Public funding of the royal family should be optional

do you think that every country in the world have a RF because they are essential services? Sure you don’t.

Every country has a head of state. I'm not convinced our RF costs more than the HoS and associated costs of other major nations.

And neither you or any other posters ever answered my question that I posted earlier:

@FuckinghamPalace - can you support your implied assertion that a non-royal head of state would be both cheaper and more beneficial to the UK and its standing abroad?

This argument always boils down the people knowing of everything and the value of nothing. It’s nothing to do with the figures or ‘tourism’ - it’s to do with heritage, prestige and global soft power.

I’m amazed people are so keen for a joyless little grey republic. The corrupt self-serving little shits in parliament feathering their own nests tells you all you need to know about how a presidential style system would go. At least the RF add a bit of pizzazz and have given generations of duty!

I agree we should have a healthy disrespect for any of these sanctified privileged people but be careful what you wish for.

Here is a link to the Sovereign Grant Act. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

Please read it and educate yourself. Over the last 10 years the monarchy has paid more than 3 billion to the Exchequer. That money is used for public spending.

either way its still ££ and numbers are not an equal measure if eg 15 people spend eg £1 each vs 5 that spend £3 each

From what I understand the assertion that the royal family attract immeasurable tourist income - is not a demonstrable fact - just simply an economic opinion.

I may be wrong but at a brief glance Versailles (no living royal family) = 10/15 million visitors per annum.
Buckinghsm palace - 550,000 visitors.
Hmmm

Good point. At least the RF creates revenue. I can think of a few things I would opt out of that only cost the nation money.

Making payments towards the royals optional starts a slippery slope of what else people should be able to opt out of.
For example why should everyone pay for HS2? If my kids have left education then can I opt out of money going to schools ? Why would someone in say Wales care about the state of the roads in Scotland or a museum in London ?

If we only paid for what we wanted to pay for then the losers would be groups like the arts, disabled and elderly because people will only pay for what affects them directly.

It is the point though.

If people were able to opt out of contributing towards the cost of the RF, you would also have to find a way to ensure the same people don't benefit from the revenue the RF brings.

How would you even start doing that?

Can we be selective in what we pay for? There are quite a few things I would like to opt out from!

thats the thing with the public quick to presume the costs ££ and not the return on investment etc

Between tax and indirect revenue like tourism they add and estimated 1.77 billion to the economy even if it was 1/2 that I’m still happy to pay the £1.29 they cost me

I presume you would like to opt out from benefiting from that

even if we got rid of them there’d be heads of states which would cost but not bring indirect revenue in

what about the return on investment partly via tourist's in the economy etc due to the royal family ?

@Katypp
Not Hyperbole...............
"roughly 9,000 people who die in cold homes in England and Wales every year" (source ageing-better.org.uk)
"90,000 people die in poverty in the UK each year" (Source Loughborough University - the research was reported in 2022 - that figure has probably risen since then)
"2022/23 - 4.2m children in relative poverty after housing costs
2023/24 stats:

• 4.3 million children in relative poverty after housing costs (30% of all children in the UK), 100,000 more than last year

• 826,000 children live in households that have used foodbanks in the last year

• 34% children in poverty live in lone parent households

• 43% of children in poverty live in a household where someone has a disability

• 35% of children in poverty live in a household headed by someone from an ethnic minority (defined as non White British)

• 50% of children in poverty live in a household with 3 or more children – affected by the sibling tax (two child limit)

• Absolute poverty has also risen. There are now 3.6 million children in absolute poverty compared to 3.3 last year.

(SOURCE: Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), released 21 March 2024, GOV.UK website, statistical release, Households below average income: for financial years ending 1995 to 2023.")

It's interesting that the only part of my comment you thought you could refute confidently was regarding their enormous wealth.

Pretty sure it's my turn to have everyone's 77p this year, someone else can have it next year, I'm not greedy

If we go down that route can we start to
opt put of other things? I don’t have children so can I opt out of paying for schools and ‘free’ nursery hours? Can I opt out of paying for elderly care as I don’t need it yet? We all pay for things that we can’t opt out of.

@Ratsoffasinkingsauage

"My understanding is that the royal estates bring in much more revenue that is is returned by either the sovereign grant or security costs. The Crown Estates pay 100% of their revenue to the treasury and they get a small portion back as the sovereign grant."

The Crown Estate does not belong to the Royal Family, in effect it belongs to the "Crown" or the Sovereign and is managed by the state.

Should we abolish the Royal Family the crown estate would certainly not be returned to the Royal Family. Essentially the link between the two is poor. Think of the Crown Estates as the same as federal land in the US, rather than something specifically to do with the Royal family.

Tbf I’m happy to chuck my 77p in to watch their comings and goings. It’s cheaper than the telly licence which is a far greater waste of money

I am really shocked that this kind of myth-peddling persists.

The RF is a bit like a romance scam or Ponzi scheme. They just lie seductively and some people enjoy the myth.

Fact is, the basis for the Duchy of Lancaster dates back to 1399, and it is now 2024, long after the Age of Enlightenment.

Here we are in the 21st century with a population of 65 million, but a medieval feudal system bleeding out millions of pounds to 12 people.

The Not Very United Kingdom cannot afford to indulge your fantasy, or the RF's greed. It has other problems to address.

laughs in mid-century German

Great idea OP. In the new "opt out" system of tax perhaps I can opt out of paying tax for health services, schools and unemployment/disability benefits. /s

Making anything optional is unlikely to work. Many will have the opinion if I don’t have to pay I won’t.

Say it is possible to have your scenario. It is not going to suddenly equate to everyone in the country being comfortable.

If by some bizarre reason I found out I was a significant member of the RF, I’d keep quiet. They is no denying they live in luxury but lives not their own.

https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23#:~:text=The%20total%20Sovereign%20Grant%20for,per%20person%20in%20the%20UK.

Details here

It’s how the royals themselves term it: https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23