UK Tax Payer to foot Royal Wedding Security Bill, why?

[EggFriedRice]

Just been announced on the news that the UK taxpayer is footing the security bill for the Royal wedding in April 2011. I am not personally a fan of the royal family nor is my DH, we don't agree that our taxes should be spent on someones wedding security arrangements. Why is the Queen not paying for this after all she is one of the wealthiest women in the world? With all of the cuts being announced I don't feel that it is right or fair to make the taxpayer pay for the royals security wedding plans. They will never suffer the hardships that so many people are or will be going through in this country it is a disgrace imo.
I suppose the extra Bank Holiday on 29th April 2011 is to keep us happy

"Do royalists really think that if we de-throned this family we wouldn't get any tourists, I don't think so"

Do anti-royalists really believe we'd be better off if we dethroned them? The knee-jerk, hang'em up school of thought has no logic to it. You and I would not be a penny better off, the royal family would remain well-off & lose any obligation to serve the country.

What would be the point? People moan about forelock-tugging and kowtowing, but nobody is obliged to indulge in this any more. As Desiderata says, some of the most stable & progressive democracies (and for all our faults, that includes this one) are constitutional monarchies. We strung up the monarch once and quickly got fed up with the miserable bunch of republicans he was replaced with.

I'm quick to accept that the monarchy is pretty anachronistic in this day and age, but 'blood thirsty money sucking vampires'? Nah...the Queen is in her 80's and does an average of at least one public engagement every day of the year. Fuck, I wouldn't fancy having to do that in my 80's. She keeps on top of political situations, reviews parliamentary papers, supports charities. The number of young people the Prince's Trust has helped get a start over the years when banks turn their noses up at them is huge.

They can keep the annual £1 or so they cost me. I'm not interested in them or their lives but they don't impact on my life, generate more tax and tourist revenue than they cost & support charities and people that dearly need it. I don't think that's bad value frankly.

Just out of curiosity, and I haven't read the whole thread so the question may already have been asked, but if you are a bit of a royal hater will you still take up the offer of an extra bank holiday?

Great post Bob.

In my experience, those who are vehemently against the Royals tend to be those who also hate anyone who is richer and more successful than them.

I would also hate to have a life where everything is mapped out for me. Can you imagine that from birth you know that no matter what you do, you will be crowned King. And what about Harry whose sole purpose seems to be a backup for his brother.

I wouldn't be able to pop down to Starbucks for a coffee without an armed guard, or decide "sod it" and mooch around the high street in my slobby clothes.

Being rich is one thing but they have no freedom.

Will we still take up the offer of an extra bank holiday?

As in, will our family (DH is a freelance contractor so gets paid by the day and doesn't get paid for bank holidays) lose out on an day's work and an extra day's pay? Yes. Hoorah. Thanks for that.

I have nothing against (most of) the royal family as individuals, but I do think hereditary power is objectionable in principle. And if we were to keep a monarchy at all (which I'd rather not) I would prefer something along the Spanish model rather than a system where people are employed to squeeze the royal toothpaste.

I do think hereditary power is objectionable in principle.

"Can you imagine that from birth you know that no matter what you do, you will be crowned King"

They do have a choice, Edward abdicated, so you're only King/Queen if you choose to be. Yes I'm sure that duty is hammered into them from an early age but it is still a choice.

"I wouldn't be able to pop down to Starbucks for a coffee without an armed guard, or decide "sod it" and mooch around the high street in my slobby clothes."

Other European Monarchies do manage to live a far more low key lifestyle when compared to ours. So again there is some degree of "choice" about this.

There is also a choice about being so ill informed/tactless/selfish so as to do stupid things like gallivant around in military helicopters to go to stag dos.

"Being rich is one thing but they have no freedom."

As said above any of them could walk away from the roles that birth has given them. That's not a perfect freedom, they've never be "normal", but they don't have to be monarchs and they don't have to take the public's money.

For the record I'm kind of a lazy anti-monarchist.

I dislike the idea of certain people being born to positions.

However I dislike the idea of meddling with the political system of this country far more and don't want an elected head of state who would want to be involved politically with the country. The situation we have now where the Royals basically have to keep their noses out of the politics of this country is really rather ideal.

I also don't believe that scrapping the Royals would save that much money.

So all things told things are best left as they are, with perhaps some more modernisation and moderation from the Royals.

ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave, DH & I are both freelance contractors too . Thinking we may rent out our London flat to any American tourists who can't get a hotel, leave town and try to make up some of the difference that way....

Niceguy2, I'd fight shy of describing royal haters as jealous of the rich and successful (successful doesn't really apply to people who're royal by accident of birth after all) but ime it's all about emotional response, and having done the emotional knee-jerk stuff when I was younger I prefer to take the more dispassionate & logical approach now I'm more long in the tooth

I'm not saying I would be better off, I'm not thick you know . I don't think this outdated institution does our country any favours anymore and isn't the way forward in a modern democracy. My parents were -brain washed-- brought up to respect the monarchy, this was a 3 generations ago, we weren't and neither are our DC's.

As for the Americans loving it perhaps they do but I can imagine they would out and right reject a sovereign reining over them. They love it in the same way they love Benny Hill and the likes. Little Ole England' so cute.

The Royals are the reason masses of people come to the UK- they are the ONLY reason a lot of folk come.
And they are our Royal family
Of course we should pay.

lets fund security by making those that want to watch pay for a ticket.

I don't think this outdated institution does our country any favours anymore and isn't the way forward in a modern democracy

It's not just Americans - see my post about my time in Zimbabwe at the time of Diana's funeral.

These were people living in an SOS village, in a very poor suburb of Harare.

