Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Can anyone please tell me....

167 replies

Ihateboris · 18/11/2025 20:33

What they actually do for us, the British tax payer? If anyone comes along and says they bring in more than they cost, kindly provide a current legitimate source..not a quote from ChatGpt.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
ShenendoahRiver · 18/11/2025 20:35

They have 'soft power' allegedly.. .see the Trump state visit in September..where they arse licked him for 2 days.

Ihateboris · 18/11/2025 20:36

ShenendoahRiver · 18/11/2025 20:35

They have 'soft power' allegedly.. .see the Trump state visit in September..where they arse licked him for 2 days.

Oh yeah..."soft power "..cringe

OP posts:
Ihateboris · 18/11/2025 20:37

I have a feeling this thread won't get many replies

OP posts:
Rhaidimiddim · 18/11/2025 21:12

The current monarch acts as our Head of State. Someone has to and this is how we get our HoS under the current system.

The rest of them support the poor sod who drew the short straw in the way s/he requires.

BeeWitchy · 18/11/2025 21:53

Ihateboris · 18/11/2025 20:37

I have a feeling this thread won't get many replies

this thread might do better over in the Politics section.

Reddog1 · 18/11/2025 22:30

I’m not pro royalty but I think it’s going to be hard for anyone to answer that. I don’t know where you’d start with the figures. Mainly because it’s not particularly transparent. These people have been hoarding significant wealth and assets for centuries. And I’ve no idea whether tourists would continue to visit in high numbers, although I suspect they might.

I do see the value of soft diplomacy and of things like William appearing on the cover of Attitude magazine, and Eugenie wearing a wedding dress that revealed her scars (although high-profile actors and sportspeople can do that kind of good too, if they wish).

My stance is more ideological than financial so I’m not really that bothered about the maths tbh.

Twonewcats · 19/11/2025 01:08

Ok. So I'm not necessarily a royalist. BUT I cannot picture a future if the UK that doesn't involve tourists coming to London because of the Royals.
If there were no royal family, imo there would be a significantly lower nbr of people coming from far afield to see Buckingham Palace etc.
Additionally, I have no objection with paying a few pounds a year for my share of them.

jumpingthehighjump · 19/11/2025 07:12

Twonewcats · 19/11/2025 01:08

Ok. So I'm not necessarily a royalist. BUT I cannot picture a future if the UK that doesn't involve tourists coming to London because of the Royals.
If there were no royal family, imo there would be a significantly lower nbr of people coming from far afield to see Buckingham Palace etc.
Additionally, I have no objection with paying a few pounds a year for my share of them.

Totally disagree.

More of the stately homes and palaces would be open to the public. No one comes to London expecting to SEE a member of the royal family. All the pomp that tourists love like trooping of the color, horse guards parade etc would still take place
I believe tourism would increase.

CurlewKate · 19/11/2025 07:17

Twonewcats · 19/11/2025 01:08

Ok. So I'm not necessarily a royalist. BUT I cannot picture a future if the UK that doesn't involve tourists coming to London because of the Royals.
If there were no royal family, imo there would be a significantly lower nbr of people coming from far afield to see Buckingham Palace etc.
Additionally, I have no objection with paying a few pounds a year for my share of them.

I refer the Honourable Member to France.

MrsLeonFarrell · 19/11/2025 07:20

Rhaidimiddim · 18/11/2025 21:12

The current monarch acts as our Head of State. Someone has to and this is how we get our HoS under the current system.

The rest of them support the poor sod who drew the short straw in the way s/he requires.

Basically this. We live in a constitutional monarchy and therefore require a monarch. The monarch has representatives, the senior working royals, who carry out duties on his behalf, and on behalf of the Government and join him at State occasions: Trooping the Colour, Remembrance Sunday, State Opening of Parliament etc.

If we no longer wish to live under this system we need to debate on and vote in another one. I'm personally not convinced it will be much cheaper to have an elected Head of State, assuming we choose our system purely on cost which I'm not sure is the best way.

OneBusyFinch · 19/11/2025 07:24

’And what do you do?’ by Norman Baker is a good read for your question @Ihateboris

Republic have an excellent selection in their online shop

Can anyone please tell me....
Can anyone please tell me....
Can anyone please tell me....
Can anyone please tell me....
chunkyBoo · 19/11/2025 07:35

I quite like having a RF, but they need to slim it down so only working royals have titles and any claim to tax payers money, royal residences etc. all state owned estates should have paid entry that filters into the upkeep.

NewAgeNewMe · 19/11/2025 07:47

ShenendoahRiver · 18/11/2025 20:35

They have 'soft power' allegedly.. .see the Trump state visit in September..where they arse licked him for 2 days.

Which they did as representatives of the government.

If you have an issue with them entertaining Trump, (and I can see why 😁) then take it up with the government.

We are a constitutional monarchy & until such time we are a republic, then the job of the monarch, is to entertain whoever the government of the day wants to.

Personally, I don’t think we will still be a monarchy in 30 years or so but that’s just my opinion.

NewAgeNewMe · 19/11/2025 07:52

Also I’m shallow and I quite like the bling, which imo they don’t do enough of! I think if we have a RF bring on the bling. They have so use it.

But as @chunkyBoo says cut down on titles. I think should be monarch, spouse, dcs and heir only. No Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis till William is king. Just Prince George. Unless working royals.

I’d do it retrospectively so no Prince/Princess Beatrice, eugenie, Archie, lilibet. Edinburgh dcs wouldn’t matter as they don’t use their HRH titles anyway. Keep for Kent and Gloucester as they have been working royals.

CurlewKate · 19/11/2025 08:02

Also, people say that it’s only a couple of quid each. But it adds up to a decent chunk of cash that could be much better directed.

NunsOnTheRum · 19/11/2025 08:44

No stats to offer just opinion and experience. Never been much of a royalist but have a more positive opinion of them having lived overseas for key Royal events - wedding of Catherine & William, wedding of Harry & Meghan, one of the big jubilees etc and seen the interest they generate.

There was a huge fascination in those events, I must add I wasn’t living in commonwealth countries at the time either.

For the wedding of Harry & Meghan I was invited to publicly comment live on the wedding in front of a group of about 30 people, rather like a BBC Royal reporter, just because I was British. This was a communal viewing of the event in a hall in the village where I lived. Most bizarre.

Catherine is barely off the front cover of celebrity mags since her wedding and she isn’t of any significance in those countries.

I live in the UK now, London, and am regularly visited by friends from the countries where I once lived. Their weekend tours revolve around visits to the palaces, shopping in F&M and the Kings rd and enquiring as to whether a well dressed woman we passed in the street “was in her way to have tea with the King!!” or “a friend of Catherine!!”. No she was just your average Sloane ranger.

There is a huge fascination with them overseas that prior to living there I wasn’t aware of and that drives a lot of the tourism. It isn’t our weather or food. I think one of the reasons there is so much interest is Catherine herself. Her eloquent conservative dress is rare in an age when most celebrities seem happy to be photographed exposing their private parts in see-through dresses. To many of the foreign women I know who were so utterly fascinated in the Royals, Catherine was a real life fantasy Princess.

CurlewKate · 19/11/2025 08:54

NunsOnTheRum · 19/11/2025 08:44

No stats to offer just opinion and experience. Never been much of a royalist but have a more positive opinion of them having lived overseas for key Royal events - wedding of Catherine & William, wedding of Harry & Meghan, one of the big jubilees etc and seen the interest they generate.

There was a huge fascination in those events, I must add I wasn’t living in commonwealth countries at the time either.

For the wedding of Harry & Meghan I was invited to publicly comment live on the wedding in front of a group of about 30 people, rather like a BBC Royal reporter, just because I was British. This was a communal viewing of the event in a hall in the village where I lived. Most bizarre.

Catherine is barely off the front cover of celebrity mags since her wedding and she isn’t of any significance in those countries.

I live in the UK now, London, and am regularly visited by friends from the countries where I once lived. Their weekend tours revolve around visits to the palaces, shopping in F&M and the Kings rd and enquiring as to whether a well dressed woman we passed in the street “was in her way to have tea with the King!!” or “a friend of Catherine!!”. No she was just your average Sloane ranger.

There is a huge fascination with them overseas that prior to living there I wasn’t aware of and that drives a lot of the tourism. It isn’t our weather or food. I think one of the reasons there is so much interest is Catherine herself. Her eloquent conservative dress is rare in an age when most celebrities seem happy to be photographed exposing their private parts in see-through dresses. To many of the foreign women I know who were so utterly fascinated in the Royals, Catherine was a real life fantasy Princess.

