jump to last post 1-20 of 20 discussions (89 posts)

Diamond Jubilee costs UK economy £275m

  1. Stacie L profile image91
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    Diamond Jubilee costs UK economy £275m
    Mon May 28, 2012 9:55AM GMT
    Share1438
    Britains royal family is worth a dizzying £44 billion in tangible and intangible assets as a brand, a study shows, yet the Queens upcoming Diamond Jubilee will damage the British economy by at least £275 million.


    Brand Finance said in a special report ahead of the Queen Elizabeths celebrations of 60 years on the throne that tangible assets of the royal family including the Duchy of Cornwall are worth a staggering £18 billion.
    http://www.presstv.ir/detail/243476.html
    I wonder how the English people and hubbers really feel about this expense,at this economic time in our lives? The article refers to the Royal family as a "brand" that brings in lots of revenue but  this is costing more.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image78
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      275 million is peanuts. Considering there are about 25 million tax payers, the event has cost us about 11 quid each. Now factor in the tourists, the spending on merchandise, and the TV rights being sold around the world, I reckon it's pretty good value. Besides which, the Jubilee shows Britain at its best and raises our profile internationally, which will also assist future tourism and trade.

      The Royal Familly are our heritage and it would be miserable thing to let that go for the sake of saving a few million.

      1. innersmiff profile image75
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That's 11 pounds I would like to reclaim. I did not watch a single frame of the jubilee celebration, so I would like to withdraw my taxes for this particular event. Would you have a problem with that?

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Actually total estimated cost to the public treasury including the long weekend is almost 7 billion.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image78
            Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Bah humbug!

    2. Judi Bee profile image97
      Judi Beeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      From what I am seeing here in Cornwall, everyone is enjoying it immensely smile

    3. SimeyC profile image99
      SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I know a lot of Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland people who love the Queen and a lot of English who hate the Queen - the Queen represents Britain not just England.

      As a British Man living in the US, it's amazing how much the Royal Family and Britain in general has been on US TV. I know many Americans who are planning trips to Britain next year simply because of the pageantry of this and the recent Royal Wedding.

      It's what makes Britain unique and attracts a lot of media attention from around the world - the US tourism into Britain dropped hugely after 9/11 - this is a great boost, as is the Olympics.

      While $275 million seems a lot - it's very hard to say how much Britain will gain from this....

      1. Disappearinghead profile image78
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I guess that in their hearts those rebellious colonists regret splitting from the empire. smile

    4. webclinician profile image60
      webclinicianposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It's miniscule really. The royals are form of tourist attraction in UK so it boosts the economy in a way.
      Iftgey spent few quids for the royals, how do u think people will look at it.

  2. CASE1WORKER profile image76
    CASE1WORKERposted 5 years ago

    I live in England
    I have not as yet spoken to anyone who does not feel that it has all been worth it
    Given the choice of the Jubilee or the Olympics the Jubilee wins every time

    1. Disappearinghead profile image78
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Given the choice of the Royals or a President, Royalty wins every time.

      1. CASE1WORKER profile image76
        CASE1WORKERposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        God bless her!

  3. profile image0
    Ghaelachposted 5 years ago

    Ditto DH.
    What does a war plane of this modern age cost? There is only one 60th Jubilee, that means a one off. But war planes are being built at an enormous cost every day that will in 10 to 15 years be scrap. At least our gracious Queen has been working for 60 years and still going and bring in the tourists God bless her and her Royal Family. Long live the Queen.

  4. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    It also creates earnings, and I would bet on there being a net gain.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not by all the people who've had two days off work.

      1. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It would take someone to add it all up.  But the excitement seems to be pretty widespread.  I loved watching the river parade and am having a Jubilee party tomorrow (and I'm in the US).  I think it builds the UK brand and will probably yield some benefits.   If people took vacation time for it, why not?

  5. Stacie L profile image91
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    ....and the summer Olympics will carry on the good spirits.
    Great Britain is having a banner season!

    1. CMHypno profile image96
      CMHypnoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Not sure the Olympics will carry the same spirit on.  Nearly everyone I know has been happy to support the Jubilee and put some bunting up, but the Olympics are becoming smeared with too much corporate greed, incompetence in ticketing and too much emphasis on VIP traffic lanes.  There is a sense that it is all about the elite and not the ordinary British people who are footing the bill.  The Jubilee has been very inclusive and everyone has had a chance to join in if they wanted.

