[Closed] Family of scroungers costs taxpayers £200 million/year!

Hmmm, nice troll, but I somehow think the money they generate FAR exceeds the cost of supporting them!

Thread Closed.

I see an advert on the right with a Bull in it! Is it significant?

but I somehow think the money they generate FAR exceeds the cost of supporting them!

Actually they are well down the list of UK attractions. Far below Legoland I understand which begs the question why dont we replace them with Lego models?

Actually they are well down the list of UK attractions.

Really? No tourists come to the UK because of the Royal Family?

😆

if you check the foreign tourist rates and the royals being at home or even here then amazingly you find nothing significant. It occasionally occurs at events such as a wedding but in general the answer is it appears to make little difference to tourist numbers. This does not stop people suggesting a tourist comes here with the sole intention of seeing royals and if that was removed they would stop coming.

Tourism in the UK is worth approx £80 billion to the economy and generates in excess of 2 million jobs. £200m seems like a bargain in investment terms.

I somehow think the money they generate FAR exceeds the cost of supporting them!

What money do they 'generate'?

No, I'm not talking about money from tourist attractions or estates, I'm talking about the money they earn themselves. Y'know, from doing a proper job and that. Because all their land and property etc has bin paid for over centuries by the people of Britain in one way or another, so it belongs to the nation really, not to the royals themselves.

Really? No tourists come to the UK because of the Royal Family?

No they don't. They come to gawp at buildings and stuff, not a bunch of people. They'd still come to gawp at the same things wether the royals existed or not.

Er I don't think it's the Royals in person. It's the whole deal - changing of the guards, Buck palace, Windsor Castle and all that jazz.

It raises the profile of the UK in the minds of potential tourists in a way which is almost certainly not quantifiable 🙂

PS I am not a Monarchist.

Really? No tourists come to the UK because of the Royal Family?

Who said that?

Tourism in the UK is worth approx £80 billion to the economy and generates in excess of 2 million jobs. £200m seems like a bargain in investment terms.

Except that the Royals only make up a part of that. How much of the £80b can be attributed to them? That would be a more meaningful stat.

Even thats not the point. We could introduce public hanging and claim a benefit it wouldnt make it morally right.

They'd still come to gawp at the same things wether the royals existed or not

In reduced numbers.

yes you are right look at France no Royals and no tourists there - same for America
Thread closed
Oh excellent now we play the unprovable guesses about what may happen in the future - why not try and prove they come here to see the royals. Look at the numbers who come here when the Queen is here and when the Queen is not here as there is not difference between these two numbers your suppositions is not true. Does London get fewer tourists when they go to balmoral for summer - where ever it is they go?
Basically sway me with some facts ta

Yeah but even if you took all that away Mol, there'd still be loads of stuff to do and see.

I really don't think having living royals really does make as significant an impact on tourism revenue as monarchists suggest. Loads of other countries do well at tourism without having royals.

In reduced numbers.

Really? D'you reckon? Got any evidence to support this claim?

Cheer up, it costs the UK taxpayer over £5m a year to take care of Tony Blair still!!

Thats good value for money!

Really? D'you reckon? Got any evidence to support this claim?

Ermm no, and do you to the contrary? No, didn't think so.

Probably best to just leave it there then.

I think i read that the current excursions in Libya have cost around 300 million already?

How many tens of millions of people across the globe tuned into the recent Royal Wedding again?

Yeah, definitely no interest in a living monarchy. I'm sure just as many people would have watched President Cameron's son get married. 🙄

Oh dear, looks like someone else was trolling too!

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/254625/-202m-Monarchy-worth-every-penny

I'm no fan of the Royals. In fact I always thought we should adopt the French approach. But then when you think of the alternative? EEK! We'd end up with Boris Bloody Johnson or some other populist half-wit as a head of state. Do you want that? Do you?

Anyway... I suggest we need to contemplate the only good thing the royals have delivered. The royal wedding being somewhat eclipsed by the future monarchs sister-in-laws bum 🙂

[img] [/img]

yes you are right look at France no Royals and no tourists there

Nice example, have you seen Sarkozys budget this year?

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas

No troll, bit of Daily Wail-esque hyperbole maybe but target audience and all that...

They cost double what the danish royal family do and they still don't pay their cleaners the living London wage!

Isn't about time we had a head of state in place for reasons other than an accident of birth?

As has been mentioned above the tourists will still come, and we'll be able to make more money charging them to look around the various estates/selling off the vast property that is mismanaged and losing us money.

We're all in this together...

@ LHS. But people do get the option to exercise a choice.

The royal wedding being somewhat eclipsed by the future monarchs sister-in-laws bum

Ooh....

It is a [i]very[/i] nice bottom though.

Ermm no, and do you to the contrary? No, didn't think so.

