would have been sufficient. I did have this visual of citizens of the Britsh Isles who with stiff upper lip worked and fought to resist invasion for almost a thousand years and developed an empire where the sun never set on its flag, all in the name of the king and swore allegience to the king, were looking down from above at their progeny and wondering “what the hell for?” . I,m sorry, but the thought amused me like watching the knight in Monty Python who fought even though his legs were cut out from under him.
Now I could be wrong, but thanks to the British Empire, many Brits who felt downtrodden had the opportunity to reach the colonies and escape the oppressive hold of the aristocracy on the resources of the nation. Its a lot harder now, of course to come over since you guys didn’t want to fight for us very much, and the empire is pretty well shot. Otherwise I would invite you over to escape the oppression.
This entire post is made with tongue in cheek for your enjyment!
During those centuries, no one, anywhere in the world, had access to great supplies of clean drinking water or halfway reliable medical technology. It’s rather preposterous to hold the royal family to blame for the absence of modern ammenities in days past. When the Industrial Revolution did come, it came first to Britain, not the democratic United States. Feudalism was the default state in the middle ages, and under the British Kings and Queens ended much earlier than other countries. Russia, for example, emancipated its serfs in the 1860s.
Yes, life was unfair. However, the British were the richest and most advanced country in the world, so I’m not sure what blame you are laying at the feet of the monarchy. Before the United States, Britain was probably the freest country in the western world. While not as good as it could possibly have been, I don’t think you can hold the royal family responsible for Britain not achieving a Marxist utopia in the Middle Ages.
In short, it is rather naive to judge the past 934 years of the British (English prior to James I) royal family’s actions by today’s standards. As compared their contemporaries, I think they stack up pretty well.
I was under the impression that alcoholism was generally not considered a character flaw, but rather an illness. I would also hardly expect someone forced to marry another person based purely on breeding to be particularly concerned with fidelity. While I cannot excuse Nazi sympathies, looking on the web I don’t really see anything more definite than Edward VIII visiting Germany in 1937. I’m a bit hesitant to condemn his entire family based on specualtion about his motives.
