Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
DecafFox · 15/06/2024 10:17

Huge family though, so shall we leave each household £3m instead?

FuckinghamPalace · 15/06/2024 10:32

I’m not saying abolish them

I wish there was a way to make it optional so people who see no value in them for society pay nothing and the others who want to support them pay whatever they want: £1, £10, £100

I’m sure some people who see value in them would still pay towards them

I know it is an utopia, no need to call me whatever name, but that is how I think it should be

Oh and no need to worry about their lifestyle, they already have enough invested and saved for generations to come

Me personally I think having a RF are obscene - I know there are many other millionaires and billionaires out there but the population are not indocrinated to think they are special gods better than everybody else - just some luck rich people - they don’t parade around dripping in jewelry and luxurious clothes expecting applauses and reverence

I know that at the end of the day the RF is giving the people what the people want but the people are also mislead into thinking the RF is needed and beneficial

If the head of the RF was a true lider that would be different but as a decorative figure, I think it is too much - sure keep them but make them live out of their own wealth and donations from fans, supporters, royalists and tourists - if they don’t like it, they can opt out of duties, get a normal job and live a normal life

I know - unrealistic and hard if not impossible to implement but unless everyone in the country had a comfortable+ life - that is how I think it should be

And I’m free to express my opinion even if some think it is stupid and uneducated

OP posts:
lapelouseestaurepose · 15/06/2024 10:35

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?

If only we could opt out of paying people for having children, or NI if you want to only go fully private, or libraries because you don't use them, or any other thing we don't like...

Grumpy12345 · 15/06/2024 10:39

FuckinghamPalace · 15/06/2024 10:32

I’m not saying abolish them

I wish there was a way to make it optional so people who see no value in them for society pay nothing and the others who want to support them pay whatever they want: £1, £10, £100

I’m sure some people who see value in them would still pay towards them

I know it is an utopia, no need to call me whatever name, but that is how I think it should be

Oh and no need to worry about their lifestyle, they already have enough invested and saved for generations to come

Me personally I think having a RF are obscene - I know there are many other millionaires and billionaires out there but the population are not indocrinated to think they are special gods better than everybody else - just some luck rich people - they don’t parade around dripping in jewelry and luxurious clothes expecting applauses and reverence

I know that at the end of the day the RF is giving the people what the people want but the people are also mislead into thinking the RF is needed and beneficial

If the head of the RF was a true lider that would be different but as a decorative figure, I think it is too much - sure keep them but make them live out of their own wealth and donations from fans, supporters, royalists and tourists - if they don’t like it, they can opt out of duties, get a normal job and live a normal life

I know - unrealistic and hard if not impossible to implement but unless everyone in the country had a comfortable+ life - that is how I think it should be

And I’m free to express my opinion even if some think it is stupid and uneducated

I agree OP and I don’t see how anyone who believes in democracy and meritocracy can think otherwise. Giving someone a public paid role based purely on their genes is simply an extreme form of racism. How would people feel if there were certain public sector roles that only people with genes from specific ethnic backgrounds were allowed to do. They’d be an uproar. But that is what the royal family is.

Arlanymor · 15/06/2024 10:40

I’d abolish them personally, they entrench the hereditary privilege at the centre of public life and prolong the hierarchy of the hugely socially damaging class system, plus none of the tourism or diplomacy arguments sway me (and plenty of royals have been extremely undiplomatic over time). If they truly were purely figureheads then maybe they could stick around as a historical vestige, but the King gets the same red boxes as the Prime Minister which as a non-elected individual is fundamentally wrong in my eyes.

But we can’t pick and choose where our taxes are spent, we can only elect the government that spends them (don’t get me started on proportional representation!) I’d be happy for my 77p to go the NHS, but it’s not a workable solution.

OperationSquid · 15/06/2024 10:43

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?

if the public was fully knowledgeable about the accounts and whats what, then im 50/50 but as chances are even if the public were knowledgeable some would then still be mixed on reasons for voting etc, in that case for the good that the royal family do for the country and have done.

overall the public should not have that option

CranfordScones · 15/06/2024 10:43

It's rare to see a post that openly displays such a lack of knowledge on so many different issues.

