NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6716&&&edition=1&ttl=20070628192048)

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 62p per person last year. Are they worth it?

Buckingham Palace accounts show that the cost was the same as last year - meaning a real terms decrease.

The fall in expenditure was mainly due to a reduction in the refurbishment costs at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Scotland.

The accounts revealed the Royal Household is following the "leadership" of the Prince of Wales and has started to calculate its carbon footprint and ways to reduce it. His own financial figures showed he is carbon neutral and has cut his CO2 emissions by 9% over the last year.

Do you think the Royal Family has made a real effort to curb its costs? Could you spend 62p a year better? How much would you value the Royal Family at.

To put 62p per taxpayer into context, the complete dog's breakfast that is the Scottish parliament building cost £7.33 per person (not just per taxpayer). Compared to that the Royal family is worth every penny.
Other nations envy our history and our monarchy. Our history, monarchy, pomp and ceremony attracts in millions in tourist revenue. The Royals act as ambassadors for our country, influencing favour which ultimately leads to business deals and investment. It also provides us with strong and well respected diplomatic relations. So are they worth 62p of my money? Absolutely. Who could possibly miss such a paltry sum?

Absolutely.

If nothing else, they're just a nice thing to have around as something of a unique selling point for tourism, the Belgian and Scandinavian monarchies being tedious, and all others being not so well-publicised and all that.

So long as they can maintain a good public image I don't have a problem with the cost

i really shouldn't bother, but a) regardless of whether or not they are value for money they are undemocratic and exemplify economic inequality, b) tourists would still come if the monarchy was gone - the buildings would still remain - and, c) does the scottish parliament building cost 7 pounds to the taxpayers each and every year? or are we talking just one year here?

http://www.republic.org.uk/royalcosts/index.htm interesting

i really shouldn't bother, but a) regardless of whether or not they are value for money they are undemocratic and exemplify economic inequality, b) tourists would still come if the monarchy was gone - the buildings would still remain - and, c) does the scottish parliament building cost 7 pounds to the taxpayers each and every year? or are we talking just one year here?

I'm in favour of the monarchy, and feel like disagreeing with PM so I shall.

a) Democratic != good. Actually, the House of Lords often demonstrates it's less stupid than our elected incumbents ;p

b) But that wouldn't be a proper, working monarchy, would it? It'd be some fancy, crumbling buildings. Not the same. Besides, it'd probably cost more to maintain them without Queenie and co. inhabiting them.

c) Even if it's one-off, that's more than the price of eleven years of monarchy each.

They are probably better value for money than the Olympics.

c) does the scottish parliament building cost 7 pounds to the taxpayers each and every year? or are we talking just one year here?Well the building it-self cost £414 million. So that’s about £6.50 per every person In the UK for the one year. But the parliament only helps the Scots, whereas the Monarchy stands for the entire UK, and quite a lot more.

b) tourists would still come if the monarchy was gone - the buildings would still remain Perhaps for now, but not in one or two hundred years. Also the maintenance of the houses would have to paid for solely by parliament. Whereas now the Queen pays for it with her personal funds that come from Business, not taxes.

regardless of whether or not they are value for money they are undemocratic and exemplify economic inequality There will always be Rich and Poor, and this is a good thing for many reasons. And was our current PM, Mr Brown elected into office, or the House of Lords, or our EU overlords? I would rather have an unelected head of state than a unelected political leader.

I'm in favour of the monarchy, and feel like disagreeing with PM so I shall.

a) Democratic != good. Actually, the House of Lords often demonstrates it's less stupid than our elected incumbents ;p
i don't see how that's specifically the fault of the democratic system, and not just the random luck (or lack of it) regarding the individuals in those two institutions.

i also think there's plenty of evidence thoughout history to say that undemocratic != good.

b) But that wouldn't be a proper, working monarchy, would it? It'd be some fancy, crumbling buildings. Not the same. Besides, it'd probably cost more to maintain them without Queenie and co. inhabiting them.

again i don't see your logic. why would it cost more to maintain a building if its not being used?
tourists don't ever actually *see* the monarchy. well, possibly very rarely (like on a parade or something). they come to see the buildings and the history, all of which would still be very much in place should the monarchy be done with. arguably moreso if buck house and other royal buildings currently closed to the public were opened to tourists.

c) Even if it's one-off, that's more than the price of eleven years of monarchy each.
and exactly how long has the monarchy been an instutution in britain? 11 years pails compared to even the reign of our current queen. you could build 5 crappy scottish parliaments in the time ERII has been queenie, ceteris paribus.