I'm not the one making such claims, so don't need to support my argument with facts. I've merely expressed an onion; I am not claiming to be right or anything. I probbly am though but we know that anyway. 🙂

How many tens of millions of people across the globe tuned into the recent Royal Wedding again?

And how many tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money did it cost the nation for policing and food and drink and all that?

Can I get my wedding paid for by the state please?

Yeah but even if you took all that away Mol, there'd still be loads of stuff to do and see.

I really don't think having living royals really does make as significant an impact on tourism revenue as monarchists suggest. Loads of other countries do well at tourism without having royals.

Yes of course. I'm not saying you NEED royals to get tourists, that'd be stupid.

I'm saying that it probably helps in some small way to a big market. A lot of people come here for the history, and like it or not they are part of that.

Ah the Express, such a bastion of free press and journalistic integrity that it doesn't need the PCC.

But James Edgecombe, chairman of the British Monarchist League, said the costs calculated by Republic were taken out of proportion.

That's surprising

Mr Edgecombe insisted that the security bill for the royals was more likely to be around £50million rather than the £100million claimed by Republic.

[i]More likely[/i]? I stand corrected 😆

Of course removing the FOI exemption would sort it out immediately.

DP

such a bastion of free press and journalistic integrity

Have you read some of the stuff on that Republic website!?! 😯

I took my mum to London just to see the Queen - Cost me a fortune being a Royal tourist it did

Never even got to see Chas 'n' Dave or Dick van Dyke

And how many tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money did it cost the nation for policing and food and drink and all that?

Can I get my wedding paid for by the state please?

I suspect if your wedding was attended by international Heads of State and was viewed by [url= http://www.metro.co.uk/news/862018-2bn-tv-watchers-5-000-police-2-000-guests-and-one-happy-couple ]a reported TWO BILLION people[/url] worldwide then you might get some funding!

So apart from £200m a year, which really isn't even a rounding error in the scheme of the UK's national budget/national debt etc, what would we actually gain by removing the monarchy?

Seriously, is it just about money for those of you that would rather we didn't have them or is there something else involved?

I suspect my wedding would be attended by actual friends and people I'd want to invite, rather than a bunch of people I din't really know and woon't otherwise have there...

So, did the Royal Wedding actually benefit the nation in any real measurable way (apart from bring to our collective attention Pippa Middleton's lovely bottom), or is it simple perceived benefit which doesn't actually exist? IE, like most of the crap that surrounds the royals...

Nice, unbiased source of information in the OP there.

I'm not particularly pro-or anti-monarchy. In the grand scheme of things, there's better topics to be getting all worked up about.

In terms of tourism, they're a part of a whole. I'm sure that tourists don't come to England "to see the Queen," but it might well be on a group's tick list of things to do. If we abolished the monarchy I doubt it'd have a huge impact on tourism in and of itself, but it's one less thing for people to see. You could have essentially the same argument about K6 phone boxes or Blackpool Tower.

like most of the crap that surrounds the royals

What's that? A quote from 1997?

Yes, the modern day royals are terrible people aren't they!?

Lets see what these awful waste of space royals are involved in

Centrepoint
Tusk Trust
Hospital support
Mountain Rescue
Uganda School support
Playing fields
Child bereavement
ESSA
Wellchild
MapAction
Help for Heroes.

How dare they!

So, did the Royal Wedding actually benefit the nation in any real measurable way

I measured an extra day's paid leave from work, I definitely had that down as a benefit

I wonder how many tourists would come to see the royals guillotined? I bet quite a few. Then there would be all those who come to see where the royals were guillotined in the future, perhaps the guillotine could be made safe & they would all pay £15 to have their picture taken with their head on the block.

Just need to decide where to do the deed. Outside Buckingham Palace? The tower? O2?

What about countless others who are involved in charities?

Besides, half the time, the only 'involvement' they have is to turn up at fancy dinners or even just have their name associated with the charidees. Don't see any other than Princess Anne actually getting their haynds dirty much...

Prince William has a proper job, plucking injured mountian bikers off the side of hills. Being in the RAF, still sits around drinking champagne, mind. 😀

LHS - Member

such a bastion of free press and journalistic integrity

Have you read some of the stuff on that Republic website!?!

If you can't tell the difference between a campaign group's website and a national newspaper I think protecting the royals is the least of your worries! Post something up then and let's talk about it.

Cougar - Member
Nice, unbiased source of information in the OP there.

As I said above, if the FOI exemption was removed it would all become clear. But no, we're just supposed to accept that the figure of £38 million given by the royal household (totally not biased) is right because, you know, they're like the royals.

Seriously, is it just about money for those of you that would rather we didn't have them or is there something else involved?

Unelected head of state based on nothing but an accident of birth because her ancestors were bigger bastards than all the other bastards.

Unelected head of state based on nothing but an accident of birth because her ancestors were bigger bastards than all the other bastards.

