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?

what about administrative costs?

@FelievedToFeSpeakingFollocks 🤣🤣🤣

Classic monarchist argument.

Bless.

When one has nothing intelligent or of value to add to the conversation, it seems some have chosen to resort to nonsensical statements or something they have deemed to be an insult.

Pass for the former.

Fail for the latter.

Well done.

Should not be funding them they get enough wealth from the inherited land which makes up billions of acres.

👍😁

I would opt out in a heartbeat. To have human beings existing in a state of opulence purely by blood is frankly abhorrent. The media coverage of Kate and her appearance in public today is infuriating. She is receiving the best of care and yet she 'manages to make it out' 😂 whoopie-doo!

There are many things I'd opt out of before I opted out of the royal family

YABU. There is a separate topic for the Royal Family which people like me opt out of.

I agree with the sentiment in that we shouldn’t pay for them but this would be a nightmare to administer.

@Arlanymor @ThistleWitch

Thank you,
Yes it appears that the 77p per person is based on the UK population of 66.97 million, (although less than half of that number are actual tax payers.)

France earn more in tourism than we do. They haven’t had a monarchy for a very long time.

The palaces, castles etc still draw in holidaymakers, 🤷‍♀️

Isn’t France slightly bigger than us? Is that just based on looking at Royal palaces?

No worries and you are exactly right.

My argument against them isn’t monetary so whatever it works out per person isn’t one of my concerns as I believe monarchy is the antithesis of democracy.

The old royal places olone have more visitors than we do.

I would agree with you.

And they stole all the land after 1066!

The UK's constitutional monarchy exemplifies how these two systems can coexist and support each other. The monarchy's role in state functions, such as the opening of Parliament and the granting of royal assent to legislation, reinforces the democratic processes while maintaining a sense of historical continuity. Moreover, the monarchy contributes to national unity by transcending political divides and serving as a non-partisan figurehead.

The monarchy also plays a significant role in public life through charitable work and fostering international relations. The Royal Family's involvement in numerous charities and public engagements helps to highlight and support various causes, contributing to social cohesion and national pride. Additionally, the monarchy's diplomatic role in state visits and international relations helps to maintain and enhance the UK's global standing.

Thus, while monarchy and democracy may appear as antithetical, the UK’s example illustrates how they can be integrated to create a robust and stable governance system.

Thanks for your cut and paste.

I could not disagree with you more. That is all monarchist bullshit.

doesn't make it wrong

Oh I get it now. Tee hee ha ha.

Doesn’t make it right either. Make your own arguments.

without the monarchy, do the public want yes president ?

I could genuinely dismantle all of what you have posted if you want?

yes please step by step point by point as it helps educate me

What is a yes president? Do you mean a Head of State? So like France - a President and a Prime Minister?