Perhaps for now, but not in one or two hundred years. Also the maintenance of the houses would have to paid for solely by parliament. Whereas now the Queen pays for it with her personal funds that come from Business, not taxes.
English Heritage takes care of a lot of upkeep of public tourist spots. i don't see how this would be any different. and as for parliament having to pay for it... income from tourism can certainly at least cover most of the cost.

There will always be Rich and Poor, and this is a good thing for many reasons. And was our current PM, Mr Brown elected into office, or the House of Lords, or our EU overlords? I would rather have an unelected head of state than a unelected political leader.

i disagree it is a good thing, however that's not the issue.

Mr Brown was not elected into office, no. but there will be opportunity to vote him out of office in a couple of years time. can't say this for the queen - or her heir - now can we? Brown was also chosen by the queen to lead the new government, so don't blame Mr Brown for her choice. she could have called an election but i guess she doesn't get on well with democracy ;)

as for "european overlords"... at least i now know you read the Mail.

i don't see how that's specifically the fault of the democratic system, and not just the random luck (or lack of it) regarding the individuals in those two institutions.

i also think there's plenty of evidence thoughout history to say that undemocratic != good.

Well, we vote for them. It's our fault. We voted for people worse than the unelected types whose job it is to protect us from them...

again i don't see your logic. why would it cost more to maintain a building if its not being used?
tourists don't ever actually *see* the monarchy. well, possibly very rarely (like on a parade or something). they come to see the buildings and the history, all of which would still be very much in place should the monarchy be done with. arguably moreso if buck house and other royal buildings currently closed to the public were opened to tourists.

Because at the moment Queenie and Co will be paying to maintain them. If they're got rid of, the buildings won't be put in some form of suspended animation where they'll never deteriorate, become dirty or whatever. They'll still have to be maintained, and that'll be the government's job.
Edit: And surely you see the difference between an actual monarchy, and some buildings? One of them is an actual, "living" thing. A working system. The buildings are like the box.

and exactly how long has the monarchy been an instutution in britain? 11 years pails compared to even the reign of our current queen. you could build 5 crappy scottish parliaments in the time ERII has been queenie, ceteris paribus.

I meant, for the price of one building in Scotland you get the entire monarchy for eleven years. Which'd I rather have? Queenie and co.

Besides... What on earth would you want an elected head of state for? It'd just be another grinning prat in a suit, running around, posing with babies, trying to be popular in a desperate attempt to be elected. Do we really need silliness like that? I realise this sounds like something Fass would say, but it'd all be terribly... Undignified.

I think 62p per years is a little more than a buck U.S. So let's see - everyone gets a Royal Family, which gets the sweet life while the rest of the country gets a dignified figurehead who's world-famous and respected all over, or everyone gets an extra Coke from the Coke machine.

I might be going a little nuts collecting caps for the machine, but I have a feeling "One Coke for Everyone" isn't exactly in the politicians' political initiatives. I'll take the Royal Family.

as for "european overlords"... at least i now know you read the Mail.

Well, do you support giving the current EU further powers?

they don't cost us a cent here

as for "european overlords"... at least i now know you read the Mail. Telegraph Actually:). If you were in my position you would understand my dis-like for the EU, but that isn’t the matter at hand. I like how you didn’t say anything about the un-elected House of Lords or European representative (I prefer the House of Lords to the House of Commons, but I need an example of an un-elected power).

They make much more in tourism.

It's a bargain because it brings better government. People have an instinct to want a leader that can never make a wrong decision. They want someone they can hold in awe. Here in the US that feeling is projected on the President. There is a number of people that would follow the President like lemmings over a cliff. Bush has held 35% approval regardless of what he does right or left. Every president has this type of loyalty simply for being president. They do this simply because he is the president and a president can do no wrong. A president is just short of a god in the mind of a significant number of people. In their mind it is treason to criticize the president.

With the Royal Family, the people can look up to them and worship them and can criticize the Prime Minister and his government. The people get their perfect, never make a political mistake leaders and a rational look at the real government.