KimberleyClark · 15/06/2024 10:46

Grumpy12345 · 15/06/2024 10:39

I agree OP and I don’t see how anyone who believes in democracy and meritocracy can think otherwise. Giving someone a public paid role based purely on their genes is simply an extreme form of racism. How would people feel if there were certain public sector roles that only people with genes from specific ethnic backgrounds were allowed to do. They’d be an uproar. But that is what the royal family is.

Absolutely this.

TwoLeftSocksWithHoles · 15/06/2024 10:52

ThistleWitch · 15/06/2024 00:10

The total Sovereign Grant for 2022-23, amounted to £86.3 million (2021-22: £86.3 million), which is made up of a core grant of £51.8 million which funds official travel, property maintenance and the operating costs of The Sovereign's household. The core grant equates to 77p per person in the UK.

Are you basing this 77p per person on the entire UK population or just those who pay tax?

e.g. Do babies pay it too? 😆

OperationSquid · 15/06/2024 10:59

Economic Impact Studies

Brand Finance Reports

2017 Report: According to Brand Finance, the monarchy's annual contribution to the UK economy was estimated at £1.8 billion. This includes tourism revenue, the uplift to businesses from royal warrants, and the value of the monarchy as a global brand.

2019 Report: Another report by Brand Finance suggested that the monarchy's overall value to the UK economy could be as high as £67 billion, considering both tangible and intangible benefits.

coupdetonnerre · 15/06/2024 11:02

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Notatthemoment · 15/06/2024 11:02

YANBU.
If the royal family is such a money spinner, privatise it. I remain unconvinced and would absolutely opt out.

Portakalkedi · 15/06/2024 11:03

Nonsense, there are MANY other things I'd love to be able to opt out of paying for, but this is way down the list (and way down the list of what it costs me, the taxpayer). We all have to pay for things we don't agree with and don't support, it's the way of a democratic society.

Allshallbewell2021 · 15/06/2024 11:03

Brand Finance are a marketing company; enough said.

Their mighty reputation is self-declared.

Arlanymor · 15/06/2024 11:15

TwoLeftSocksWithHoles · 15/06/2024 10:52

Are you basing this 77p per person on the entire UK population or just those who pay tax?

e.g. Do babies pay it too? 😆

It’s how the royals themselves term it: https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23

ThistleWitch · 15/06/2024 11:16

TwoLeftSocksWithHoles · 15/06/2024 10:52

Are you basing this 77p per person on the entire UK population or just those who pay tax?

e.g. Do babies pay it too? 😆

https://www.royal.uk/media-pack/financial-reports-2022-23#:~:text=The%20total%20Sovereign%20Grant%20for,per%20person%20in%20the%20UK.

Details here

Hodge00079 · 15/06/2024 11:22

FuckinghamPalace · 15/06/2024 10:32

I’m not saying abolish them

I wish there was a way to make it optional so people who see no value in them for society pay nothing and the others who want to support them pay whatever they want: £1, £10, £100

I’m sure some people who see value in them would still pay towards them

I know it is an utopia, no need to call me whatever name, but that is how I think it should be

Oh and no need to worry about their lifestyle, they already have enough invested and saved for generations to come

Me personally I think having a RF are obscene - I know there are many other millionaires and billionaires out there but the population are not indocrinated to think they are special gods better than everybody else - just some luck rich people - they don’t parade around dripping in jewelry and luxurious clothes expecting applauses and reverence

I know that at the end of the day the RF is giving the people what the people want but the people are also mislead into thinking the RF is needed and beneficial

If the head of the RF was a true lider that would be different but as a decorative figure, I think it is too much - sure keep them but make them live out of their own wealth and donations from fans, supporters, royalists and tourists - if they don’t like it, they can opt out of duties, get a normal job and live a normal life

I know - unrealistic and hard if not impossible to implement but unless everyone in the country had a comfortable+ life - that is how I think it should be

And I’m free to express my opinion even if some think it is stupid and uneducated

Making anything optional is unlikely to work. Many will have the opinion if I don’t have to pay I won’t.

