…to suggest that it’s time the Royal family stands on its own feet and stops taking money from the public purse?

[HappyGalentines]

The Royal family owns and has access to lots of money, land and property. So is it right that they should to take any more money away from us?

Also Boris hates you

Yup, this was my point earlier in the thread. People come to see a building (most often from the outside because the tours are only for a few weeks a year and mega expensive), they don’t purely see that then go home. A city like Paris gets far more tourists despite having no monarchy, people still visit Versailles even though no one lives there. The same would happen here, it wouldn’t kill London’s tourism.

I've been searching for years. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Absolutely no legitimate sources.

£86.3M cost to taxpayer
£1.8Bn income to the UK economy

Rough order of magnitude but the income would have to be less before I chose to withdraw my £1.29 contribution.

I used to be a rabid paid-up Republican, but I’ve changed.

Of course there are many things I don’t like about the Royals, and I absolutely understand the inequality argument and even agree with it.

But honestly, I have no appetite for any more constitutional change after Brexit. As we’ve learned, it’s very arduous, very expensive, and rarely results in the savings or efficiency people think it will. The Royals cost £80 million a year, for context this is four thousandths of 1% of our welfare bill alone. How far do you think this money would go to effect change? It would be pissing into the wind.

The soft power from the Royals has proved its usefulness this year in dealing with the man baby Trump, whose only reverence seems reserved for British royalty. Compared to our lousy politicians the Queen (the Andrew payoff notwithstanding) did a great job of being a neutral, inoffensive ambassador for the UK and can hardly be described as lazy. The Monarch can’t be, they have too many functions to carry out.

As for booting them out and selling off their land, the land is mostly used for farming, something we desperately need. Would you rather see it sold to greedy developers or dodgy billionaires, desperate to cash in? Do you want to see the tenant farmers kicked out, and build over yet more of our countryside?

I’m all for a big review of spending, laws to make their financials more transparent, and to prune out the lesser members of the family who frankly we don’t need. But I think throwing the baby out with the bath water would be a massive mistake. Once you get rid of them, they can’t come back.

Can I ask why? Also if you really intrested happy to do some research been an excellent open today. What are you looking for like finacial value or things like tax paid? I think theres a ratio per tax payers somewhere.

I agree that getting rid of them would be a logistical and expensive nightmare, so why can't there be a compromise and get them to fund themselves? They are absolutely loaded so I just don't understand why the poor people should pay for the ultra rich people.

How is this income calculated? Where is the proof that without their existence, tourists would suddenly stop visiting London? Did they stop visiting Paris? Moscow? Beijing?

It’s a rubbish reason to keep them but nobody really has any others. I’ve honestly never understood working class people who stand waiting for a royal to pass by so they can wave at them and maybe shake hands with them if they’re lucky. Insane.

Defund the Royal Family!

Do you think tax payers money was used to pay off Virginia Giuffre?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/24/royal-greed-king-charles-profiting-dead-disgusting

It clearly states in the article that they died intestate.

Why should they? We’re asking them to make their lives and homes publicly property. They’re harassed 24/7, photographed 24/7, expected to turn up to charity events and functions 24/7, the Queen even woke up to a madman sat on her bed. They carry out a constitutional function we expect of them, so why wouldn’t we fund them?

Should the Prime Minister fund himself too?

I'd like to know, because I am a tax payer.

I definitely think we need financial transparency, and not to exempt them from tax laws etc - don’t get me wrong. Basically I want some financial reform, but not to kick them out completely.

Because they can afford to fund themselves.

Would you rather pay for King Andrew or President David Attenborough? If Charles or Di were infertile Andrew would be next in line and probably king in 5 years.

So now whether people should be paid to do a job of work, if publicly funded, should depend on the value of their assets etc?

Me and my family will graciously accept just 70 p from every taxpayer in the land. 50%.off, total bargain. What do you say?

You are now just being obtuse.

The King/Queen is the head of the C of E church, and the church has lots of assets, so maybe they can chip in.

Why? Can’t you just answer?

Asking the Church to fund a constitutional matter would defeat the point of separation of powers, wouldn’t it?

I believe that if tax payers fund the lavish lifestyles of the Royals, then they should be absolutely fully transparent about their finances. I also believe that if I, who earns just over minimum wage working 45 hours a week, pays tax, then so should they.
I also don't agree with funding them as I, personally, don't benefit in any way, shape or form.

I agree completely.

I’m just realistic in knowing we can’t force people to work and provide constitutional functions for free.

We agree then..