That also means that the Queen can focus of the ceremonial and the ambassadorial side of thing, and the Prime Minister on running the country. Whereas the President has to do both, I think it was Condoleezza Rice that said that the British system is better than the American for that very reason.

Other nations envy our history and our monarchy. Our history, monarchy, pomp and ceremony attracts in millions in tourist revenue. The Royals act as ambassadors for our country, influencing favour which ultimately leads to business deals and investment. It also provides us with strong and well respected diplomatic relations.

I hope you can hear this because I'm headsighing as hard as I can.

I hope you can hear this because I'm headsighing as hard as I can. Wa? That was a completely valid comment.

Wa? That was a completely valid comment.

I dont envy your royalty any more than you envy the US' industrial capability or military power.
The only thing I really envy is your royal marching bands ability to play the Imperial March, which they did quite well on one of my trips to the UK. It was most amusing.

Mr Brown was not elected into office, no. but there will be opportunity to vote him out of office in a couple of years time. can't say this for the queen - or her heir - now can we? Brown was also chosen by the queen to lead the new government, so don't blame Mr Brown for her choice. she could have called an election but i guess she doesn't get on well with democracy ;)

as for "european overlords"... at least i now know you read the Mail.

Actually he WAS voted into parliament exactly the same way Tony Blair has been for 24 years. The fact is that he was not leader of the Labour Party at the time is incidental. Too much is made into the transition between Blair and Brown, it's all petty political bickering; surely everyone knew (in their hearts) that it would happen the way it did?

I'm fairly careful about doing away with things you can never get back so I say keep the royals for at the least commitment issues :)

and if we do get rid of them think of all that paper work we gotta change the money, completely change government, make every soldier swear a new oath, deal with panic buying stamp collectors (:eek:) and then we have to deal with the subsequent civil war

How much is 62p in like...real money :p...but seriously I don't understand British Currency, is the p for pounds or pence? In CAD...

62.00 Pounds = $131.451 CAD

0.62 Pence = $1.31411 CAD

...anyways...you should keep the Royal family or us in Canada will have to find a new Head of State...and we're too lazy..err..busy, yea busy...

Well, we vote for them. It's our fault. We voted for people worse than the unelected types whose job it is to protect us from them...

...

I meant, for the price of one building in Scotland you get the entire monarchy for eleven years. Which'd I rather have? Queenie and co.

Besides... What on earth would you want an elected head of state for? It'd just be another grinning prat in a suit, running around, posing with babies, trying to be popular in a desperate attempt to be elected. Do we really need silliness like that? I realise this sounds like something Fass would say, but it'd all be terribly... Undignified.
Just because you believe the monarchy to better than the politicians, doesn't make the monarchy good.
Also, just because you happen to dislike the current politicians and like the current monarchy, does not mean that you can always rely on that (and if it changes, there'll be nothing anyone can do), and it does not negate that democracy is far better than that alternatives.

And surely you see the difference between an actual monarchy, and some buildings? One of them is an actual, "living" thing. A working system. The buildings are like the box.
Of course there's a difference. But it's not as large as you make it out to be, (and it could be balanced to some extent by it becoming far more accessible public). There are hundreds of historical places around the world which generate tourism to a great extent despite the fact that they're "a box" for what happened in the past.

Disregarding the cost, the main reasons for opposing the monarchy are political and ideological ones. I don't particularly care if we have a slight dip in our tourist takings if our country will became part of the modern world, move away from our aristocractic background, and become more democratic.

How much is 62p in like...real money :p...but seriously I don't understand British Currency, is the p for pounds or pence? and how much would that be in USD or CAD?

62.00 Pounds = $131.451 CAD

0.62 Pence = $1.31411 CAD

£ = pounds
p = pence

I dont envy your royalty any more than you envy the US' industrial capability or military power.
The only thing I really envy is your royal marching bands ability to play the Imperial March, which they did quite well on one of my trips to the UK. It was most amusing. You don’t make up your entire country. Mr Bush respects the Queen and if you look at his body language he is absolutely terrified of her.

You don’t make up your entire country. Mr Bush respects the Queen and if you look at his body language he is absolutely terrified of her.

Does any of this actually matter in a rational argument for or against the monarchy?

Does any of this actually matter in a rational argument for or against the monarchy? Not really, but its two fingers up at America which is always a good thing;)

Not really, but its two fingers up at America which is always a good thing;)

Why?

