Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Public funding of the royal family should be optional

214 replies

FuckinghamPalace · 15/06/2024 00:08

Not sure if this has been duscussed before but…

What if the tax payer could opt out of funding the royal family? And opt in if they want to contribute?

It should be optional

Why not?

OP posts:
ForFirmBiscuit · 15/06/2024 01:40

apparently they make more money than they take so I’m not complaining

merrymelodies · 15/06/2024 01:38

The royal family generates a LOT of interest and therefore a lot of money. Especially in the US. Tourism and journalism. I think it's beneficial, even if not as popular as it once was, for these reasons.

EricHebbornInItaly · 15/06/2024 01:31

notaladyinred · 15/06/2024 01:13

Paris is the most visited city in the world and they executed their monarchy.

Show quote history

Hear hear 👏👏👏

WinterMorn · 15/06/2024 01:30

I have to admit I much prefer the Monarchy with Charles at the helm.

apapuchi · 15/06/2024 01:29

I'd rather my, and everyone else's, 77p funded something else. It seems like nothing in isolation but it's a huge amount cumulatively that could fund adult social care or another area with huge deficit. Obviously it's not as simple as just switching money from one area to another but why they need everyone's 77p or whatever the amount actually is... well that's a mystery.

Alsonotsurecontent · 15/06/2024 01:27

PomPomtheGreat · 15/06/2024 01:24

I remember seeing a study showing that even though charities supported by the royal family benefited from their patronage, other charities lost out by an equal amount. Ie: there was always going to be a certain amount given to charities by the British public, and the involvement of the royal family just put a thumb on certain scales.

Show quote history

Well Diana did quite a lot for AIDS awareness

PomPomtheGreat · 15/06/2024 01:24

Alsonotsurecontent · 15/06/2024 00:57

I think there’s worse wealthy people to take a dig at. Yes they were born into weath but they’re constantly having to prove their value, these days more than ever . How do you put a value on the diplomacy, soft skills, charity, awareness they bring

I remember seeing a study showing that even though charities supported by the royal family benefited from their patronage, other charities lost out by an equal amount. Ie: there was always going to be a certain amount given to charities by the British public, and the involvement of the royal family just put a thumb on certain scales.

Meadowfinch · 15/06/2024 01:19

@Crispsandcola The UK has 160 billionaires. None of them are Royals.

Alsonotsurecontent · 15/06/2024 01:15

notaladyinred · 15/06/2024 01:13

Paris is the most visited city in the world and they executed their monarchy.

Show quote history

String em up then

Kinneddar · 15/06/2024 01:15

Can we opt out of other things. I'm happy to pay for the RF but I don't use schools, libraries or public transport. Can I opt out of the portion of my tax/council tax that pays for them?

Bazinga007 · 15/06/2024 01:14

I think we should.do what the French did.

Why should these unelected people get preferential treatment just because they came put of some inbreds vagina.

notaladyinred · 15/06/2024 01:13

Alsonotsurecontent · 15/06/2024 00:23

Okayyyyyy……so we all opt out, monarchy gone. Lose billions in tourism revenue ….

im not sure what your point is when you just answer not the point

Show quote history

Paris is the most visited city in the world and they executed their monarchy.

Meadowfinch · 15/06/2024 01:13

'They don’t come expecting to see one of the RF. '

Have you ever been to Buckingham Palace on a state occasion like a wedding? It's heaving with Americans who have come to see the royals. Not the buildings but the Royal family and the pomp and ceremony.

Teentaxidriver · 15/06/2024 01:09

Such a naive question. Can I opt out of funding the net zero nonsense, or maybe I don’t feel like putting money towards pensioners or the welfare budget. Maybe engage your brain (if you have one) before asking ridiculous questions.

Meadowfinch · 15/06/2024 01:06

Opting out of your 77p would also require opting out of the benefits they bring. The tourist $$$ and the diplomatic skills that the late QEII brought to the role. Charles does his fair share of that too.

How would you manage that? It would probably cost you money.

coastalhawk · 15/06/2024 00:57

YANBU

Alsonotsurecontent · 15/06/2024 00:57

I think there’s worse wealthy people to take a dig at. Yes they were born into weath but they’re constantly having to prove their value, these days more than ever . How do you put a value on the diplomacy, soft skills, charity, awareness they bring

DejectedRejected · 15/06/2024 00:56
  1. Us not paying for them will not stop tourism. Tourists don’t care or even think where their money comes from. The don’t come expecting to see one of the RF. They come to visit the buildings, feel the history and all the other stuff people visit capital cities for.
  2. The costings presented don’t take into account the hidden costs - police, travel, banquets, weddings to name a few. We pay extra for that.
  3. There is no need for the public purse to fund multiple properties, and definitely not for anyone other than the reigning head.

There’s no need to end the Royal Family, they just need to pay their own way.

sixtyandsomething · 15/06/2024 00:50

I dont think they cost anything. The grant is out of their own income and they hand the rest over to the treasury.

I know that is not the point - the point is you can't choose which taxes to opt in and out of

Crispsandcola · 15/06/2024 00:44

In my opinion, they are billionaires with more than enough money (much of which is hidden in offshore tax havens) to look after themselves. The royal family are living in wealth and luxury while their 'subjects' are literally starving and freezing to death or living in abject poverty on minimum wage and foodbank handouts. They don't 'generate wealth for this country through tourism', that is an actual, provable lie. The royal family are an affront to the population and it's time to stop funding their extravagant lifestyles altogether.

FelievedToFeSpeakingFollocks · 15/06/2024 00:28

HeddaGarbled · 15/06/2024 00:20

Slippery slope, OP. Then you’d have people saying they didn’t want to fund new warships or benefits for the unemployed or all the many other things that some people think are a good thing and some people don’t.

You are feing bar too bucking sensifle hedda.

A slippery slope indeed.

RedYellowPinkGreenPurpleOrangeBlue · 15/06/2024 00:26

Alsonotsurecontent · 15/06/2024 00:23

Okayyyyyy……so we all opt out, monarchy gone. Lose billions in tourism revenue ….

im not sure what your point is when you just answer not the point

Show quote history

not the point.

😆

RedYellowPinkGreenPurpleOrangeBlue · 15/06/2024 00:24

YABU.

Alsonotsurecontent · 15/06/2024 00:23

FuckinghamPalace · 15/06/2024 00:17

not the point

Show quote history

Okayyyyyy……so we all opt out, monarchy gone. Lose billions in tourism revenue ….

im not sure what your point is when you just answer not the point

DysonSphere · 15/06/2024 00:22

lovehatelovehate · 15/06/2024 00:19

What is “nationally beneficial” about the royal family?

Show quote history

They provide us with a mutual subject of conversation!

You could argue that they provide a uniting influence above politics with the never ending culture wars/lying/free wheeling....

The former is tongue-in-cheek, the latter is a serious point.

Swipe left for the next trending thread