Royal family or a president?

I do wish there was a LIKE button for your commentEleothan

If Buckingham Palace belongs to the state, why do people have to pay £24.00 to visit it, and even then are restricted to a very small part of it - especially since the government, via taxpayers, is responsible for the palace's upkeep and any renovations.

The royal family agreed to pay taxes because there was increasing disquiet amongst the general population about their tax-free status. As it turned out, in return for paying taxes the calculation used for annual Civil List payments List actually cancelled out the tax they pay and actually enhanced their financial position.

In 2010 This is Money reported:

"The Royal Family have secured a lucrative deal that will earn them tens of millions of pounds from the massive expansion of offshore windfarms.

"They will net up to £37.5m extra income every year from the drive for green energy because the seabed within Britain's territorial waters is owned by the Crown.

So the Crown owns the seabed. It's positively medieval.

but I do think that they are vastly overpaid
I don't think their pay actually goes into their own bank accounts - it all goes into the business and is paid out in expenses, salaries for staff etc etc.
They pay out of their own incomes for the upkeep of their own homes, any staff and private expenses.
It's a business!

I'll save my ire for greedy bank and business bosses.

trisher surely you haven't forgotten It's a Royal Knockout?
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/was-this-the-day-when-royalty-lost-the-plot-1305932.html

!!!

They have done zero for tourism in the North of England ( and many other areas)

The Prince's Trust has six centres in the North East; they do a lot to help young people.
www.princes-trust.org.uk/about-the-trust/where-we-work/north-england

As for tourism - I suppose if they bought a home in the NE that could encourage tourism but would bring problems with it too.

The thought of using and paying people to be tourist attractions is going back to the days when people with physical disabilities were employed in circuses I would never want to see anyone degraded by this practice. If people choose to dress up and be a tourist attraction their choice.

A president would not provide luxury transportation for his/her children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren and all the other hangers on would they ?
I think they would gillybob
And I may be wrong but I thought that William and Kate provided their own vehicles unless working on official business on behalf of HM.
They have a Land Rover Discovery - very nice but no better than quite a number of young families.

I have for a long time advocated that the RF should become a proper tourist attraction and be expected to behave as such by taking part in various heritage extravaganzas. It now occurs to me that they could be paid for such appearances stricly according to the popularity and income derived from them. Who would bring in most would be interesting to see.

You missed my point Paddyann - Buckingham Palace belongs to the state so the government is responsible for repairs and renovations. No-one is squirrelling anything anywhere.
I agree more economies could be made but `I understand several economies have already been made in recent years - the ditching of the Royal yacht for instance, reducing the staff in the royal household, and I think they paid for the repairs to Windsor after the fire and now pay taxes too - correct me if I’m wrong!

I have family in two countries and when they visit the UK they have to return home with cases packed with articles pertaining to the royal family to keep their friends happy. I was in Germany at the time of Charles and Diana's wedding and everywhere came to a standstill for the duration.
Do not underestimate the popularity of the royal family.

To all intents and purposes we do have a ‘President’ as we elect our Prime Minister.
Our Queen is a Constitutional Monarch, and has very little governing power.
I’m quite fond of the Woyals in that they provide us with endless entertainment, glamour, a fair bit of scandal, pretty good parades and suchlike, and fascinating displays of fashion successes as well as many resounding failures. Most of all, they are always there, giving at least an illusion of the stability which we all crave.
We’d miss them if they were gone, but I do think that they are vastly overpaid, over privileged and over pampered.
They have unimaginable personal wealth, and could really carry out all their ‘work’ on a much more modest stipend.
Just my opinion (ducks behind wall to avoid shower of missiles)

I hold my hand up in surrender Gillybob. I can't think what benefits the RF has brought to the North East but I do have family connections with that area and I think most of those I know are avid monarchists!
I cant really justify it (my DH and DD are republicans) but I've always loved the RF -at least the central ones - and like others I love all the associated pomp and pageantry. Many of them have done a lot for ordinary people too - I'm thinking of schemes like the Duke of Edinburgh Award, the Prince's Trust etc. I think we are lucky with the current lot but as someone said, in the climate these days the country would not tolerate a bad 'un for long!