Not really, but its two fingers up at America which is always a good thing;)

Ah, good. I was beggining to think that we only had blindly nationalistic Americans on NSG. Looks like we've got some from the UK now. At least this'll help people to realize not ALL idiots come from America.

You don’t make up your entire country. Mr Bush respects the Queen and if you look at his body language he is absolutely terrified of her.

...and?
Bush is an idiot. I'm glad you've figured out that he's afraid of old women. If you grew up with his mother you would be as well, I imagine.

The Royal Family: Cheap and Nasty.

Link (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6716&&&edition=1&ttl=20070628192048)

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 62p per person last year. Are they worth it?

Buckingham Palace accounts show that the cost was the same as last year - meaning a real terms decrease.

The fall in expenditure was mainly due to a reduction in the refurbishment costs at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Scotland.

The accounts revealed the Royal Household is following the "leadership" of the Prince of Wales and has started to calculate its carbon footprint and ways to reduce it. His own financial figures showed he is carbon neutral and has cut his CO2 emissions by 9% over the last year.

Do you think the Royal Family has made a real effort to curb its costs? Could you spend 62p a year better? How much would you value the Royal Family at.

To put 62p per taxpayer into context, the complete dog's breakfast that is the Scottish parliament building cost £7.33 per person (not just per taxpayer). Compared to that the Royal family is worth every penny.
Other nations envy our history and our monarchy. Our history, monarchy, pomp and ceremony attracts in millions in tourist revenue. The Royals act as ambassadors for our country, influencing favour which ultimately leads to business deals and investment. It also provides us with strong and well respected diplomatic relations. So are they worth 62p of my money? Absolutely. Who could possibly miss such a paltry sum?


The income from American tourists alone should offset the taxpayer burden. We Americans love the Royal family. We obsessively track their every move. They are so much more interesting than our own muddy political waters.

£ = pounds
p = pence

so...$1.30 a year...sure, why not...

I realise this sounds like something Fass would say, but it'd all be terribly... Undignified.

Shut your mouth! I'd never endorse monarchy, and deeply loathe that of my country... not to mention, of course, that the British monarchy has no dignity left.

Ah, good. I was beggining to think that we only had blindly nationalistic Americans on NSG. Looks like we've got some from the UK now. At least this'll help people to realize not ALL idiots come from America. Major sense of humour deficiency. And if you actually think that I am an idiot because I have pride in my country, then I believe you are an idiot because you do not.

As a staunch republican I would say that the only use for the 62p is to buy the bul...ummmm...no better not. Don't feel like getting banned for supporting a 'against the wall' shoot to kill policy...

Major sense of humour deficiency. And if you actually think that I am an idiot because I have pride in my country, then I believe you are an idiot because you do not.

Whats a sense of humour got to do with it?
And there is a difference between pride in ones country and blind nationalism. Saying 'People envy us because we used to run half the planet and have an old lady with a crown!' is not the same as saying, "The UK is great 'cause we've got the best bloody fiction writers around."
Y'know, kinda like idiots from the US saying, "People envy us 'cause we're free and have an awesome flag!", as opposed to, "The US is great because we have diverse geography, culture and food AND we're home to %90 of the 'world-dominating-conspiracy' organizations! Only the Jews and Catholic Church escpae our influence!"

Whats a sense of humour got to do with it?
And there is a difference between pride in ones country and blind nationalism. Saying 'People envy us because we used to run half the planet and have an old lady with a crown!' is not the same as saying, "The UK is great 'cause we've got the best bloody fiction writers around."
Y'know, kinda like idiots from the US saying, "People envy us 'cause we're free and have an awesome flag!", as opposed to, "The US is great because we have diverse geography, culture and food AND we're home to %90 of the 'world-dominating-conspiracy' organizations! Only the Jews and Catholic Church escpae our influence!"

The Olympics is still worse than any of those things. And a lot more expensive too.

The Olympics is still worse than any of those things. And a lot more expensive too.

Don't get me started on that....just the fact they 'forgot' the VAT bill when they made their presentation was enough to sow enough seeds of doubt of the honesty of the entire bid...

Whats a sense of humour got to do with it?
And there is a difference between pride in ones country and blind nationalism. Saying 'People envy us because we used to run half the planet and have an old lady with a crown!' is not the same as saying, "The UK is great 'cause we've got the best bloody fiction writers around." Having a grand, historic and unique monarchy is something to be proud of, the Empire is something to be proud of. Just as Bentley and our great fiction writers are things to proud of.