      The latest Olympic outrage is that the London Symphony Orchestra has been told that they must mime at the opening ceremony and the music will be from a recording.

      Let's hope that poor Prince Philip recovers soon.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … bilee.html

      1. Disappearinghead profile image78
        Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        What a superb montage of photos. Thanks for posting.

        1. CMHypno profile image96
          CMHypnoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          The Daily Mail has its 'issues' but they generally do post good photos of royal occasions

  6. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    It's a nice change after doom, gloom and riots.

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Still plenty of time for doom gloom and riots smile

  7. Nell Rose profile image94
    Nell Roseposted 5 years ago

    Long Live The Queen! lol! it was great! at least it was something for the British people, makes a change! the amount of money we spend over here every year sending money abroad to countries that do not appreciate it, at least this was a fun weekend, so yeah loved every minute of it.

  8. Reality Bytes profile image84
    Reality Bytesposted 5 years ago

    This video says it all!

    http://youtu.be/hCA473UBaqY

    1. Disappearinghead profile image78
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      lol

  9. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 5 years ago

    Sigh. If only Pippa were single.

  10. Lisa HW profile image80
    Lisa HWposted 5 years ago

    I enjoyed watching it from afar on television.  I think it's nice that someone who has put in as much time serving her country has been/is being honored.  It was a pleasant thing, and I think a lot of people (there, here in the US, and elsewhere) can use something that's a celebration, rather than, as psychskinner said, doom and gloom.

    I've always been under the impression that big events like that bring in money and result in jobs/contracts for some people.  Either way, I think that kind of thing serves a positive purpose, particularly when times are depressing.

  11. profile image0
    Ghaelachposted 5 years ago

    There must be something interesting about the British Royals. When anything takes place or happens it's TV headlines and front page news. It's not all doom and gloom and these days when something like a marriage or a jubilee takes place it brightens our lives up for a few hours or days, instead of all these threats of invations or wars that are taking place on this very small planet.
    Ghaelach

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      So your opinion is that is what we need? vacuous expensive distraction from our problems? That is better than putting the money into fixing the problems?

      There is reason monarchy has faded around the world, because it is a sick system based on the idea that the blood of some people is more valuable than the blood of others based on who their parents are, and the Brits think it's a good idea to waste money celebrating an archaic elitist system? I guess stupidity takes a long time to die. It's time they remember everyone's blood is red and a person is worth only what they make of themselves not what they are born into.

      1. profile image0
        Ghaelachposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        It doesn't sound as though you where one of the multi-millions that watched any of the jubilee. But then as they say it's a free world depending ofcourse where you live, and I've seen most of it. That's why you are allowed to speak your own mind as you have written. I can only say, leave those millions of people that want their monrachy alone and get on with living a life of anarchy.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Congratulations on not addressing any of the issues, I am far from an anarchist, what I do believe in is people being judged on their merit not whose blood runs in their veins and how far back they can trace it and how inbred it is.

          Also how about leaving public funds out of your worship of a symbol of a corrupt and backwards system of governance?

          Tell me how is placing a group of higher because of their bloodline any different to discriminating against a group of people based on race? It's all about their blood right?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, the hereditary principle. I'm not a royalist, but I'm no fan of republics either. My biggest gripe about the royal family is that they are not elected, there are lots of talented people that could pull off royal engagements, too. Whilst I have no issue with the Queen, who I do believe has worked pretty hard, there are dozens on the civil list, living the life of riley on tax payers money and contributing absolutely nothing. I have a real issue with those people.

            1. Judi Bee profile image97
              Judi Beeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              There aren't dozens on the Civil List any more.  It was cut in 2000 following a public outcry.  The Queen also now has to refund the Government for the money granted by annuity to household members.

          2. CMHypno profile image96
            CMHypnoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            If you get a job based on your merit then who has better qualifications for what she does than the Queen?  Who else would have dedicated 60 years of their life to serving their country and is stilling carrying on at the age of 86?  Where else would you get that depth of experience?

            It's hardly a sinecure to be born into a life where you have no choice over your job and what you are going to do - people focus on the palaces/jewels etc and get all jealous and twisted, but how many people would really be happy giving up their freedom like this?