Whereas, look how well we're doing with all the ones we've elected instead.

Unelected head of state based on nothing but an accident of birth because her ancestors were bigger bastards than all the other bastards.

😆

So wonderfully and eloquently put, Lifer.

That's pretty much it though really, is not it? Bang on I reckon.

In America, you can tell your kid that they could be president one day, if they work hard.

In the UK, we get to tell our kids that William and Kate's kids could become king or queen one day. Because they're special and better than your kids.

Obama's mum was on food stamps. Charles' mum was on stamps.

All Hail King Boris! 😆

[img] [/img]

Whereas, look how well we're doing with all the ones we've elected instead.

All tied up with the Royals, I think. Ruling classes, and all that.

or is there something else involved?

The fact that they perpetuate the myth that some people are "better" than others based on birth. That gauls me a bit.

Obama's mum was on food stamps. Charles' mum was on stamps.

Quality! 😆

You ever wonder if the Queen carries a fiver round for identification purposes?

Nicked it off of this bloke: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-royal-frenzy-should-embarrass-us-all-2267904.html

In most countries, parents can tell their kids that if they work hard and do everything right, they could grow up to be the head of state and symbol of their nation. Not us. Our head of state is decided by one factor, and one factor alone: did he pass through the womb of one aristocratic Windsor woman living in a golden palace? The US head of state grew up with a mother on food stamps. The British head of state grew up with a mother on postage stamps. Is that a contrast that fills you with pride?

Whereas, look how well we're doing with all the ones we've elected instead

Agreed apart from two important points:

1) when we elect them its our decision
2) when we get it wrong we can change our mind

Enjoyed that article.

The claims then drift even further from reality. We are told that the Windsor family is great for tourism. In fact, of the top 20 tourist attractions in Britain, only one is related to the monarchy – Windsor Castle, at number 17. Ten places ahead is Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should make a Lego man our head of state.

So, did the Royal Wedding actually benefit the nation in any real measurable way (apart from bring to our collective attention Pippa Middleton's lovely bottom), or is it simple perceived benefit which doesn't actually exist?

When you host an event that maybe a quarter of the world population watches (or is aware of) - and it goes off perfectly with huge amounts of positive coverage across the globe - then that is a pretty spectacular boost for your global profile and the "UK brand image".

That may be a "perceived benefit" but I'm not sure how you can deny it exists (though I'm sure you will).

If you want a more measurable benefit you;d have to look at: how much Royal Wedding tat was sold? How many tourists came to the UK specifically for the wedding? How many people travelled to the wedding (rooms, meals, flights etc)? How many people spent extra cash during the extra holiday?

[url= http://entertainment.stv.tv/showbiz/259812-wills-and-kates-wedding-fund-raises-over-1m-for-charity/ ]The donations of guests to their wedding fund raised over £1 million for charity.[/url]

In America, you can tell your kid that they could be president one day, if they work hard.

You really believe that? Last time I looked America, France and the other "great republics" were still ruled by the rich elite.

In the UK, in theory, we can tell our kids that they could by prime minister if they work hard. Of course that isn't really true. They'd really have to go to Oxbridge, get in with the right boy's club, then throw away all their principles and become slimy cretins.

Ten places ahead is Windsor Legoland. So using that logic, we should make a Lego man our head of state.

Go to another country. Ask anyone to list what they know about the UK.

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

Yeah, but...

What's the point?

As for all the tat sold for the Royal Wedding, how much of it was made in China?

You really believe that? Last time I looked America, France and the other "great republics" were still ruled by the rich elite.

Yes, but they're still republics aren't they? That's the important point - yes, there will always be a ruling elite, but "anyone" still has a chance. And an infinitely better chance than by right of birth.

If you want a more measurable benefit you;d have to look at: how much Royal Wedding tat was sold? How many tourists came to the UK specifically for the wedding? How many people travelled to the wedding (rooms, meals, flights etc)? How many people spent extra cash during the extra holiday?

The donations of guests to their wedding fund raised over £1 million for charity.

Fair points.

I'd sacrifice that for an at least nominally more egalitarian society mind.

I'm sure you could organise other events what would bring in revenue and raise moneys for charidee though...

[img] [/img]

GrahamS - Member

Go to another country. Ask anyone to list what they know about the UK.

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

'What they know' doesn't claw back any of the money that we hand over to them though, does it? Nice try moving the goalposts though.

[b]maybe[/b] a quarter of the world population watches

😆

I'm sure you could organise other events what would bring in revenue and raise moneys for charidee though...

True. It'll be interesting to see how the Royal Wedding compares to the Olympics in terms of costs, worldwide audiences, and measurable benefits.

Go to another country. Ask anyone to list what they know about the UK.