How exactly did they EARN the money for those houses that are thirs *pollyperkins" sure as hell wasn't by doing a hard days work .You are right though I object strongly to having to contribute to the upkeep of Buck house...on the money they get they should be doing repairs as they go along..instead they're squirreling it away ..goodness knows where .How many houses do a young family need? How many houses that get millions spent on reburbishing do WE need to pay for ...by the back door ..because ultimately ALL their wealth came off the backs of the people ..one way or another

I agree with Lollee's post. I also agree that the RF should be scaled down as Quiz Queen suggests. But the RF have made a lot of concessions in recent years too and we must remember the some of the houses belong to them and no money from tax payers go to their upkeep. Others,like Buckingham Palace ,belong to the state and I guess if we had a president we would still be paying for it's upkeep. Anyway apparently it has been neglected on hrounds of economy and is in urgent need of renovations which will presumably cause howls of protest.

Incidentally , presidents not having hangers on from their family? What about the Trump dynasty??

My first wedding was a trip to the registry office by bus followed by a pub meal . The marriage lasted weeks . We didn’t stand a chance . It was still legal and valid though . I can’t pretend it didn’t happen .

The royals have gone nothing at all to earn their vast wealth and how many times do I have to ask what tourism they bring to the North East ( or many other places) ?

blubber-Donald Trump is the elected President of a country, chosen by the people's vote. You can't just have a president whom you like!!!

I'd vote for a very scaled down monarchy with the children of minor royals outside of the heir to the throne's immediate family not receiving anything from the civil list. So nothing for the children of Andrew, Anne ( they don't get anything anyway) or Edward and, in turn, nothing for Harry's offspring once Charles dies and the line passes to William. They all need to get regular jobs.

On the other hand, the royal family does bring in money through tourism and attracts positive attention for the UK when on world tours so I wouldn't want them totally replaced by a president. A lot of people who seek elected office can be tempted towards deceit and corruption to varying degrees. Look around the world and you will see that everywhere. The UK certainly has no need for a Presidential figure head and a Prime Minister like some countries operate.

The Queen’s reaction after Diana’s death wasn’t a misreading of my feelings. I think she was absolutely right to want to stay in Balmoral with the boys. I think it was the lower end of the popular press that sowed the seeds of a demand that she should return to London. Can’t quite remember now, but was that the time the poor boys were required to shake the hands of the crowds and listen to their no doubt well meant sympathetic remarks? For heaven’s sake, Harry was only 12, and William 15.

I am vaguely republican but dislike most "presidents"...
But on the whole they can be voted out...

Quite like a first family which is essentially what the royals are ... and they are a symbol of our past ... not always a bad thing...

And the Queen does make blips ... her reaction after Diana's death was a huge mis reading of public feelings ...

But she recovered herself and i think now many of us are sentimental about her whilst not being obsessives...

Charles? now he's another matter altogether....

The Anglican Church has accepted marriage of divorced people for quite some time, at the discretion of the priest. If Meghan’s marriage had just ended , no adultery , no fault divorce then no reason to refuse. Charles being a widower could have remarried in Church but both of them had been in an affair whilst Camilla was married. I don’t think adultery was the given reason for Ann’s divorce , she chose to have a quiet wedding in the church the family attends when in Scotland .

And Megan’s first wedding was a three day beach event, no idea what the ceremony entailed

Royal family every time. I stood in the Long Walk in Windsor on Royal Wedding day, and was taken aback by the number of overseas visitors who had come over just for this occasion. I got talking to a German couple who said 'we are so envious of you having your Royal Family - made me feel really proud!

That should be - "insist" not install.

The Queen and family inherited position, wealth and responsibility along with a fortune that was accrued by their ancestors. Are the wannabe Republicans going to install that they hand over this wealth?
As to a Pesident, they will need a home, larger than No 10, in London, an army of staff, security, state money to pay for it all, cars, planes etc. State visits to or from other countries, retirement pensions, oh and upkeep for families.
Sound familiar?

Monarchy, however, Get rid of Andrew, his daughters and H&M. We don't need to fund their overseas jaunts to shake hands with charity bosses who cream off 3/4 ++ of the aid we send.

Apparently the C of E now allows remarriage in church at the discretion of the cleric who conducts the ceremony, and in ‘exceptional circumstances’. Does marrying a prince count as ‘exceptional circumstances’? Evidently.

Charles and Camilla had the good sense to have a civil ceremony, and I think Princess Anne remarried in the Church of Scotland, which has different rules.

I imagine the Queen felt distinct unease.