In what way do the RF "serve their country " ,what actually is their duty ?

[peridito]

I can understand that their involvement on Remembrance Sunday honours people who have served their country in terms of military service but what else do they do to "fulfill their duty " ?

Countries without Royal Families, manage very well using local dignitaries and celebrities to cut the ribbons and support charities. The idea that you need the RF to do these jobs, is crazy.

I think it should be mentioned that in diplomacy, there's a big dose of who you know, not what you know - and if you're dealing with a country that has a royal family (eg. Middle Eastern countries) then having a royal of your own to send is a politically shrewd manoeuvre.

I also feel uneasy about the idea of taking away someone's inheritance because you've declared it to be an awful lot of money/something you declare belongs to the country. I know that 'the people' are unlikely to want my 2 bed semi once I'm gone, but still, a part of me doesn't like the idea of being able to unilaterally declare someone's inheritance the property of the government.

Op, I think you're being quite dismissive of what they do. You're asking how they serve the country and when told you're dismissing it as though it's not important.

Them supporting charities and turning up to open a day centre or unveil a plaque or talk to service users generates publicity for that cause which in turn generates income and raises awareness. That's a huge benefit, not something to be dismissed with a waive of your hand.

The fact that they do this, yes with the reward of living a life of privilege, but at the cost of losing privacy means something.

LittleCandle

They hand over all the income from the Crown Estates to the Government and accept a small percentage back, which the public then moans about being too much

The monarch is getting 25% of the income from the Crown Estate which apparently in 2015/2016 was just over £304 million .Not a small percentage in my book .

Plus the Queen gets £20 million odd from the Duchy of Lancaster and Prince of Wales gets over £20million odd from the Duchy of Cornwall .

The monarch is getting 25% of the income from the Crown Estate which apparently in 2015/2016 was just over £304 million .Not a small percentage in my book

I dunno - 75% of my income getting handed to the government sounds pretty steep to me - well over the top income tax bracket.

Sorry Hearshoovers don't mean to give the impression that I'm just dismissing what they do . I honestly wondered about duty and service and answers have helped me reconsider my view ,which I've agreed was too narrow .

I don't know how to word this really ,but so much of it seems ceremony for the sake of show ( tho I agree is good for tourism ) .I agree about publicity for charities and how that must help ...but I suppose I feel the publicity in itself comes at a v large financial cost

.And personal cost to members of the RF in terms of being on show and loss of privacy .

I can't help wondering if it's worth it - maybe better if instead of fundingthe RF to carry out these duties that funding just went straight to the charity ?

A big part of the "duty" is to maintain the UK's place at the top table in the World. We, as a country, have pushed above our weight for many decades. The royal family keep the UK in the limelight across the World.

Obviously, as head of the Commonwealth, the Queen maintains valuable links with other commonwealth countries - that will be ever more important as we leave the UK and our trading alliances with Commonwealth countries become more vital.

Of course, the Royal Family also generates huge amounts of tourism which is vital for the economy.

Not to mention the important work they do as patrons of huge numbers of charities - again, it's their patronage which creates publicity, fund raising opportunities etc.

All in all, exceptional value for money.

Treestumps it's not 75% of their income .It's 75% of one of their incomes .And it's not an income from work they do ,it's income from land acquired through battles by ancestors .

The crown used to finance the cost of the civil service,defence ,national debt.In 1760 the Crown handed over the income from the Crown Estate to the Treasurery who then became responsible for those costs ,and for paying off George111's debts .

Given the additional combined income of over £40million that the RF continue to enjoy from DofL and Dof C ,I don't think it's a bad deal for them .

They provide entertainment obviously. Given how this year has started, if it continues at this pace, we should consider giving them a Christmas bonus.

I can't help wondering if it's worth it - maybe better if instead of fundingthe RF to carry out these duties that funding just went straight to the charity ?

But where would that money come from? The RF are generating far more than they cost us so you'd be losing a huge income in order to save a small expense.

"It's good for tourism
This claim is untrue and irrelevant. Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can't find any evidence for it.

Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24.

Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. "
www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism

Hearinghooves I'd be interested to learn more about how much is earned for the country v.how much the RF cost us ? And how the cost of the RF to the country has been calculated .Are there some links ?

The money could come from the the £72 odd million a yearthey are getting to carry out their royal duties .Don't forget they also have £40million + a year for personal expenses .

I'm sure if you Google it the figures are available. I'm not talking about them personally, as in the Queen shelf stacking at Tesco, but in things like tourism etc.

re the figures - can't you give some detail to explain your comment ,I presume it was based on more than a gut feeling ?

and what do you mean I'm not talking about them personally, as in the Queen shelf stacking at Tesco ?,

It's not a gut feeling, it is widely reported whenever the papers cover this topic - that the RF bring in X times more revenue than they cost. I don't have the figures, no, I would have to research them, just as you will have to and seeing as I don't want to know I don't see why I should do the work.

What I meant was that the revenue is created by interest in the RF, not by the RF going out and directly earning the money.

I'm sure if you Google it the figures are available. I'm not talking about them personally, as in the Queen shelf stacking at Tesco, but in things like tourism etc

Well that's vague. You'll have to try a bit harder than that if you're hoping to convince anyone.

it is widely reported whenever the papers cover this topic - that the RF bring in X times more revenue than they cost

It really isn't 'widely reported'.

Sources are required for you to be in anyway plausible.

I do get tired of the it's only a few pence a year comments. Many people in the UK make no positive contribution to tax revenues at all. We are a very high income family and included in our very high tax bill will be a contribution to keep the royal family living in luxury. We don't want to pay it. We think funding hospitals is more important.
In the sane world it is accepted beyond any doubt that the crown estate and Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall belong to the taxpayer and will revert to them when we cease to have a monarchy. Meanwhile the RF should be funded on a voluntary basis by those happy to fund them. I think you'll find it costs a bit more than 62p a year.

And forget the tourism claims. If we are looking to attract as many tourists as Paris we should probably follow their example with their RF.

fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/#

Well that's vague. You'll have to try a bit harder than that if you're hoping to convince anyone

I'm not hoping to convince anyone. Believe it, don't believe it I don't really care.

I'm not a huge fan of the RF but I do believe that they generate a large revenue for the country and I wouldn't want to live their life.

Presidents in parliamentary democracies play the same role as the RF, only they are appointed/elected rather than having a hereditary role.

This is not true! Presidents in parliamentary democracies can veto laws and bring down governments. The RF have zero influence in the ruling of the country. The Queen dresses up to open parliament and read a speech she didn't write and may not agree with! It's an absolute farse!!

LaCerbiatta of course I meant can play as not all presidential democracies are the same. The presidents of Greece, Germany and Ireland for example have very similar constitutional and ceremonial powers as the Queen. Of course there are national variations on the president’s constitutional powers and to what extent these have been exercised in recent history, but overall such heads of state are separate from heads of government and carry out ceremonial roles.

The Queen can dissolve Parliament if she feels like it.

So quite a lot of power there, actually.