Public funding of the royal family should be optional

they do pay their own way

Also the Queen's funeral was quite some time ago. I doubt people stayed here for years so they could bask in its aftermath

It would cost more than your 77p in administration

How do you estimate your share of the monies they generated?

How do you opt out of receiving any benefit you may receive?

If the monarchy is abolished who pays for the upkeep of the properties they give to the State?

I'm betting it would cost each individual more than 77p a year

Whereas the Palace of Versailles doesn't attract tourism?(!)

How do you know that they had all come to England just for the royal family? They were probably here on holiday anyway and just decided to watch the trooping of the colour as they were here anyway. They’d still come without a royal family

We were in the centre of London last week. We were planning to walk passed Buckingham Palace but the Changing of the Guard plus some rehearsal for Trooping the Colour was taking place.there were literally thousands of tourists there watching. They had all come to England drawn by the spectacle of the Royal Family - the funeral of the late Queen and the coronation. They will be spending millions in hotels, cafes, shops and hotels. The Royal family also present stability and are above politics - something that an elected Head of State would not be.

I know their security costs millions. It is hard to quantify exactly how much they add to the economy, I get that, but it must be substantial - it can't just be disregarded.

Yeah the reason we get so many tourists in the uk is because of the royal family. That’s why they don’t get many tourists in France or the USA or Australia…

That is a very good point.

This is a myth though isn't it. Their security costs the tax payer millions.

No, I'm fairly convinced they bring in more money to the economy than they cost. Maybe if you opt of the 77p - you'll need to pay £1.50 instead to compensate? Who knows.

There are strong arguments for keeping this system of head of state; look at Trump. The late queen was very good at being head of state, even many republicans think so..

It’s the Irish or German model we should be looking at, not the US. It’s a poor show when the only argument monarchists can come up with is “but Trump/Blair…”

@DragonGypsyDoris no it's not a valid argument at all. It's not even an argument. People are allowed to disagree with how their country is run - we live in a democracy.

Isn’t this is the same stupid argument as the childless saying they don’t want their taxes to go towards a schools.

I’m childless and happy for my taxes to go towards schools. Don’t know any childless people who think otherwise.

I’d rather the money spent on the royals went towards schools, hospitals,decent public transport infrastructure. Ours are an embarrassment compared with other European countries and it’s us who have to use them, not the royals.

Everyone benefits from an educated population.

But I agree this isn't a good idea. I'd abolish the monarchy if given the option, but I think introducing the idea of pick your own taxes is really really bad.

Yet still a valid argument.

health obsessives would then be trying to opt out of paying into the NHS, or people who drive their rubbish to the dump would want a discount on council tax and then people without cars shouldn't have to pay for the roads........................

I’m fine with us not providing public funding but in return they get their privacy.

No pictures, video’s, stories, commentary etc. in the media ever.
No being required to turn up to the opening of an envelope. no patronages, no pageantry etc.

No threads like this!

Quite!

Also all the ' Camilla isn't my Queen' yes she is. The point of monarchy is that you can't pick and choose. You get what you get and like it. They can't pick and choose Harry or Andrew either. They are Princes and Dukes, that's it. No matter how they behave.

@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?

I agree with most of this (not the subjects freezing and starving to death though - that is hyperbolic nonsense) but agree with other posters that picking and choosing what you personally want to fund is an unworkable slippery slope indeed.

Lazy, lazy argument.

Harsh, but I definitely agree with the second bit.

Actually I find it hilarious how hypocritical royalists are. The ones who now hate Harry and think he shouldn't be in the royal family any more when the entire premise is being born into it and your personality is incidental.

Be careful what you wish for! There are plenty of people that would opt out of paying for education as they don’t have kids, benefits for disabled people as they are not disabled, nhs as they go private and are never ill, road repair as they don’t drive, army as they don’t care if we get invaded or don’t agree with supporting Ukraine or whatever.