To think this is an obscene amount for the queens home.

[heartskey]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/buckingham-palace-to-undergo-370m-refurbishment
Its all right for some isn't it. Sod the rest of us, we're just the mugs paying for it. What a bloody burden this family are.

How many people go to wave flags and spend money outside the head of the Canadian state? How many people across the world would even know his/her name? But everyone knows the queen.

I would need to be very convinced that the new state after the ripples had subsided would be better. It would be a shock on the scale of Brexit, and that's not exactly a great advert for rocking the status quo at the moment! I'm not seeing anything here that's all that persuasive, let alone convincing.

But everyone knows the queen.

Everyone knows Brad Pitt too, but we don't give him special fact time with the PM.

I don't get your point about the GG of Canada.

I'm not seeing anything here that's all that persuasive, let alone convincing.

if you put aside RF propaganda that they account for 88% of our GDP, then poor public finances, which are going to get much worse as the public ages, may not convince you (and we won't convince everyone), but may convince others. While we spend endless energy trying to wring more efficiency out of the NHS and education system, we are increasing the sovereign grant. While you may not be swayed by the moral argument (our government literally recognizes that some people are, by virtue of birth, inherently better than others), others are.

I can't wait for Charles to come. I hope to then hear calls from many monarchists, who probably won't notice the irony in complaining about the new monarch we have been given, to get rid of it.

This thread is ridiculous. Do some research. Our country would be billions of pounds a year worse off WITHOUT the Royal Family. Saving you, the taxpayer the grand sum of £0.60p PER YEAR! Get a grip, stop saying it's not true. It is. It's called the freedom of information act, stop thinking the daily rag is Gospel!!!

Our country would be billions of pounds a year worse off WITHOUT the Royal Family.

Um, based on what evidence exactly?

Nearly all the evidence you can find. Except of course the Sun or The Daily Mail newspapers which seem to be most people's. I Le here

Um, based on what evidence exactly?

The freedom of information act will give you that information, apparently. To which organization should we send our request? and for what information?

Nearly all the evidence you can find

Not a good enough answer. Try again.

Are the Daily Mail anti-monarchy? I would have assumed they loved a bit of the queen, making Britain Great and all that.

People might not like Charles so much, but they bloody love William and Kate and George and Charlotte. Look what Kate Middleton can do for retail just by wearing a dress, by way of just one example.

"Not a good enough answer. Try again."

How about you provide something other than sneering, Laurie?

How about people provide actual evidence for their bombastic points?

Here's a relatively recent link that says the "kate effect" is worth a billion to retail, which is just one sector of the economy:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/16/fashion-diplomacy-kate-effect-is-alive-and-well

*We have been lucky to have had a stable monarchy for a number of years who have helped steer the country through the last world war and for many people still alive that was the time they stepped up to the plate and showed their worth.

I wonder how america got through it without a monarch lighting the path.*

You can be as snarky as you like Chili, but your case to abolish the monarchy shouldn't (and doesn't) rely on painting them out to have had absolutely not benefit to the country at all because that will come a cropper, because they clearly have at times been a benefit. You will make yourself look ridiculous if your argument is so weak that you cannot acknowledge reality.

My point was that the RF helped steer the country, they were high profile and stayed put through the bombings when others might not have. You might not like the fact that a whole generation of people still alive today remember that an appreciate it but it is undoubtedly a large part of the reason that people have not even been prepared to debate the abolition of the monarchy. I was talking about why we haven't publicly debated a Republic since the war.

The fact that America survived the war (which wasn't carried out on or near to their domestic soil anyway so a bit irrelevant) is a bizarre comment - they don;t have a monarchy so couldn't have a discussion about it.

The idea that Buck House should be changed into a hospital is the funniest thing I've heard this week. Why stop there? the Tower, Windsor Castle, Balmoral.....in fact anywhere the Queen hangs out.

But of course losing £0.5 billion in revenue from tourism when the queen is the 3rd most popular reason for coming here is just going to mean there is no money for nurses or beds etc in those buildings.

As someone said upthread this is the same lala land thinking that believed we could spend £350K on the NHS if only we got out of Europe.

The level of debate here - mainly from the OP- is lower than I'd expect in a Yr 11 debating group.

It's just laughable.

Here's a relatively recent link that says the "kate effect" is worth a billion to retail, which is just one sector of the economy:

Newsweek estimates that amount. no indication of how. I'll take that with a grain of salt. Even if true, however, how does that justify the monarchy? She helps sell clothes, so we should give her family oodles of money? So, does Jennifer Aniston and countless other female models. Should we give them an official government post too?

Her wedding cost our economy an enormous amount. I think we are still in the red relative to Kate.

And that billion figure is to the global economy not UK. The brand they actually cite as as an example of the 'Kate effect' is an Indian brand.

I'd rather have Sienna Miller tbh. She doesn't cost us anything.