As for the "ruling over us" - is their role no longer nothing more than a mere formality and "tradition" these days.

I mean - how likely is it that the Queen says "no - I don't like your elected leader I'm not going to ask him to take over the running of the country"???

"The Royals are the reason masses of people come to the UK- they are the ONLY reason a lot of folk come."

Do you have any evidence to back that up at all? The UK Tourist bodies don't say that and it's their job to know what really attracts tourists to this country.

What gets more visitors? The Tower of London, with no royals, or Windsor Castle a genuine Royal Residence.

I think there's a pretty good argument to make that the Wedding will bring in tourists, but we won't know that until after the event and that's got nothing to do with day to day tourist revenue.

Trying to defend the monarchy on the grounds of it's impact on tourism really isn't the way to go. The figures actually show that when they do vacate a property the number of tourists, and the income from them, sky rockets. In answer to the above question the Tower of London trumps Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace is nowehre close.

So if you say that we should use the tourist figures and revenue to decide the shape of our constitution then you're actually arguing to give the Royals the boot....

I said 'reigning' OK spelt it wrong not 'ruling'.

I don't think there is any evidence to back up the fact that the Royals are the only reason people come her or to Niceguys claims that they bring in more than they take out.

Sorry - ruling/reigning - whatever - it's a ceremonial role that actually makes no impact on your day to day life.

I believe there is plenty of evidence of how much tax the Royals pay - right now I can only find the £3.4m that Charles paid in tax last year from the Duchy. Thought I'm sure I saw a figure

\link{http://www.eturbonews.com/17569/foreign-tourists-spend-500-million-year-visiting-all-things-roya\article here suggesting £500million just on visiting places linked to the monarchy}

and given the amount of "tack" that is already available to commemorate the wedding (and how much of it you see around in general) I think we can safely say that businesses selling it do fairly well out of it - which of course is good for the economy.

Well some people may come to see the royals but its not the only reason. They form part of the package don't they?

So to extend my Disney example earlier. Mickey Mouse is the lead character but is not the biggest moneyspinner, and not even the most popular. if they got rid of him, I'm sure people would still go to visit Disneyland. So using that logic, Disney should get rid of Mickey yes?

There is PLENTY of evidence to support the fact they bring in more money. Do you even know what the Crown Estate is? Their income is a matter of public record which is easily googled. Ditto with the civil list. The rest is simple arithmetic.

Presumably if we did give the royals the boot, the income they generate via the Crown Estate would then become private and we'd only see a portion of the profit via taxes. That is unless you support state supported theft.

Lastly, anyone fancy President Cameron & Vice President Clegg?

Nah. It'd be President Tony and First Lady you--know-who.

I do have a vague memory that the Queen can make comment/have input to national issues but that in practice this has rarely happened (ie less than 5 times). It was on telly, so must be true

The example discussed related to apartheid - essentially the discussion was that Maggie wanted to trade with S Africa but the Queen put her foot down - South Africa is a member of the Commonwealth and therefore as head of the commonwealth she felt she had an obligation to say something.

And no, I haven't checked my facts (really don't have that much time or the inclination), so am sure this will be refuted - but I do remember the discussion!

oh I just felt a little bit sick then as I read your last line.

I'm no monarchist, but the thoughts of those 2 with those titles makes me feel a little ill.

God could you imagine if the Crown Estate became private and decided to stop the public access which we currently have

God I can't blame her if it's true about Apartheid.

"article here suggesting £500million just on visiting places linked to the monarchy"

Tower of London, hasn't been a full time Royal Residence since the 1500s, 2.4 million visitors.

Buckingham Palace, still a Royal Residence, 0,4 million visitors.

As said that suggests that kicking the Royals out of a building is a very beneficial thing to do, if it's tourists that you're after.

"So using that logic, Disney should get rid of Mickey yes?"

Hardly the same. Mickey can be kept going for minimal outlay by Disney. The tourist argument for the Royals accepts that they have considerable outlays but recoup those costs through tourism.

If Mickey cost a lot to put in the parks and no one was going there to see him we'd see Disney dump him pretty sharpish.

But that's presuming we should change our constitution to something that makes hard financial sense, and I'm not actually suggesting that.

"Do you even know what the Crown Estate is?"

Yup.

And it's not the private property of the Monarch and it's revenues to directly to the Treasury.

If we gave them the boot why would their be a change in that? Why would it become private revenue? Why wouldn't it continue to be owned and run by the State?

"There is PLENTY of evidence to support the fact they bring in more money."

No there's not, there's really not and Royalists can't produce it.

However it's worth noting that Republicans can't produce figures that show that they cost us far more than we get in return either.

If the figures were that big then one side or the other would be able to dig them out, so I strongly suspect that the overall costs and benefits in pure financial terms are negligible.

"Lastly, anyone fancy President Cameron & Vice President Clegg?"

If people voted for them who would you be to say that we shouldn't have them?

But personally that's why I'm not in favour of scrapping the monarchy. We'd either replace a pointless Monarch with a pointless President or we'd have someone messing in politics.

The British Constitution is something that's evolved over more than 1000 years, I'm not keen to rip it to bits over an argument from the bean counters when the sums cannot be great.

"
The British Constitution is something that's evolved over more than 1000 years, I'm not keen to rip it to bits over an argument from the bean counters when the sums cannot be great."

Agree with that. (Given that neither side in this debate on figures seem to be able to produce any concrete figures ).

I still believe though that the Monarchy is something that draws visitors to the UK

lol at comparing them to Mickey Mouse et al.

I keep having an image of The Queen with Mickey Mouse ears on our postage stamps..........