Having a grand, historic and unique monarchy is something to be proud of, the Empire is something to be proud of. Just as Bentley and our great fiction writers are things to proud of.

Why are those anything you should be proud of? What did you personally do to create or maintain them?

Why are those anything you should be proud of? What did you personally do to create or maintain them? Just because you didn’t personally do something doesn’t mean you cant be proud of it. You could say you are proud to be Scottish because of the beautiful country you live in, and I wouldn’t dispute the statement.

Just because you didn’t personally do something doesn’t mean you cant be proud of it. You could say you are proud to be Scottish because of the beautiful country you live in, and I wouldn’t dispute the statement.

I would because you had nothing to do with that (not Scottish by the way ;) )

What you are saying is that you are proud of your luck at being born in a certain country. Never mind as well the saying 'Pride comes before a fall'

I would because you had nothing to do with that (not Scottish by the way )

What you are saying is that you are proud of your luck at being born in a certain country. Never mind as well the saying 'Pride comes before a fall' Sorry, Irish?

I’m not proud of my luck at being born in this country. No-body can change where I was born. But while I’m here I might as well acknowledge the achievements of my country and be proud to be part of those achievements, in a wider sense, not directly involved.

Sorry, Irish?

I’m not proud of my luck at being born in this country. No-body can change where I was born. But while I’m here I might as well acknowledge the achievements of my country and be proud to be part of those achievements, in a wider sense, not directly involved.

Wouldn't that mean you can only be proud of your countries achievements from the point at which you start acting as a productive member of society (e.g. when you get a job and start paying taxes). How can you be proud then of the Empire or any of the other things you've used as examples

And yeah from Northern Ireland

Becasue all of things I mentioned still have a lasting effect on the world we live in. For example I feel nothing for battles such as Ashinqore or the Crusaides.

Becasue all of things I mentioned still have a lasting effect on the world we live in.

The actions of past generations have an impact on the world we live in. You played no part whatsoever (directly or indirectly through taxes, etc) in those actions

Im British, I am proud to be from a nation that has acheved so much and has such great people. Thats all it is, you wont get anymore out of me becasue there is no more.

Im British, I am proud to be from a nation that has acheved so much and has such great people. Thats all it is, you wont get anymore out of me becasue there is no more.

So I was right when I said you were proud of a lucky event that placed your birth in the UK. Fair enough. We're agreed then

Only the Jews and Catholic Church escpae our influence!"

You haven't heard of our colony Israel? Gets more money than Puerto Rico by far.

So I was right when I said you were proud of a lucky event that placed your birth in the UK.No, Im proud of the consequences. we will never agree on this.

No, Im proud of the consequences. we will never agree on this.

Consequences resulting from that lucky event ;)

The Royal Family serve as a stark reminder against inbreeding, and it is a reminder I am quite prepared to pay 62p a year for. Besides, if they didn't exist, we wouldn't have the Duke of Edinburgh to laugh at.

Link (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6716&&&edition=1&ttl=20070628192048)

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 62p per person last year. Are they worth it?

Buckingham Palace accounts show that the cost was the same as last year - meaning a real terms decrease.

The fall in expenditure was mainly due to a reduction in the refurbishment costs at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Scotland.

The accounts revealed the Royal Household is following the "leadership" of the Prince of Wales and has started to calculate its carbon footprint and ways to reduce it. His own financial figures showed he is carbon neutral and has cut his CO2 emissions by 9% over the last year.

Do you think the Royal Family has made a real effort to curb its costs? Could you spend 62p a year better? How much would you value the Royal Family at.

To put 62p per taxpayer into context, the complete dog's breakfast that is the Scottish parliament building cost £7.33 per person (not just per taxpayer). Compared to that the Royal family is worth every penny.
Other nations envy our history and our monarchy. Our history, monarchy, pomp and ceremony attracts in millions in tourist revenue. The Royals act as ambassadors for our country, influencing favour which ultimately leads to business deals and investment. It also provides us with strong and well respected diplomatic relations. So are they worth 62p of my money? Absolutely. Who could possibly miss such a paltry sum?

geez if the cost of maintaining the monarchy includes the cost of the buildings associated with them then they are an even bigger bargain than you state.

after all, if you ditched the monarchy you would still want to maintain the buildings as historical treasures.