Say it is possible to have your scenario. It is not going to suddenly equate to everyone in the country being comfortable.

If by some bizarre reason I found out I was a significant member of the RF, I’d keep quiet. They is no denying they live in luxury but lives not their own.

InSpainTheRain · 15/06/2024 11:22

Great idea OP. In the new "opt out" system of tax perhaps I can opt out of paying tax for health services, schools and unemployment/disability benefits. /s

CoatRack · 15/06/2024 11:30

KimberleyClark · 15/06/2024 08:57

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..

It’s the Irish or German model we should be looking at, not the US. It’s a poor show when the only argument monarchists can come up with is “but Trump/Blair…”

laughs in mid-century German

FuckinghamPalace · 15/06/2024 11:34

I dont know why people keeping equating taxes for education, health etc with the RF.

Sure there are things that are essential for a country / population and others that are not

Or do you think that every country in the world have a RF because they are essential services? Sure you don’t.

They are not essential. Funding should be optional if this was possible. I’m sure a lot of people would opt in.

Or they could make money out if tourists that want to experience them specifically (although the magic of them be above everybody else would be gone so maybe tourists would not care as much)

They could come up with gig ideas and sell tickets just like celebrities do.

OP posts:
SlowerMovingVehicle · 15/06/2024 12:07

LivelyHare · 15/06/2024 10:15

I am really shocked at how many people have no idea how funding the Royal Family really works.

The Sovereign Grant is the annual funding mechanism of the monarchy that covers the work of the Royal Family in support of the King, including expenses to maintain their official residences and workspaces. In this exchange, the King surrenders the revenue of the Crown Estate and in return, 12% of the profits from the Crown Estates are granted back to him for official expenditure.

They GIVE us money, not TAKE from us.

I am really shocked that this kind of myth-peddling persists.

The RF is a bit like a romance scam or Ponzi scheme. They just lie seductively and some people enjoy the myth.

Fact is, the basis for the Duchy of Lancaster dates back to 1399, and it is now 2024, long after the Age of Enlightenment.

Here we are in the 21st century with a population of 65 million, but a medieval feudal system bleeding out millions of pounds to 12 people.

The Not Very United Kingdom cannot afford to indulge your fantasy, or the RF's greed. It has other problems to address.

Poppysmom22 · 15/06/2024 12:19

Tbf I’m happy to chuck my 77p in to watch their comings and goings. It’s cheaper than the telly licence which is a far greater waste of money

Aladdinzane · 15/06/2024 12:21

@Ratsoffasinkingsauage

"My understanding is that the royal estates bring in much more revenue that is is returned by either the sovereign grant or security costs. The Crown Estates pay 100% of their revenue to the treasury and they get a small portion back as the sovereign grant."

The Crown Estate does not belong to the Royal Family, in effect it belongs to the "Crown" or the Sovereign and is managed by the state.

Should we abolish the Royal Family the crown estate would certainly not be returned to the Royal Family. Essentially the link between the two is poor. Think of the Crown Estates as the same as federal land in the US, rather than something specifically to do with the Royal family.

BashfulClam · 15/06/2024 12:30

If we go down that route can we start to
opt put of other things? I don’t have children so can I opt out of paying for schools and ‘free’ nursery hours? Can I opt out of paying for elderly care as I don’t need it yet? We all pay for things that we can’t opt out of.

ThistleWitch · 15/06/2024 12:38

Poppysmom22 · 15/06/2024 12:19

Tbf I’m happy to chuck my 77p in to watch their comings and goings. It’s cheaper than the telly licence which is a far greater waste of money

Pretty sure it's my turn to have everyone's 77p this year, someone else can have it next year, I'm not greedy

Swipe left for the next trending thread