Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Royal WHAT? (Wedding!)
- Thread starter WillEH
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Even if we went to the extreme and said the Monarchy brings in £0 in tourism it only costs the tax payer ~£40 million a year. Which is peanuts.
In fact, the article Arkitect linked said the Crown accounts for <1% of the tourism in the UK. The UK tourism industry is worth £95 billion. So the Crown breaks even if it accounts for just 0.04% of tourism.
There are arguments against the Monarchy, but money isn't one of them.
Personally, I find it difficult to be so relaxed about something as important as the format of our democracy or our head of state, but that's just me. At least we're not "British Subjects" in our passports any more as we used to be!
Completely agree about having God in it being objectionable too, which brings me to another point: The head of state is also head of the Church, which prevents us from having a secular society (another "bad thing" about our monarchy)
Thanks, that makes me feel much better
I find it interesting that the UK does not have a strict separation of Church and State and the USA does. Yet, religion seems to play a much bigger role in US politics than UK politics!
As I said before, I'm not an ardent Royalist. I'd like to see the anthem changed, the head of the Church of England title given to someone else and also the line of succession going to the oldest child (ie no sex discrimination). There are issues like this that need sorting, but I don't want to have the UK become the UR (United Republic!).
EDIT- I'm actually studying law this year, and one topic is Constitutional law. So I've been looking at a lot of these issues and what power the Crown has. It's really interesting stuff, the UK has a very unusual democratic system. It has some advantages and some disadvantages.
Who got married?
Seriously though, I remember reading/watching something about in England bout the time of the Royal Wedding, in the name of anti-terrorism, the police had the authority to arrest anyone for any reason to ensure a smooth event. Of course Fox News praised this because "they are serious about terrorism over there" so average citizens loose all of their liberty, but it was just temporary so that was ok...
Do you know why it costs the citizens anything? Aren't the royals rich? What are the common folk paying for?
YEAH!!!
I should be able to see The Tower, and the Crown Jewels, for nothing.
What a rip!
YEAH!!!
I should be able to see The Tower, and the Crown Jewels, for nothing.
What a rip!
I asked a simple question. Can u answer it without sarcasm?
I just think it's nice to have a head of state who's not always playing silly political games, trying to score cheap political points over the opposition, lying (or "spin", as they like to call it) to the media / public, refusing to answer simple questions with a simple answer, etc. I'd rather see a little more of the Queen actually - turn up to parliament occasionally for PM's Questions and make him answer the questions he's been asked, and stop them all shouting across the house like hooligans at a football match.
Not a fan of much of the rest of the Royal Family, but i don't think there's a more dignified head of state than our Queen anywhere in the world, and William seems ok so far - if they ditched the rest of the family, they'd be great!
David
(From UK)
Not a fan of much of the rest of the Royal Family, but i don't think there's a more dignified head of state than our Queen anywhere in the world, and William seems ok so far - if they ditched the rest of the family, they'd be great!
David
(From UK)
It costs ~£40 million per year to keep the Royal Family going, which isn't much. For example £5m on travel costs and £20m staff wages. Events like awards ceremonies need to be paid for, and the palaces/gardens need to be maintained.
The Royals aren't necessarily rich, the Queen is given an allowance which is negotiated with the Government.
A lot of the expenses would still exist even if the monarchy was removed, so I don't think there is a financial argument to get rid of them.
Stupid royal wedding delayed the widespread news of the death of Osama Bin Laden.
How did it, the two events were 3 days apart?
I heard the Royal Family doesn't get paid from taxes. They just use it for political stuff like flying to other countries, etc.
Anyone who attempted to overthrow the royal family would very quickly find themselves dead and branded a terrorist - we're not living in the middle ages any more
Personally, I dislike the fact that the UK is not a republic and the restrictions having a monarch as head of state brings (e.g no directly elected head of state). I also dislike the fact that our national anthem is about the monarch rather than the country: I love my country but am a republican (with a small R) and therefore never sing the anthem
And guys, I didn't really mean to overthrow the royal family (I like them
) but I'm saying that they've been in power for soooooo long and haven't been overthrow yet (last 1000 years). Majority of the people must like them. If majority didn't like them (even back in the day), then the UK wouldn't have a royal family today, or at least the same one from the last 1000 years.The Royal Family is smart. They wouldn't do anything stupid to make most people want a new leader.... especially where forces from different countries even need to come and take them down (*ahem* libya).
If there's one thing I like about the Uk, it's the royal family (well maybe not... but you get my point).
The Royal family we have today isn't a direct lineage from that we had 1,000 years ago – and monarchs have been overthrown in that time, be it by others claiming the throne (such as the House of Denmark and the Norman Conquest) or by a Republic, namely the Commonwealth in the 17th Century. Louis VIII of France even ruled a chunk of England for a while, although he later conceded he had no legitimate claim to the throne.
Also, Britain as a whole has only had a monarch since the early 18th Century – prior to this England, Scotland and Ireland all had their own rulers, although the crowns of England and Scotland were both in the possession of the Stuart family a hundred years or so before this (their reign though was of course interrupted by the Commonwealth).
Personally, I'd be perfectly happy without them, and wouldn't mind my 65p per annum refunded. This probably makes me a bad little peasant or something.
Only actual monarchs can be referred to as a king. When the monarch is a married queen – such as in the case of Victoria and Elizabeth II – their spouse isn't known as 'King', but as 'prince consort', a role which doesn't really confer any power onto the individual. For one thing, if the consort outlived his queen he would no right to claim the throne in her place.
Last edited: