The British Monarchy

Bill Walker said:
The funeral and lying-in-state of the Queen cost taxpayers an estimated £161.7m, official figures show. Good value or should it have been paid out of their extreme wealth ?

www.independent.co.uk

Treasury reveals how many millions the Queen’s funeral cost the UK

The largest cost was reported by the Home Office at £73.7m
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...
Superb value, all day (and night) TV coverage, individuals eulogising about a woman most have never met, or understand the cloistered environment they lived within.

Her kids got back in the dressing up box to show off.

The 'lied to' Holly and the late lamented and totally honest Pip were able to queue jump.

To be fair what else could the £161.7m been used for?

Perhaps food banks or pot holes

Also laughable, how ever much Charlie inherited from his mum, no inheritance tax to pay....
 
bigstanhibbert said:
Superb value, all day (and night) TV coverage, individuals eulogising about a woman most have never met, or understand the cloistered environment they lived within.

Her kids got back in the dressing up box to show off.

The 'lied to' Holly and the late lamented and totally honest Pip were able to queue jump.

To be fair what else could the £161.7m been used for?

Perhaps food banks or pot holes

Also laughable, how ever much Charlie inherited from his mum, no inheritance tax to pay....
Click to expand...
And the pedo Andrew is free to roam the streets
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
You'd think he pays taxes in the UK and still has a TV licence, the amount of moaning he does.

@Bill Walker

Australia should have chipped in, she was your queenie too.
Click to expand...
FYI I do pay taxes in the UK.

Anyway that's beside the point. I just think it's abhorrent and disgusting that 160 million of public money is spent on a funeral for the richest women in the world (or one of them) when there are people sleeping under bridges a lot of whom require mental health help.
 
I am neither pro nor anti royal, however, I will say this.
One argument is that if we were to end the monarchy it would hit tourism.
Wandering round the summer palace in Beijing a couple of days ago, there were huge numbers of people, thousands, visiting the site.
The same would be true of the Forbidden City.
Now China hasn't had a royal family for over a hundred years, yet people still go to those sites. The same with the valley of the kings in Egypt or castles in Germany.
None of these places (and others) have had a royal presence for a very long time, but people, thousands of people, still go to them.
If we in the UK abolished the monarchy, would tourism stop do you think? Would it decrease? Would it even increase?
How much of a loss would it actually be to the nation, in £s, to not have a monarchy?
 
Grassland Blue said:
I am neither pro nor anti royal, however, I will say this.
One argument is that if we were to end the monarchy it would hit tourism.
Wandering round the summer palace in Beijing a couple of days ago, there were huge numbers of people, thousands, visiting the site.
The same would be true of the Forbidden City.
Now China hasn't had a royal family for over a hundred years, yet people still go to those sites. The same with the valley of the kings in Egypt or castles in Germany.
None of these places (and others) have had a royal presence for a very long time, but people, thousands of people, still go to them.
If we in the UK abolished the monarchy, would tourism stop do you think? Would it decrease? Would it even increase?
How much of a loss would it actually be to the nation, in £s, to not have a monarchy?
Click to expand...
Paris has the most tourism. No Royals.
I don't think tourists expect to see a Royal person. It's more the famous buildings etc.
 
Grassland Blue said:
I am neither pro nor anti royal, however, I will say this.
One argument is that if we were to end the monarchy it would hit tourism.
Wandering round the summer palace in Beijing a couple of days ago, there were huge numbers of people, thousands, visiting the site.
The same would be true of the Forbidden City.
Now China hasn't had a royal family for over a hundred years, yet people still go to those sites. The same with the valley of the kings in Egypt or castles in Germany.
None of these places (and others) have had a royal presence for a very long time, but people, thousands of people, still go to them.
If we in the UK abolished the monarchy, would tourism stop do you think? Would it decrease? Would it even increase?
How much of a loss would it actually be to the nation, in £s, to not have a monarchy?
Click to expand...
People visit (mainly) London to see the palace buildings not the royals. It would change nothing. Infact you could argue tourism would increase because they could open the palaces up for people to tour round.
 
Trickyblues said:
People visit (mainly) London to see the palace buildings not the royals. It would change nothing. Infact you could argue tourism would increase because they could open the palaces up for people to tour round.
Click to expand...

Yep, the tourism argument doesn't really stand up to scrutiny when you look at other former monarchies. For me personally, just don't see how they justify their position in modern Britain, exemplified by the grotesque spending on Charles' coronation whilst we're in the middle of a cost of living crisis.
 
MeatnSpudsMCFC said:
Irrespective of it's economic or diplomatic value, the royal individuals post Elizabeth II have come across extremely sleazy.
Click to expand...

The Royal family always were sleazy before her. But Lizzie was a simple person in not having and great delights other than dogs and horses, and settling down and marrying her cousin as a young adult.
 
Trickyblues said:
People visit (mainly) London to see the palace buildings not the royals. It would change nothing. Infact you could argue tourism would increase because they could open the palaces up for people to tour round.
Click to expand...
Or turn them into state run and owned hotels. Tidy little earner.
 
Have to say I thoroughly enjoyed the Trooping of the Colour today, thought it was the best for one for years, with the fly past being a particular highlight.

Nice to see the King on such good form, especially when he was calming his horse down on the way to parade. Also, credit where it’s due, the coverage from the BBC was very good. The piece on HM’s military service was really interesting, especially the comments from the injured Gurkha. Clearly a very brave bloke.
 
Trickyblues said:
People visit (mainly) London to see the palace buildings not the royals. It would change nothing. Infact you could argue tourism would increase because they could open the palaces up for people to tour round.
Click to expand...

True - how often are they in London? None of them like Buck House - all the grace and favour mansions ( sorry cottages ) where they have accommodation will be well protected so you can't get near them - The Queen and Phillip and the Queen Mother always preferred Sandringham and Balmoral which is why they spent down time there at Christmas and over summer and you ain't getting too near to those properties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top