It is said to cost an estimated £50 million of taxpayers money to protect 22 members of the Royal Family every year which includes a B-list.
Do we really need to protect 22? Who should be protected? Who shouldn't?
Take a look at this article to see the estimated costs for Princess Eugenie who is currently 6th in line to the throne, and the costs involved in protecting her alone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st-royals.html
What's so special about the "royal" family, really? :l
No. They're rich enough to pay for it themselves.
It is alarming, but my view is... I'd rather have a unique identity of this country that seperates it from other European nations. The Royal Family make this country interesting. It would be interesting to see an estimated calculation on how much the Royal Family make in tourism for the country, just to see how out of pocket we are :P
I think its said the amount of money they bring in by tourists coming to the UK is huge to what they cost us. Not my idea of a holiday but all the castles and all the other stuff that goes on gives the camera mad japanese the time of their lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrselenagomez
I think you are right about most but we do need to look after say the top 5. That fergies kids are as useless as her and one of her kids even had 24/7 security when she went on her gap year (They said she was travelling lol Rolls royce and private jets?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Adamm
How about they get security when doing official Royal Duties? Not when they are on the booze in clubs at 2am or on their own shopping trips.
I think it is right to protect any heir to the throne, but not really anybody else, anybody else should pay for their own protection like any other famous person/celebrity would.
An interesting one, yes I think it is right but maybe not that much and it could be partly or even fully funded by the Royals themselves for that matter. I stand by the Royal Family 100% though. I do wish the Royals would exercise their powers more though (thus blocking any treaties like Lisbon which remove sovereignty from the United Kingdom) and so forth. It would prompt a constitutional crisis but in the end everything hangs on it, including the future of the monarchy itself.
The palaces themselves are crumbling which are part of the history of the United Kingdom and belong to the country as a whole yet this government refuses to fund them. The whole reason we pay tax is for reasons such as the one I have just mentioned, not to waste or give away to other countries/organisations.
It is completely right to protect them. Maybe not spnding that much, but still.
We don't actualyl need a royal family, it's simply tradition and part oft his country. The only reason we have it there is for tourism, the amount of money it brings in probably exceeds 50mil by a lot.
Yeah,it is right to protect the royal family but nothing too much and 50 mils is OTT in my opinion.To be honest,they should only really really protect heirs to the throne
Short answer: I don't think we should even have a monarchy, so no.
Even putting aside my disdain for these sponges, still no. The monarchy should be assisting to run the country, not gallivanting everywhere with bouncers built like Arnie and price tags the size of actors.