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
              Hollie Thomasposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Yes, but the point is she was never given the opportunity to be appointed on her merits, the job was just thrust upon her whether she liked it or not. And, we'll never get to find out who would give 60 years of their life to service because the opportunity is not available to anyone else.(other than certain members within the bloodline) Although there is many things that I admire the Queen for, I doubt she is the only person in the land who would be willing to give up sixty years of their life for their country. Servicemen and women give their life,literally, for their country all the time.

              Not sure how jewels are relevant to this conversation, so can't answer you there. As I said, I'm not in favour of a republic, but I do think that it would make sense to have an elected head of state. Those members of the family who actually want this position would still have the opportunity to be elected, and they would probably win. It would also give the other royals the opportunity to bow out should they wish, without having to experience scandals and personal trauma.

            2. innersmiff profile image75
              innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I'd be too happy to relieve the Queen of her position if she felt that way.

              Technically, the monarchy is the most racist institution in Britain. Can I join the monarchy? Nope, don't have the right genes!

            3. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Pretty much everyone I imagine, especially considering one can abdicate and still remain wealthier than 99.99 percent of the world population will ever be by the virtue of having done nothing at all, I suggest you go ask the people in the homeless shelters, or losing their homes with the credit crunch, many of whom are hard working people that jus can't make it if they would swap? I think you might find a resounding yes. I'll test it when I got to volunteer on the weekend.

              Since when is it good to have a single public leader for 60 yeas anyway? Elected officials are a million times fairer and in all likelihood better as they can be chosen as the best amongst the people not by an accident of birth.

  12. 2uesday profile image84
    2uesdayposted 5 years ago

    At least we live in a country where if we want to, we can see what the financial figures look like. I tend to think politicians are well paid but not many people visits the UK because we have a Prime Minister or a coalition government.
    Here is an example of how easy it is to see a Royal 'balance sheet'.

    http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/annual%20re … ary.p1.PDF

    1. innersmiff profile image75
      innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I think it says something about the lack of attraction to the country that the only thing we have going for us is the fact that we still operate under such a dated system. It's very patronising.

      1. SimeyC profile image99
        SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        That's the problem - it may be patronizing, but it's the truth. I barely see anything about the other great things of Britain. There's barely any coverage of the beauty of Britain, the culture of Britain etc.

        It's a sad state of affairs and something that should be addressed by the tourism board - but until it is sorted out, the only thing Britain has going for it in a lot of countries is the quaintness and the pageantry of the Royal family.

        Do I feel their role should change over time -  probably - but something else needs to attract visitors to the UK!

  13. CMHypno profile image96
    CMHypnoposted 5 years ago

    And apparently the long weekend could have cost the UK economy as much as £6 billion

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … perts.html

    But everyone had a great time and it beats giving it to the IMF!

  14. innersmiff profile image75
    innersmiffposted 5 years ago

    We should not be objecting to the Diamond Jubilee because it costs a lot of money, we should be objecting to it because it is in celebration of an institution that has subjugated millions of people for hundreds of years. There is no rational basis for a monarchy, and therefore no rational basis for this jubilee.

    If we want to be patriotic, why can't we get patriotic about the magna carta - the document that gave us relative freedom from that tyranny? It's amazing how things get turned around. Now even Americans are getting hysterical about the Queen. Listen yanks, the whole reason your country exists is because the founders did not want to be part of such a sick heritage. The founding fathers would be turning in their grave if they saw us fawning over this woman and their rich, cousin marrying kids (oh yeah, William and Kate are cousins, bet you didn't know that).

    God Save The Queen alright. God save her from her sins. Please Lord have mercy upon her for her years of murder and political influence.

    It is a disgusting farce that frankly makes me want to be sick - that is why I object to it.

    1. SimeyC profile image99
      SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      "There is no rational basis for a monarchy, and therefore no rational basis for this jubilee."

      Economically there is! There is no rational basis to pay soccer players millions of dollars but we do! The monarchy is no longer an institution that subjicates people and never will be.

      As an ex-pat who lives in the US now, I see how Royalty is viewed over here - it is unique and loved - it sets Britain aside from the rest of Europe because it is quaint. Watching the US TV you barely ever see coverage of any other royal family, but if Prince Charles farts then it's news over here.

      That's what the Royalty does for Britain - it doesn't really matter if they should or shouldn't be there, it's the economic element and the 'brand' that Britain has.

      Remove the Royalty and you're going lose a lot of tourism.

      I can agree with your sentiments, it is an 'old fashioned' and irrelevant thing in reality, but there are benefits...

