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.
no one really attacks them. :S
bigtimee. monarchy has no place in the 21st centuryQuote:
Originally Posted by DrLacero
Money well spent then? :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Gibs960
obviously, cause most of them have 24 hour armed protection officers? :SQuote:
Originally Posted by Gibs960
Yes. We pay so much for foreigners sponging off us and giving murderers new identities so why not.
That's a joke
Sorry, we cant fund schools, hospitals etc, because the queens decided to get on a train for once in her life and we need to close a platform, have 100 armed gaurds all over the place to protect her. 50 million though, and who's princess Eugene?! If nobody knows who she is why does she need protecting?
Suppose we have to pay something towards it though, her pension probably barely covers heating :P
Agree with Joe completely.
Who is the Princess can'tspellhername anyway no one knows her shes a party-all-night person only to be expected
OH BTW SHES AN UGLY PERSON I'd make a lovely princess :)
Why not? - is it because all the trendy politically correct, left-wing 'down wiv da students' politicians think that? is it because Scotland (which is funded by England) is opposed to anything which is remotely British or English? - history has shown that the most stable countries in the world have had monarchies and the British monarchy united hundreds of millions across our Empire to fight for freedom against the Third Reich and the Japanese Empire in WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eoin
Then again, you are the same one who voted that we should give the Falklands to Argentina despite the fact that the people of the Falklands want to remain a colony of the United Kingdom and that Argentina didnt even exist as a country when we acquired the Falklands which just suggests to me that theres no patriotism or pride in you for this country and its history. Would you rather have a President Blair as opposed to Queen Elizabeth II? - In response to an earlier post, the Royal Family is consulted on issues although it cannot step out with its opinion as it would provoke a consitutional crisis. To put this in perspective; we give £40 million a day (and rising thanks to Lisbon and the surrended rebate) to the European Union and thats only directly.
Completely agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman
Protect them - maybe
Spend £50 mil - no
It's too much! maybe a few million, but 50 is immense. Can't they use their own money anyway?
THE LINE OF SUCCESSIONQuote:
Originally Posted by BlurredView
Sovereign
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. Viscount Severn
9. The Lady Louise Windsor
10. The Princess Royal
11. Mr. Peter Phillips
12. Miss Zara Phillips
13. Viscount Linley
14. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
15. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
16. The Lady Sarah Chatto
17. Master Samuel Chatto
18. Master Arthur Chatto
19. The Duke of Gloucester
20. Earl of Ulster
21. Lord Culloden
22. The Lady Davina Lewis
23. The Lady Rose Windsor
24. The Duke of Kent
25. The Lady Amelia Windsor
26. The Lady Helen Taylor
27. Master Columbus Taylor
28. Master Cassius Taylor
29. Miss Eloise Taylor
30. Miss Estella Taylor
31. The Lord Frederick Windsor
32. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
33. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
34. Mr. James Ogilvy
35. Master Alexander Ogilvy
36. Miss Flora Ogilvy
37. Miss Marina Ogilvy
38. Master Christian Mowatt
39. Miss Zenouska Mowatt
40. The Earl of Harewood
Above is the line of Succession, and when Prince William and Prince Harry marry and have children, their children will go immediately above the Duke of York and his family.
I don't have a problem paying taxes to protect our Queen or her husband the Duke of Edinburgh, after all she is our Head of State and represents Britain to the rest of the world, as well as having some very important duties to perform here too. What does concern me is that the £50 million is for 22 people. Who are these 22 people who need protection?
I can understand those first in line to the throne being protected, and rightly so, but the rest?
I'm not from the UK so I don't know how much this ties in with cultural or historical importance so what I'm saying could possibly be wrong, but I think there's a heck of a lot better things to spend 100 million dollars on.
The UK is one of the few countries which actually have a Royal Family, so I'm all for protecting them and keeping them going. As previously mentioned, they bring tourists to the country who in turn, spend money here.
I do however, think that protecting 22 of them is crazy. Some we've never heard of and it's highly unlikely anyone past Harry and William will make it to the throne due to their kids getting there first.
I think the 'royal' family are just the same as us. And should have the same amount of government protection than the rest of us do.
They're not the same as us it has to be said. My family didn't control over a quarter of the world just over a hundred years ago, they haven't spread democracy and freedom across the world either.
The royal family serve as a link to our past, and more and more, history is being forgotten and we're getting dissolved into the EU (Whether this is for the good/bad is up to you, but the fact is, we're losing our sense of national identity and stance in the world). It is essential we keep them for this reason alone, I also believe they still do a lot of good for the country, their many charities and tourism for example.
Do we really want Gordon Brown as our head of state and president?
Stopping to protect them would show they're on the way out, so yes, it is right to spend that much on them.
No its not right, what does she think she is a queen?
na but rlly 50mil? common they could cutt bk a bit
If the Royal family are under any sort of threat, then I say don't have a Royal family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi
exactly have a chicken royal na tho srs its a big waste of money, fair enough they bring in money and that but its just far 2 much hassle and i dont think they make 50mil off tourists even if they werent there ud still get tourists
Well I wouldn't like to be in their shoes - they seem to work 24 hours a day. I do believe they are worth the money. Prince Andrew persuaded a overseas company to invest millions in the new Lotus Team in Norfolk so that is just one example of the wealth he and the rest of the family they create for this country. Link to story:
http://www.yallaf1.com/2010/02/23/pr...-f1-race-suit/
Also as Jordy says what is the alternative? At least they give us a heritage and stability that not many countries have.
If you had a President you'd most likely be paying more because;Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi
a) a Head of State and associates still need protecting whether you have an Emperor, King or President.
b) people would be politically motivated more to harm the President so you'd be paying even more.
c) the income that the monarchy brings in would no longer be there.
The amount of tourism it brings it'd be a shame to see it gone. But seriously not all of the family needs protecting out of our money.
lets hope william and harry have 5 kids each then.
I still don't see why they need 22 members protected maybe top 10?
Seems that duke guy its trying to spend spend spend but then again he has the money innit,
may i just say harry = fit where as william = ugleh.
Keep Buckingham Palace and get Madame Tussaudes to make a new royal family and stick them inside, tourists will never know the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by iAdam
I say get rid of protecting the so called 'b list', of those royals who are not direct heirs to the throne. It's right for those royals who do hold the most power, but not beyond that.