Why are so many people so apathetic about this?

[turienzo's lovechild]

and to be honest i think we would see tourism to london pretty much dry up if we lost the royal family , god bless em.

people still visit places like paris, and visit places like rome and egypt

it's all history innit, just because the queen wouldn't live at buck palace it don't mean people will still go to it

 

[User removed 4]

Help Is the royal family value for money?

"The monarchy cost us £40 million last year, but what you neglect to mention is that the income from the crown lands (which is handed over to the people) was £200 million, so we made a profit of £160 million out of the monarchy. That sounds good to me.

Moreover, the cost of maintaining the monarchy is trifling compared to what some other countries pay for their heads of state. The monarchy cost us 66p each. The Italian President cost the Italian £1.24 each, nearly twice as much. Our royal family are very good value."

Most sources of data are disputable and open to interpretation, I don't post this as proof, just as information. This also adds to the debate that the "crown lands" bring in money. Which is more than those that sponge off the state (which occurs wioth 'native brits' just as it does with some immigrants). So it isn't just tourism dollars that the royal family bring in (however negligible the difference would be if they went).

crown lands ? only the lands that they nicked hundreds of years ago !

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

mate, it was a wind up , i am a bit of a republican myself to be honest , and as for the queen mum, my dad lived next door to one of the cleaners at buckingham palace as a kid, the queen mother was a nasty old cow according to her, and i always wondered where she got all that yellow paint for her teeth.

 

[Jahooli]

But they do such a good job.

 

[captainmorganrum]

The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth over £7.33 billion*, with urban properties valued at £5.38 billion, and rural holdings valued at £903 million; and an annual profit of £211 million, thus yielding 2.88% as of July 2008. The majority of the estate by value is urban, including a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also owns 272,000 acres (110,000 ha) of agricultural land and forest, more than 55% of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, for example Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park.

*And we're paying them!

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

But they do such a good job.

Caption comp?

 

[Silent Bob]

Do people really come here to gawp at some old woman, rather than to see Buckingham Palace, the Tower of London etc? I don't know for sure, seeing as I'm not an obnoxious yank or excitable Asian, but I find it strange if they do.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

No time for a thread on the royal family I am afraid. There are other threads that need looking at - about immigrants wearing strange clothes.


Well someone had to do it.

 

[Curious Orange]

BBC NEWS | UK | Public funds for Charles top £3mI'll never understand why so many people simply won't consider an alternative to the Royal family.

We did try being a Republic for a while you know... it didn't work out...

 

[itszamora]

I am TERRIFIED at the prospect of Gordon Brown, David Cameron or any other politician becoming our head of state. Would much rather the Queen did it.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

We did try being a Republic for a while you know... it didn't work out...

It would have if Cromwell hadn't been such a miserable old TART!

Who wants austerity and gloominess when there are big wigs and shiny clothes to be worn?

 

[withdeanwombat]

Oh come on,be fair.He went to 650+ events and his income was only £16,000,000.

It isn't as if he's an RBS banker.

Gord luv an bless Your Majesty.

 

[Austrian Gull]

Can more politicians really be a good idea?

 

[looney]

BBC NEWS | UK | Public funds for Charles top £3m

As a nation we seem more concerned about the cost of immigration to the state, or MPs claiming for house plants.

Yet we have billionaire, Prince Charles, being paid for by the state in ever increasing sums. The state picked up the bill for his travel, a 48% increase on the previous year. His "tax bill" (in quotes, because it's all voluntary) fell by 10%.

As you'll see, the BBC does it's best to justify the £3m direct cost to the state, but it does seem absurd to me. I'll never understand why so many people simply won't consider an alternative to the Royal family.

Because you, and I'm guessing as i haven't clicked the link, and the commies at the BBC have made not attempt to cost an alternative. This is just lefty whining and piss poor journalism.

I bet you dont work in business simster you'd be gone in 5 minutes.

 

[Simster]

Can more politicians really be a good idea?

Who says the head of state has to be a politician?

 

[User removed 4]

I bet you dont work in business simster you'd be gone in 5 minutes.

are you taking that simster ?

 

[keaton]

I'd have less of problem if Charles wasn't spouting his ill-thought shit publicly most of the time

 

[Simster]

Because you, and I'm guessing as i haven't clicked the link, and the commies at the BBC have made not attempt to cost an alternative. This is just lefty whining and piss poor journalism.

I bet you dont work in business simster you'd be gone in 5 minutes.

I can't get too uptight about your shit-as-ever analysis looney. (Are you still peddling that report from a decade ago that suggests not all scientists believe global warming is actually happening?).

The BBC are arguable left of centre but they are also part of the establishment. "Lefty" leanings have nothing to do with it when it comes to covering the Royals. The BBC don't hide the facts but they'll always paint the royals in a good light, and this story is a perfect example of that. The day the BBC are neutral towards royalty is the day the people at the top start getting passed over on the civil list.

 

[Simster]

are you taking that simster ?

It's only looney. His fuzzy interpretation on facts will always be nothing less than a source of amusement to me, and most others I suspect.

 

[User removed 4]

the BBC are arguable left of centre