      1. innersmiff profile image75
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Okay, let's break this down.

        According to you, it is rational for a woman who is worth trillions of dollars to steal money from a populace to fund an event that celebrates the fact that she's been stealing money from us for 60 years.

        But it is not rational for lots people to voluntarily spend lots of money in exchange for TV coverage of football, and it is not rational for the TV companies to voluntarily pay the footballers a wage that factors in their contribution to the billions of dollars they make them.

        Look at the words I've highlighted: through taxes the Queen steals, and through offering a service, the TV companies make money voluntarily. Now tell me which is more rational, more importantly what is more moral.

        And frankly, I don't care how much tourism the thing brings - it is wrong. Your argument is tantamount to arguing for slavery, back in the day, because "who will pick the corn?". If the 'brand' of Britain means being patronised by a woman responsible for the deaths of millions of people, then I want out!

        If liberty is old-fashioned, then great, I'm old fashioned. If you believe liberty to be irrelevant . . . good luck. Tell that to the families of those who have been torn apart by the monarchy.

        1. innersmiff profile image75
          innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I like how peoples morals go out the window if the government is making money out of it. *vomits*

          1. SimeyC profile image99
            SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The government is making money sure - but so are the people who have jobs because of the tourism this brings in.

            You're standing up and saying get rid of the Monarchy because of the evils they did a long time ago, but do not care about all the jobs that would be lost? Oooh I love morality - get rid of something but screw the consequences.

            Take an objective view and don't try and judge my opinion. Whether or not you like the Royalty is irrelevant - and it's not a moral judgement on my part to say that economically the Royal family is good for Britain - that's just a fact.

            If you want to truly stand up with morals then we shouldn't have a government because they do not do what the people want - they make judgements.

            Someone accused you of being an anarchist - and in a way you are - before you get angry let me explain what anarchists (true anarchists) believe - they believe in a society without governmant - most assume this has to be a violent thing, but that is not true anarchy - anarchy is about being able to run ones life the way you want to....

            I don't disagree with the fact that the Royality perhaps are out-dated and a symbol of a past that we should move from - but you cannot justify simply removing them until there are no consequences from the action!

            1. innersmiff profile image75
              innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              In order to hold the event in the first place, the government needs to steal from an already productive populace, and there are plenty of things the government could take a step back from if they really wanted to create jobs. This is nothing to do with jobs, it is a distraction and a reminder of our subjugation to the state. Even if we accept that it is economically good for Britain, it does not change the fact that it is immoral. I fully accept the consequences of not having a monarchy - bring it on.

              I am an anarchist, how'd you guess? (I think that person was accusing Josak of being an anarchist) But it doesn't really matter, because the monarchy doesn't even make sense from a democratic-statist viewpoint.

              The Queen and her institution is responsible for those deaths. It represents the great tyrannies of this government and the governments of the past (who I blame equally), and is still killing people. Philip is constantly arguing for de-population, and the family is funding such programs to do so.

          2. SimeyC profile image99
            SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            "If the 'brand' of Britain means being patronised by a woman responsible for the deaths of millions of people, then I want out!"

            I just noticed this - how exactly is the Queen responsible for the deaths of millions of people. In her reign she has never had any power to do anything. The government runs the show and she is a figure-head.

            If you're going to blame anyone blame the government.

        2. SimeyC profile image99
          SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          "According to you, it is rational for a woman who is worth trillions of dollars to steal money from a populace to fund an event that celebrates the fact that she's been stealing money from us for 60 years.:

          You really think the Queen sat down one day and said 'OK it's my 60th anniversary, lets go out and plan a celebration that will cost the UK 275 million people?

          1. innersmiff profile image75
            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The rationale behind it does not matter, what matters is that fact that it happens.

            1. SimeyC profile image99
              SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              The problem is that the country is pretty split - 50% love the Royalt and the Pageantry and the other 50% hate it. Kinda between a rock and a hard place.....

        3. Judi Bee profile image97
          Judi Beeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Innersmiff - I admire your passion on the subject, but your use of hyperbole is losing me.  You are making Britain sound like Cambodia under Pol Pot - "families torn apart by the monarchy??"  The Queen has had "years of murder!".  William and Kate cousins!! (One common ancestor around six hundred years ago).  Totally with you one it being old fashioned, but the moral outrage would be better saved for a truly corrupt regime - plenty out there, DR Congo spring to mind.

          1. innersmiff profile image75
            innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            So you believe we are living in a free country and the monarchy is not corrupt? Charles hasn't attended the Bilderberg group of politicians and corporate interests? They haven't advocated mass depopulation?

            The reason I have moral outrage over this is because we love our tyranny. Did you not see the millions of people milling around with the flags? I see it everywhere around me and it disgusts me. I think it's a bit hypocritical to start criticising other regimes without addressing the ones closest to home.

            Anybody who is not outraged over it simply doesn't understand the implications.

            1. SimeyC profile image99
              SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              One major difference - if you were to voice these opinions in other countries you would be dead now. At least the corrupt UK Royalty and Government doesn't have you dragged away for calling it as it is....

              ...sadly every country in the world has corruption within the government etc...

              1. innersmiff profile image75
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Okay so the fact that I can say my opinion on forum means we're not living under a tyranny. Thanks government! Thank you for deigning to give me my natural right as a human being.

                Every country in the world has corruption, so does that change the definition of corruption, or does it say something about our governments? I think we should do something about it.

                1. SimeyC profile image99
                  SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Sadly no-one wants to do anything about it. All you have to do is vote out the incumbants - however that will never happen because some people have always and always will vote Labour, while others have and always will vote Conservative.

                  I lived in Wales for 30 years - if the local labor party had put up a sheep for election it would have won (probably have done a better job too!). Until normal people change their ways and start trying to change things, nothing will change.

                  It seems the old British Reserve allows for a certain amount of Tyranny! Where the tipping level is I have no idea....

                  I'm actually on your side - government for the sake of government is wrong. A government that actually democratically listens to the people is what we need - I know I will never see a government like that in my lifetime...

            2. Judi Bee profile image97
              Judi Beeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Am I living in a free country - pretty much as free as any other, and more so than a great many.  I have lived in another country, and visited many others, and don't see that that I am disadvantaged here.

              No doubt you consider me dull witted, but I do not consider myself living in a tyranny and I believe it to be patronising to those who actually do to compare my situation to theirs.

              1. innersmiff profile image75
                innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                It may or may not be patronising, but it is the truth. Any government that lies to the populace in order to sacrifice the lives of thousands of people is a tyrannical one. Any government that destroys the economy and then steals from the populace to save failing corporations is a tyrannical one. Any government that can hold a person without trial on flimsy evidence for months at a time is a tyrannical one. Any government that sells itself and the individual rights of the populace to a non-democratic institution is a tyranny.

                Most people don't think they are living under a tyranny until its too late.

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You know we are agreeing far too much lately tongue

      1. innersmiff profile image75
        innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        I know! And with all these cases of cannibalism I'm starting to get worried end times might be near . . .

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          We should probably get together and figure out all the things we agree on and thus prevent further catastrophe.

  15. Judi Bee profile image97
    Judi Beeposted 5 years ago

    The monarchy is far from our only attraction.  We have a beautiful country with a great heritage and marvellous culture - we have plenty of art galleries, theatres, festivals, music which people from other countries visit.  The royal family is just one of many attractions - it just happens to be a pretty unique attraction.  As for our system being dated, it's not.  The fact that the monarchy survives is due to the fact that it has evolved through a series of compromises over the past few centuries - so whilst the idea of a monarch may be archaic, the system surrounding it is not.

  16. prettydarkhorse profile image65
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    It is a tradition and part of their historical heritage. I think most people in different parts of the world like it as evidenced by viewership.

  17. Wayne K. WIlkins profile image69
    Wayne K. WIlkinsposted 5 years ago

    Thanks for that, Liz........ Nice to know that while our government is raping us out of our hard earned cash you're partying hard and enjoying a jubilee celebration. Cheers
    Not only has your 4 day bank holiday delayed my post and my money going into the bank, it's also cost the government this much cash
    So ridiculous.

  18. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Um, people who don't oppose the monarchy or (in general) the overall government are enjoying a party in it's honor.  Why shouldn't they.  People should act according to *their* beliefs.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      With "their" money.

      1. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        There is pretty strong Commonwealth and British support for using it this way.  So in a socialist democracy like the UK, that means tax dollars can be spent on it.

        But what I was referring to was the suggestion that people shouldn't have their own block parties and celebrate. With their time and their money and in their community.

        If they want to, of course they should.  Just as I just had my jubilee lunch at work with cake and beer I paid for.

