Public funding of the royal family should be optional

[FuckinghamPalace]

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?

So maybe they can make other things optional going by that thinking

Childless couples can not pay for schools, someone down south can opt out of paying for something north, men can opt out of paying for cervical cancer research etc.

Because tax isn't optional. That would defeat the object.
Here's a list of tax payer funded things, tick which ones you want to pay and we'll forget the rest.....
Except, if half the tax payers say I don't want to pay for housing benefit for anyone...then everyone else's HB contribution needs to go up. So they "cancel" their national parks contribution to off set it.....outcome being chaos

Are we going to end up back on private jealthcare and schools again

YABU & YANBU

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.

There are strong arguments IMO for absolutely getting rid of most of their ring-fenced, death - duty avoiding property and land ownership, access to the PM, soft power international access etc.

Do the European monarchy thing. The Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall incomes are huge - pay death duties and have fewer stately piles.

Prince Andrew lives in Royal lodge with one ex wife and a few old corgis.
Slimmed down monarchy? 🤔.

Versailles is still popular and they got rid of their monarchy.

It's a soap opera for the masses IMO. But it could be put to a referendum and the young vote is likely to be less passionate than the landed shire dweliing home counties living traditionalists.

.

No, we should just not fund them at all. They can live off their own money filched from slaves and peasants for thousands of years. We should keep the castles etc for tourism.

There are so many misconceptions regarding the Royal family.

The thing about the sovereign grant and the costs? Well, technically the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are owned by the crown, but that in the UK is interchangeable with "the state", this isn't privately owned land (it stays crown estate no matter who is on throne) and these pay massive amounts of money to the Queen and Prince of Wales which is not counted in the sovereign grant as private income. Nor does it cover the cost of police protection from the Met, which is just incorporated into the Met budget. It doesn't cover the cost of royal visits outside transport, the venues themselves put up the cost. There is a long list.

The Royal family also, and I cannot stress this highly enough, do not bring in tourists. The value of their contribution was calculated based on attractions related to the royal family, not themselves. So that's everyone visiting the Tower, Westminster Abbey, watching the changing of the guard etc. No one comes to "see" the royal family, they don't even come out to wave weekly like the pope.

Yes the Dutch RF are an absolute bargain at 55 million euros and rising, compared to 86 mil for the UK's parasite in chief to live in eyewatering luxury, while millions of "subjects" bankrupt themselves paying £££ to develop respiratory disease from living in a mouldy hovel not fit for purpose.

It's medieval, the way Britain treats its people. They can have no self-respect, to then go and wave flags for a handful of very greedy humans who have taken from society far, far more than they can ever give back.

The older I get, the more I appreciate the tradition, stability and continuity of the Royal Family.

They do enormous amounts of charitable work and also bring in tourism. No, people don’t go to Buckingham Palace expecting to catch a glimpse of King Charles but they do go because of its association with the Royal Family.

They do charity work for show, to create the illusion, like Charlie's cigar-chomping mate.

Masters of illusion, absolute masters.

Id like to opt out of funding very very rich people who sit on their arses on a huge pile of money and do nothing. I need my 77p more than they do.

Excellent idea. I don’t want to pay for the NHS. I don’t use it and I’m sick of paying for others. While we’re at it I’m not keen on paying for your child’s education. Either educate them with your own money or send them off to the workhouses.

we are all paying for things we don’t want to contribute towards OP. It’s a slippery slope

How about:
public funding of the BGS should be optional
public funding of education should be optional
…
Yours is just as ludicrous a statement.

Besides, the Crown Estate profits go largely to the Treasury, so the monarchy pay a lot into the system. The advantage is that the government doesn’t own it, so they can’t sell it off like they do everything else.

NHS

If you don't like it, go and live in a republic. There are several available.

I think the Royal family do good charitable work, raise awareness of certain topics/charities, attend/ represent UK at state dinners etc, hosts other heads of states. If they didn't do this, then who would we have to do the job? Politicians are unlikely to be able to do this, mainly because they don't have the time and secondly the general public tend not to trust politicians. They're usually busy lining their own pockets than do charitable work. For 77p, that's pretty good value. Regarding opting out, it would likely cost more money to manage that.

There's lots of things I would like to opt out of, the way our government mismanage our taxes, I rarely use the NHS and have private medical. I don't use schools. Can I opt out of paying these? The answer would be no.

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.

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.

Lazy, lazy argument.

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.

@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?

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.

Quite!

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!

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........................

Yet still a valid argument.

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.