I'll guarantee that "The Queen" or "The Royal Family" comes somewhere in that list. I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

Although quite what thats got to do with it I dont know. What people imagine when you mention the UK abroad doesnt necessarily transfer to revenue does it.
Maybe more people would mention the world service than the Royals, depends who you ask doesnt it.

Berm Bandit - Member

Whereas, look how well we're doing with all the ones we've elected instead

Agreed apart from two important points:

1) when we elect them its our decision
2) when we get it wrong we can change our mind

and:

3) Lahnderners seem to have elected Boris fair and square. The rest of us didn't [i]really[/i] elect the current lot though.

*runs away from thread and hides under 'yes campaign' duvet cover.*

2) when we get it wrong we can change our mind

... but not that it'll make a blind bit of difference.

I'd be very surprised if they said "Legoland".

Legoland's associated with Denmark, to my mind at least.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/29/royal-wedding-tourism-boost

The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers

In the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade.

... but not that it'll make a blind bit of difference.

But, occasionally, just occasionally, it does...or has the potential to.

If you want a more measurable benefit you;d have to look at: how much Royal Wedding tat was sold? How many tourists came to the UK specifically for the wedding? How many people travelled to the wedding (rooms, meals, flights etc)? How many people spent extra cash during the extra holiday?

[url] http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/the-2-9bn-royal-wedding-bank-holiday/5099 [/url]

😆

Legoland's associated with Denmark, to my mind at least.

The one at Windsor's a big tourist attraction. Bigger than Windsor Castle, which is the only Royal-linked tourist attraction in the top ten UK tourist attractions.

predicts

estimates

Never any actual factual proper evidence though is there?

The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years, eventually pulling in an extra 4m visitors and some £2bn for the country's coffers

In the short term, the accountancy firm PwC estimates the influx of wedding watchers delivered a £107m boost to London, as hotels, West End shops and restaurants picked up extra trade

Let’s start with the extra bank holiday itself. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills expects the cost to the economy to be around £2.9bn,

So still not covering costs then...

The tourist authority VisitBritain predicts the wedding, a worldwide TV event, will trigger a tourism boom that will last several years

Tourist crowd talks in meaningless and groundless positives shocker! 🙂

(I don't doubt that it was an overall positive thing BTW, but it has been overplayed somewhat IMO)

Never any actual factual proper evidence though is there?

LOL, are you that blinkered that you just happily ignore anything else that doesn't support you're view point?

You are willing to believe an anti-monarchy website, yet everything else is rubbish? - Good work!

The fact that they perpetuate the myth that some people are "better" than others based on birth

If you can find me a single person from the lower or middle classes who thinks that, then I'll admit that the myth has been perpetuated. Personally I think that myth died on its arse in the 50s.

You are willing to believe an anti-monarchy website, yet everything else is rubbish? - Good work!

Pot. Kettle.

'What they know' doesn't claw back any of the money that we hand over to them though, does it? Nice try moving the goalposts though.

Well yes it does. The fact that people abroad know the royal family means it is demonstrably a part of their awareness of the UK "brand".

So if you're determined to look at it in purely financial terms then any money we spend on keeping the Royals is essentially "advertising budget". Likewise sending them off to visit other countries is "PR budget".

maybe a quarter of the world population watches

I didn't count them. 🙂 The published estimates were that 2 billion people watched. Even if that is way off and the actual figure was less than 10% of that, it is still an incredible audience (and probably a lot cheaper than reaching the same number through advertising).

£2billion [b]extra [/b] as opposed to £202m?

Come on, take the blinkers off! Stop typing and give your brain a chance to catch up.

If you can find me a single person from the lower or middle classes who thinks that

I saw plenty of the eejits on TV getting rather over emotional about a flipping wedding involving two people who they'll never meet, let alone know other than what they read about them.

You are willing to believe an anti-monarchy website, yet everything else is rubbish? - Good work!

Not rubbish as such but "what can asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

LOL, are you that blinkered that you just happily ignore anything else that doesn't support you're view point?

Erm, no. I would like to see some actual hard evidence to support these 'predictions' and 'estimates', is all....

LHS - Member
£2billion extra as opposed to £202m?

Come on, take the blinkers off! Stop typing and give your brain a chance to catch up.

What are you referring to there?

If you can find me a single person from the lower or middle classes who thinks that, then I'll admit that the myth has been perpetuated. Personally I think that myth died on its arse in the 50s.

Sadly I know a few and as you set the bar so low finding one should be easy. I live on the Wirral what time can you make it?
On reflection I think that sadly there are many more ready to genuflect at the whiff of Royalty.

In for a Penny in for a Pound...

Cant do a Royal Family on a Budget!

For all I hate them, you cant do it on the cheap, becomes pointless!

of course you can do royal family on the cheap. Denmark. Netherlands.

Norway. Sweden. Belgium. Luxembourg. Andorra. Liechtenstein.