To ask - there's enough anti monarchy feeling here as a result of PA and Epstein to say that many of us want to change the way royals are funded.

[Swellerellamoo]

Just that really. Would you vote to stop funding the monarchy today if you could?

Yabu - for no I wouldn't
Yanbu - for yes I could

I think they have enough money in investments and land to be self funding. Most of their properties will still be funded through government / historical architectural funding .

I would vote to stop funding anything other than the direct line of succession.

Prince Charles - fine. Prince William - fine. Prince George - fine. And their siblings until they turn 18.

But no-one else.

My view:

Funding should only be for the head of state and resident direct family (prince Philip in this case) and limited to funding Buckingham palace and one other venue. Transport should only be funded for official business. They should get no more than a president would get. Other royals can claim expenses only if on official duties acting on behalf of the Queen. Royal weddings do not count as official duties.

They are an incredibly wealthy and priveleged family that own huge amounts of land in their own right. They do not need bank rolling by the tax payer.

Yes personally I think it’s time for the monarchy to go.

Most of their properties will still be funded through government / historical architectural funding .

Only if they are fully accessible to the public.

I think it's time for them to go and I am hopping mad about this and would march on the palace to get rid of these leeching flunkies

I would vote to stop funding anything other than the direct line of succession.

Why do you think they should be funded?

Yes they should go.

Doesn't the Royal family bring in more money for the country due to tourism then they take?

So in effect, having them creates a surplus for the country coffers?

I am hopping mad about this
Seriously? The country's facing a national crisis and you're bothered about the royal family.

Carry on with your marching-I suppose it'll be a distraction from the main event.

Doesn't the Royal family bring in more money for the country due to tourism then they take?

Oh this old chestnut

There’s absolutely no way to verify how much tourism is generated by a sitting RF compared to a deposed one.

Except via circumstantial evidence from France which suggests we’d be better off rid.

Wow, 87% have voted to stop funding them, so far, including me.

I’d actually vote for a streamlined version. As other people have said, just the direct line of succession. The problems we’ve been discussing recently have come from hangers on such as H&M and Andy - they are arrogant and surplus to requirements.

Doesn't the Royal family bring in more money for the country due to tourism then they take?

This is said a lot but I wonder if it is true. France gets far more visitors than the UK despite not having a royal family. Look at Versailles, where you can see the entire palace, vs Buck Palace which is heavily restricted and only open to tourists at certain times of year.

Plus, the royal palaces are not even the biggest tourist attractions in this country.
www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/most-popular-attractions-in-britain-in-2016/ perhaps they would be more popular if the royal family wasn’t there and the palaces were fully open to tourists

I think the royal family should be made private citizens after Queen Elizabeth dies.

There is no need for them any longer.

This whole business with Prince Andrew is awful, and if he is protected from being investigated I don't think the public would stand for it.

It would pave the way for a referendum asking to abolish them and I would vote yes.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the Epstein Maxwell PA affair comes off like this:

Aha! A prince with trade influence! Hmm he's a randy idiot who likes young girls-
Let's get some for him! Then he will like us and we will get richer!

Absolutely disgusting. Morally abhorrent.

They should ALL become private citizens.

I don't mind that pw most likely had an affair. That's his and kates business.

I don't care if mm is annoying - honestly so what.

I DO very much care that 'ambassasors' funded by tax payers money are complicit in paediohilia and child rape.

I'd rather pay 69 pence per day for the Royals than I would for a Presidency, or for the MPs to have two homes, when they could be housed in something like an officer's mess in London.

Don't particularly want to look around the whole of Buck House. Most of it is offices I believe.

I would probably fund a streamlined version for official duties.
As a PP said getting married is not an official duty.

Yes without a doubt.
Or only the direct line no one else gets penny of public money. Or represents us at all.

Esp Prince Andrew.

The money for the Sovereigns grant doesn’t come from the tax payer. It’s 15% of the money from the crown estates which are technically not owned by the state or the Queen. Slightly weird but have a look at the attachement.
The presidents of most countries cost significantly more than our head of state. So before you ditch Liz and put in a president bear in mind you’re not going to save any cash! The second picture are some slightly dated numbers for the French president. And they don’t include security either. I would assume security is going to be needed even for a British President. I don’t have any evidence other than having heard it on Radio 4 a while ago but... I seem to remember being shocked that the Italian head of state cost something like 5 times ours!
Lastly most presidents are ex politicians and I shudder to think of either President Blair or President Thatcher. A non political head of state does have benefits. Surely that on its own is enough! 😳

This has surprised me because i thought all this was public knowledge years ago.

I think that's why they are so accepting of MM, she is diversifying the Royal Family and they will use that as proof they are, once again changing and should be kept.

To be honest, with Brexit happening, it's too many changes at once, if we scale back Royal funding.

Although i can remember when Princess Michael of Kent created a storm in the 80's because she was more or less downgraded and it didn't do any harm.

But ynci is it fair that people are born into this, ie William? His life decided for him... George's life... Charles. That doesn't seem fair either.

Without a doubt we need shake ups.
All this grace and favour nonsense.

The presidents of most countries cost significantly more than our head of state

Plenty don’t and they absolutely don’t have to.

The Irish model would be a great one for the UK to follow. Their presidency is very cost effective.

Gobbolinocat : I agree, not something I would want to be born into but hey don’t have to do it, they can renounce their place in the order of succession.
Laurie: possibly. I haven’t seen any figures. However since I believe the population of Ireland is less than 5 million and thereby over 10 times smaller than the UK, it should be! Do you have any per capita figures? Would genuinely be interested!