…to suggest that it’s time the Royal family stands on its own feet and stops taking money from the public purse?

I seriously doubt the number of tourist will be remotely affected because Kate has decided to jump in her luxury car to spend 15mn in a local school and pose for the photos, close enough so she doesn't miss her morning yoga and her afternoon photography lesson or whatever she's doing entertain herself.

Unless it's a sports event she follows anyway, she really doesn't like to waste too much time on public even, and neither does Will.

Totally agree.

No reason we should subsidise them. I quite frankly think it’s disgusting given the poverty within the UK.

I don’t expect to see the money in my pocket but there’s lot of places it could be better spent.

Any properties they can’t afford the upkeep of could be sold or become museums etc.

Comparing doctors and nurses with a family who cut ribbons and represent charities..😄

People pointed out brexit would make us worse off it was still voted first you can point out that we financially benefit from the royals and people will still vote to get rid of them

My point still stands regardless...they should not be funded by the tax payer

I'm Irish - I've visited the UK as a tourist a number of times and the Royal Family wouldn't be a draw at all to us.

We democratically elect a President here every seven years to be a figure head and do the 'schmoozing'.

Think it is ridiculously out of date to have a family like this to fawn over and doff your cap to... No one is better than anyone else by virtue of birth or by marrying into a family. And I think it's very unhealthy to grow up and be in a fish bowl.

If there’s no proof that they bring in more than they ‘cost’, they by logic the reverse must be true: there’s no proof they cost more than they bring in.
I find that it’s always best to have evidence to back up my arguments. That way, people are more likely to listen.

Then I am happy for it to go there

I think anyone who says anything about the Royals should be locked in the tower for treason. Historically, Kings and princes ravished young girls up and down the country and did what they wanted and raised taxes from the plebs to serve their own needs. This is what the royal family just did because they had a divine right to rule over us given by God. The Queen was right to lobby the government to give her non-working son a job where he could make money from kickbacks. I have no time for anyone who says we should not pay for them. They rule over us and may God save them. I love each and every single royal because they are better than us mere mortals. I for one would never go near any of the royal palaces if I knew that a debauched family who had intermarried creating a rich and interesting history was not residing inside, it would be pointless.

So shall we apply that logic to all doctors and nurses? Because they get paid for it, they can’t possibly have a selfless motivation for doing what they do?

I used to be very republican, roll-out-the-guillotine about them, but I'm more circumspect these days. I do think monarchies are ridiculous and archaic, but there is an argument for realpolitik - idiots like Trump, and leaders in the Middle East, do love a royal.

There are also reasonable arguments for solely ceremonial, non-party affiliated heads of state, so I am not necessarily against the idea of a monarch. Democracy has its flaws too.

However, there is no justification for public funding for any of them except the current monarch (and that can be significantly scaled back). The others can all get proper jobs until it's their time to be on the throne. Nobody needs to practice glad-handing and ribbon cutting (certainly not at the expense of the taxpayer), and experience of having to pay your own way will only make the ones who do become head of state more understanding of the people they represent.

@Tutorpuzzle indeed!

No, we’re not allowed to know that. Nor does it include royal events (coronation, for eg) and much else. And £1.29 even predates the recent increase in the sovereign grant. Another 53 million annually.

@BananaPeels I don’t agree clearly 😆

Even if the cost is double they would still be cheap.

look you don’t have to agree - that’s fine.

I personally think they provide a valuable service.

Reading further posts I’m not sure. Some have drank the Kool-aid!

@BananaPeels it doesn’t, google will tell you. So if you are going to tell people how much they cost us at least be accurate…

It must be satire , nobody could be so ill-informed and gullible.

No idea - that is the cost of the sovereign grant per person. Even if the costs were double that I still personally think they are good value for money. I understand people disagree but I can see the benefit on the world stage they bring.

Good, so it will be spent for the benefit of the country and its people, not a nauseatingly rich and outdated institution.

I actually think that they'd feel like they could live a freer life without our money funding them.
It's past time that they scuttle on.

Their "platforming" is mediocre and wishy washy to say the best. It's basically regurgitating things that better informed people have already said and most of us already know.

Exactly! it’s utterly pointless.

@BananaPeels does your figure include security costs?

It would be even better if the public could visit it, instead of having a very limited access a couple of weeks a year to try to shut up the public

You don’t get it back. It will just go into the tax pot