The Royal Family serve as a stark reminder against inbreeding, and it is a reminder I am quite prepared to pay 62p a year for. Besides, if they didn't exist, we wouldn't have the Duke of Edinburgh to laugh at.

That's true. He's worth 62p a year alone.

For it to be luck then their would of had to have been other options. Now you could say that being born somewhere else is another option. But if I was born somewhere else I would be a different person. Therefore the only option for me, (Insert name here) of (insert place here) with my personal political believes and my family. Was to be born in this particular place. That is not luck

I'm in favour of the monarchy until the queen dies.

After that, I think we should have another glorious revolution and put some random dutch guy on the throne.

It's not really whether it's worth it, it's whether there's any reason to get rid of it. There isn't. Long live the Monarchy of Great Britain! *Rule Britannia!*

It's not really whether it's worth it, it's whether there's any reason to get rid of it. There isn't. Long live the Monarchy of Great Britain! *Rule Britannia!*

How do you figure?

It not being worth it would be as good a reason as any to get rid of it

How do you figure?

It not being worth it would be as good a reason as any to get rid of it

It wouldn't be as simple as just taking the crown away and kicking them out of buckingham palace. It would cost a lot of money, and frankly be more effort than it would be to just keep them.

It wouldn't be as simple as just taking the crown away and kicking them out of buckingham palace. It would cost a lot of money, and frankly be more effort than it would be to just keep them.

Over what period of time would it be more worth it? Eventually the costs would work out

If they became a liability rather than an asset it would be worth it

Consequences resulting from that lucky event ;)

If you can't be proud of (from your own point of view) beating the average in rolling reality's dice what can you be proud of.;)

If they became a liability rather than an asset it would be worth it

At worst, they are a gaggle of insipid celebrities. I can't see how they'd become an actual liability.

Besides, even if you abolished the monarchy, the ex-royal family would still be obscenely wealthy, so it's not as if you'd have struck a great blow for equality anyway.

At worst, they are a gaggle of insipid celebrities. I can't see how they'd become an actual liability.

Besides, even if you abolished the monarchy, the ex-royal family would still be obscenely wealthy, so it's not as if you'd have struck a great blow for equality anyway.

I wouldn't be abolishing them as a blow for equality. I'd be doing it to remove a liability. If they weren't performing suitably in their diplomatic role, etc then I don't see a reason for me to pay for them. Same goes for a scenario in which it isn't in fact them pulling in the tourists, rather their buildings

I wouldn't be abolishing them as a blow for equality. I'd be doing it to remove a liability. If they weren't performing suitably in their diplomatic role, etc then I don't see a reason for me to pay for them. Same goes for a scenario in which it isn't in fact them pulling in the tourists, rather their buildings

I don't see how it would be any different if we had an elected head of state. There would be just the same chance of them being a liability, and you'd still have to pay for them. Also, they wouldn't pull in any tourism at all.

No doubt some people do come to see the palaces and whatnot purely out of interest in the building. But there's no denying that a lot of tourism is generated simply by people being interested in the idea of the monarchy and wanting to see things associated with it.

*snip*
If I lived in your country, I'd be clamoring to have the Royal Family taken off of the government paylist immediately. They are outdated and completely unnecessary in this day and age. Your monarchy hasn't actually ruled anything for centuries and should be dismantled this second as far as I am concerned.

But since I am an American my opinion is irrelevant.

I don't see how it would be any different if we had an elected head of state. There would be just the same chance of them being a liability, and you'd still have to pay for them. Also, they wouldn't pull in any tourism at all.

No doubt some people do come to see the palaces and whatnot purely out of interest in the building. But there's no denying that a lot of tourism is generated simply by people being interested in the idea of the monarchy and wanting to see things associated with it.

I never said that this was the current situation but was just giving it as an example to show that the idea that we should have to prove reasons to remove them, rather than them having to show they are a good investment, is a bad way to go

If I lived in your country, I'd be clamoring to have the Royal Family taken off of the government paylist immediately. They are outdated and completely unnecessary in this day and age. Your monarchy hasn't actually ruled anything for centuries and should be dismantled this second as far as I am concerned.

But since I am an American my opinion is irrelevant.

They are a good investment financially however lets not forget

They are a good investment financially however lets not forget

Really? How so? I am honestly curious.