That just fuels my already pretty rampant Republicanism-how on earth is that a healthy mindset! Or a way we as British people want to be regarded abroad?

Ihateboris · 19/11/2025 08:55

OneBusyFinch · 19/11/2025 07:24

’And what do you do?’ by Norman Baker is a good read for your question @Ihateboris

Republic have an excellent selection in their online shop

Thank you for this recommendation

OP posts:
CurlewKate · 19/11/2025 09:37

TatianaTwinkletoes · 19/11/2025 09:23

Recent attempts to measure the size of the impact of the royal family on UK tourism have estimated the capital value of UK monarchy as a business to be £67.5 billion (up from £44 billion in 2012) and the annual contribution to the UK economy to be £1.766 billion
https://www.regionalstudies.org/rsa-blog/blog-the-impact-of-the-uk-royal-family-on-tourism/

Interestingly, nothing about how and by whom those attempts to measure the impact were made. Or who funds the research.

GeneralPeter · 19/11/2025 09:38

Splitting the head of state from head of government is good. Even in terms of just freeing up the PM’s calendar from ceremonial duties.

An elected head of state is unlikely to be anyone more inspiring. Typically becomes an extension of politics.

They probably do repay their cost in soft power and tourism. It’s one of the most distinctive things about the UK overseas.

The symbolism is a problem, if you focus on the inequality.

But there’s a different symbolism that I think is more important. That’s that it provides a national symbol and focus of patriotism that isn’t the government.

RainbowBagels · 19/11/2025 09:42

Twonewcats · 19/11/2025 01:08

Ok. So I'm not necessarily a royalist. BUT I cannot picture a future if the UK that doesn't involve tourists coming to London because of the Royals.
If there were no royal family, imo there would be a significantly lower nbr of people coming from far afield to see Buckingham Palace etc.
Additionally, I have no objection with paying a few pounds a year for my share of them.

So do you think that if the tourists had a choice of standing outside Buckingham Palace and staring up at an empty balcony from behind the gates or opening up the whole place all year round, putting the priceless art collection that is apparently 'ours' but we aren't allowed to see for the most part on display they would rather stand outside looking at an empty balcony?

RainbowBagels · 19/11/2025 09:48

NewAgeNewMe · 19/11/2025 07:52

Also I’m shallow and I quite like the bling, which imo they don’t do enough of! I think if we have a RF bring on the bling. They have so use it.

But as @chunkyBoo says cut down on titles. I think should be monarch, spouse, dcs and heir only. No Princess Charlotte or Prince Louis till William is king. Just Prince George. Unless working royals.

I’d do it retrospectively so no Prince/Princess Beatrice, eugenie, Archie, lilibet. Edinburgh dcs wouldn’t matter as they don’t use their HRH titles anyway. Keep for Kent and Gloucester as they have been working royals.

I agree with you. I would go further and say no Prince/Princess for anyone but the heirs. if its that much of a burden to them, let the younger ones go. An elected head of state doesn't need to rope their siblings into the job. There is only one official job. The hangers on need to go. They can be invited to banquets, balconies etc. That isn't work and they will be benefitting hugely anyway from being related to the King. They can turn up to the occasional posh dinner to make up the numbers. They just don't need to be kept there dependent on their dad/brother for eternity, getting more and more irrelevant as time goes on.

RainbowBagels · 19/11/2025 09:52

CurlewKate · 19/11/2025 08:54

That just fuels my already pretty rampant Republicanism-how on earth is that a healthy mindset! Or a way we as British people want to be regarded abroad?

Exactly. Do we want to be a proper country or a land of real life Disney theme park for tourists? If the reason to keep the Monarchy in the form it currently is as for some kind of entertainment for foreigners, then they can pay for them by coming here and pay to go into the Palaces!

TheWorldIsCrushingMe · 19/11/2025 10:02

jumpingthehighjump · 19/11/2025 07:12

Totally disagree.

More of the stately homes and palaces would be open to the public. No one comes to London expecting to SEE a member of the royal family. All the pomp that tourists love like trooping of the color, horse guards parade etc would still take place
I believe tourism would increase.

Edited

Absolutely. People visit Versailles. Buckingham Palace would still be a big tourist draw sans Royal Family.

Swipe left for the next trending thread