Is it right to spend £50 million protecting the Royal Family?

[MissAlice]

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

THE LINE OF SUCCESSION
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?

[HotelUser]

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.

[Mathew]

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.

[AlexOC]

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.

[Jordy]

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.

[Richie]

No its not right, what does she think she is a queen?

na but rlly 50mil? common they could cutt bk a bit

[Black_Apalachi]

If the Royal family are under any sort of threat, then I say don't have a Royal family.

[Richie]

If the Royal family are under any sort of threat, then I say don't have a Royal family.

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

[Catzsy]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If the Royal family are under any sort of threat, then I say don't have a Royal family.

If you had a President you'd most likely be paying more because;

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.