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          I think we need a vote to prove it, as I understand it pro and anti monarchists are split pretty 50 - 50.

          1. psycheskinner profile image83
            psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            The surveys have been done, feel free to look them up.

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I can't find a single poll saying that the British people were willing to sacrifice nearly 7 Billion public dollars to celebrate 60 years of the Queen or anything to that effect.

              1. psycheskinner profile image83
                psycheskinnerposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Yes clearly the all time high 80% support for the monarchy expresses their disgust with the whole thing.

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There is a big difference between approving of the monarchy and approving of losing 7 billion dollars during a massive recession. The rights of those people who disapproved, however many there might be have been were trampled, I am sure they pay their hard earned taxes with the expectation that the money will be used to help the country not frivolously wasted on celebrating a system with a history of oppression and mass murder.

                2. innersmiff profile image75
                  innersmiffposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  Even if 99% were in favour, that 1% still has to be accounted for. Would you be opposed to those not in favour of withdrawing the appropriate amount of tax pounds?

                  1. CMHypno profile image96
                    CMHypnoposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    In a democracy if a majority like 99% of the population agree to something, the 1% have to suck it up even if they don't agree with it.

                    The amount of your tax that goes to maintaining the royal family will be tiny.  In a functioning democracy it is almost inevitable that we all have to pay tax towards something we either don't agree with or don't use.

              2. SimeyC profile image99
                SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                These figures are all 'fake' anyway - purely economists spinning them the way they want - while you say 7 billion dollars - many other economists will estimate that over the next ten years, the additional tourism due to the enhanced British brand will be a lot more - so which economist do you want to believe?

                Another 'fake' figure - the revenue generated from the Royal Family in terms of tourism are $500m - the estimated cost including revenues lost due to some of the Royal Holdings is around $250m - so the net profit to the UK is $250m.

                Not a bad deal if you ask me!

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  7 billion was the loss due to the long weekend and expense after subtracting the rise in business and tourism revenues.

                  1. SimeyC profile image99
                    SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    It's a fake figure - one that no one will ever be able to confirm - and one that varies depending on the economist calculating it. There are so many intangibles.

                    OK I'll add another fake figure - how much has the food industry gained by all the extra cake and sandwiches sold - or the beer industry gained by all the extra booze.

                    There simply is no way to get a true economical cost of this...

  19. JKenny profile image96
    JKennyposted 5 years ago

    Here's a video that helps to explain why the Royal Family are probably Britain's biggest asset.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

    Personally, I think in Britain we have the best of both worlds, we enjoy the same democratic freedom as countries like America, through electing a prime minister who runs the country on behalf of the Queen. But what the monarchy give us is a living, breathing link to the past going back over 1000 years. I think its cool, that we still have castles and other stately homes that are actually owned by the monarchy. I would rather have Britons idolise the monarchy than the likes of footballers and pop stars.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      No actually the Monarch has quite few powers for example until just last year the Queen had the power of dissolution of parliament and could unilaterally dismiss a prime minister, not only that but the Queen is actually the head of state of at least two countries (meaning she is the most powerful person in them) I know that is the case for Australia and new Zealand.

      1. SimeyC profile image99
        SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Oh come on  - you know that the Queen has no power - ther's no way she could change anything in the UK, Australia or NZ - she is a figure head.  While in truth she potentially has more power than the head of state she has not used this in 60 years of reigh -why would she suddenly use it

        1. Josak profile image60
          Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          She actually is the head of state and that is not true, for example in Australia she changed the Prime minister and the entire ministry in 1975 (well her authority did).

          1. SimeyC profile image99
            SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Look at the facts - she - the Queen - has had no power EVER. Whether governments usurped her supposed power is a different matter....

            1. Josak profile image60
              Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              Her appointed representative used her authority to undermine a democratic process.

              1. SimeyC profile image99
                SimeyCposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Whether or not you believe it - SHE does not have the power. Governments and representatives act on her authority - but tell her what to do. In theory she could take over Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand BUT she does not have the real power to do this.....don't blame Liz - blame those who usurp her power in her name!

                1. Josak profile image60
                  Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  It's not just "Liz" I have a problem with it's the whole monarchic institution which she is part of and so are those who use her appointed power which she gave them to destroy democracy, the buck ultimately stops with her.

  20. Stacie L profile image91
    Stacie Lposted 5 years ago

    would most Brits prefer the old Monarchy rule if they could go back to that way of government?

 
working