The fact that America survived the war (which wasn't carried out on or near to their domestic soil anyway so a bit irrelevant) is a bizarre comment - they don;t have a monarchy so couldn't have a discussion about it.

your comment implied that they were critical for Britain to get through the war. Were they? Why does staying here, like most Londoners and Britons had to, mean that we should support them today? Churchill was also in London at the time, stayed here and made immensely important decisions to get us through the war (he literally was critical to do Britain getting through the war), yet no one is saying we should support is family for all time.

You can take it with a grain of salt, but neither nobody seems to have any better links to prove the contrary. (I don't count Wikipedia.) And I think it's a great thing that she lifts the global retail economy, not just the British one. Britain isn't an economic island!

The uncertainty around anything else is what makes me think we are better with the status quo.

The Sienna Miller comment is frankly bizarre. Someone who is famous for her looks and who is happy to sleep with married men, OK, even if we say that can make a great role model - have her as WHAT?

As an ambassador for big brands. Preferably British this time Making the country money. Just like you're arguing Kate is. Difference is we don't have to pay Sienna.

She's mentioned in the article you posted.

And if you're going to object to people's morals in these roles then you're on very shaky ground with the royals. Juss sayin'

You can take it with a grain of salt, but neither nobody seems to have any better links to prove the contrary. (I don't count Wikipedia.) And I think it's a great thing that she lifts the global retail economy, not just the British one. Britain isn't an economic island!

Bizarre comment. Why is wikipedia worse than a guardian article (I happen to like the guardian, so my comment is not an anti-guardian one) quoting another news source without reference to source? Doesn't the source matter? Is it a solid economic study, or just some estimation by newsweek? that matters, right?

Second, how does that justify having a RF? Countless people generate wealth, and we don't give them official positions at high cost for doing so.

It appears the argument is (I don't really know what the argument really is, so perhaps someone could clarify) on the idea that she and she alone could generate this wealth, public money was necessary for this, and this is the best use of that public money. I don't see any justification for any of these claims.

You really think as many people would recognise Sienna Miller as would recognise the image of William and Kate kissing on the balcony? That's Brand Britain, and if you don't like it, you need a better alternative before you remove it.

Retail is just one element of it. It's mostly British retailers, but yes, I am quite happy that she spreads some of that money around the rest of the world. Cocaine Kate and Married Man Miller might also be able to shift jeans, but let's face it, nobody queued and paid a fortune to stare at their wedding dresses in a glass case. Nobody spent millions of pounds on mugs with their mugs on them. Etc etc.

Because I think if you are going to sneer at people and say "do your research", you should have something better up your sleeve than Wikipedia.

The argument for me is not clear cut. It is, we can see what we have at the moment, and we can see its flaws and positives. How can we improve it? Is that compelling and can we prove it - unlike Brexit! - and if so, then let's see if we should pursue it. At the moment most of the arguments seem to be, "it's not fair, they get free stuff," rather than a balanced view as to whether that is justified and how we could take such a seismic step as to replace it without rocking the boat too far. If you are going to re-draw Brand Britain without some of its most iconic figures, what are you going to put in their place?

Sienna Miller it will not be!

Personally thought that the wiki entry on the Glorious Revolution was quite a good intro. Obviously, critique it if you think it's lacking.

And there's a difference between refreshing someone on a historical event and making an economic argument. And yes, the sources for these would be very different.

The broader point is that it's very difficult to understand how much the RF 'brings in' and indeed how much it 'really costs us'. But I don't buy the royalists arguments that it's a good deal for the tax payer. Lots of people who don't require the same amount of financing could perform the roles the RF currently do. Like a British equivalent of Michael D Higgins in Ireland. Or actresses like Sienna/Kate.

We can clearly manage without them, many countries do. And ultimately the economic argument is irrelevant to many republicans anyway.

I think ditching them is the modern, grown-up, self sufficient thing to do. I think it's so embarrassing and insecure of the UK to cling to an outdated institution, comprised of such mediocre people to give them weight on the world stage. We should be better than that.

Because I think if you are going to sneer at people and say "do your research", you should have something better up your sleeve than Wikipedia.

Doesn't answer why wikipedia is worse than a news article referencing a news article with no sources to a study. In fact, I'd say wikipedia is much better (it's in fact referenced).

At the moment most of the arguments seem to be, "it's not fair, they get free stuff,"

That's not what I read. There is more to it than that.

Of course we should look at the outcome and the trade offs (but that doesn't change the moral argument), but support for the economic benefit of the RF is based on some pretty shaky claims. For example, you often read about how much money was generated during the royal wedding. All those numbers, however, get swamped once you account for the fact that day was an extra bank holiday (the LSE was closed, as were most businesses). Highly selective if you ask me.

At the moment most of the arguments seem to be, "it's not fair, they get free stuff,"

No, the arguments are that we want to live in a democracy and a meritocracy and the royal family represent neither.