reasons why the Queen is good for the UK

The royal family costs 40 million pounds per year, that is 65 pence per person, per year.

Now let's talk why the royal family manages to pay back this amount. To do that we must go back in time to King George III. The king was having trouble paying his bills and was in severe debt, even though he held huge tracts of land, the revenue he got was too little. So he made a deal with parliament. For the rest of his life, he would cede all profits from his lands in return for abolishing royal debts and the family receiving a salary from the taxes from the people in the empire. Parliament agreed, knowing full well that the land (over time) would be profitable from the deal.

Now for the math, the cost of the royal family today is a total of 40 million pounds a year. So, you may ask "But was the deal profitable?", yes it was. Parliament now makes a total of 200 million pounds a year off that very land. That is 160 Million pounds a year that your parliament makes(in profit) off of the royal family. 160 million x 62 million people is 2 pounds, 60 pence. That means you save 2 pounds, 60 pence from the royal family.

Now, you may be a greedy person and say "Why not kick the royals out and keep all the revenue?" well, it is still their land. If you kick the royals out you would still pay 2 pounds 60 directly to the royal family.

Also, 160 million is just the easily measurable quantity. The Royals also help tourism, people (mostly Americans) fly all the way to the UK to see real castles. You may ask "If they want to see castles why don't they go to Italy or France?", well, the tourists love English castles and palaces because real monarchs still use those real castles. The reason why the Tower of London is so popular is because all the royal crests on the uniforms is real. Every royal crest in London is an embodiment of the real Queen. The tourists who go to your country spend nearly 70 billion pounds(most in areas with royal ties).

Every monarch since George has agreed to this deal. Get rid of the Royal family and you will live in the rather dull United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (or U.R.E.S.W.N.I). Seems rather unattractive, huh?

The summary:
Money the family costs: 40 million pounds

Money the Parliament makes off the family: 160 million pounds

Money Parliament makes from royal family-related tourism: 70 billion pounds.

If the royals are kicked out: potential millions of tourists lost and increased taxes (in form of rent).

I think i made my point quite well

Cool.

• Firstly, who's proposing to remove the Royal Family?
• Secondly, who could actually do it? I'll answer the second, the Family itself, Parliament or a movement of the people. None of these seem likely.
• Thirdly, does the removal of the Royal Family automatically mean that there will be no Royal Family related tourism? No-one will be interested in the buildings for historical reasons?
• Fourth, if your judgement of the monetary value of the Royal Family is correct, does that warrant keeping an institution which is completely undemocratic and unrepresentative that can declare wars, dissolve Parliament, appoint Prime Ministers etc.?

Didn't you quote all that from this thing?

I always thought America should have a royal family.

Here, have a cookie.

How many people do you know go to France to see those castles?

You would be surprised at the number of people who think the UK would be better off without them.

The louvre got like 8.3 million in 2006
And I think Versailles is 5 million

I think Buck-in-ham palace gets around 50,000 a year

I made a virtually identical post 2 and a half months ago, in a completely unrelated discussion. I questioned the Queen's monetary value, but I knew she was more than worth it in indirect benefits to the UK.

Quick summary from Wikipedia and some Googling.

A fair amount of people. You hint at it in your last sentence.

Indeed. There are movements that are attempting to gain traction with the public, so the latter, but they aren't very successful. I guess theteremaster is just arguing at those few people who do want the queen gone. There's not a lot of them, but they exist.

You are correct again. theteremaster is wrong to assume that if the royals were to go, all tourism to the places with royal ties would cease. It would definitely fall, but probably not dramatically.

Seeing as the Queen doesn't exercise these rights unless absolutely necessary, removing her wouldn't have a large political impact. I don't see it worth the billions it would cost the UK.

You realize that they kind of... kicked Britain's *** to the curb because they DIDN'T want a royal family, right?

You can say "ass" you know. The mods aren't going to hunt you down and crucify you just because you said ass or fuck or anything similar.

It's not the cost I got beef with, it's their accociation with european history, and what came of it, that I thoroughly detest. I hate all forms of dynastical rule because of the sheer amount of death and destruction they have trigured in the past.

It's a complete waste.

Owned like a boss!

Here no one likes the monarchy and no one wants it but the Conservatives keep pushing it.

I like that video, as it gets rid of CCPGrey's ridiculous claim that the monarchy themselves brings tourists, and it explains the tax exemption, however, it makes a mistake (or perhaps it's intentional to prove his point) that the royal family "costs" Britain 100,000 a year due to the monarchy being shit at running a business compared to the rest of the country. If there was no royal family, that wouldn't change. They would still be running their land the same way. So, in all, it seems like the Royal Family gives the country 50,000 a year.

I'm gonna throw in my opinion and say that the royal family should not just be abolished, but should have been abolished 350 years ago. Stupid nobility delaying the inevitablility of Marx! (and Parliament, more importantly)

Well played.

Marx as a British head of state.

lolawesome.

Interesting. Unfortunately that video is filled with flaws, but it does bring up some interesting and valid points. You can't objectively compare the reasons why people visit the Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Louvre and Versailles, so that point is completely rubbish. I agree that tourism to places linked to the royal family does not hinge on whether one currently exists, but I don't see how anyone could argue that tourism to the UK wouldn't decrease if the Royal family was removed. The same point was also rubbish in the original video, but I didn't see that until just now. Then he mentioned a lot of stuff that happened in the past, doesn't really apply anymore, and wouldn't be helped if the Royal family was removed. He aslo seems to make the assumption that the Royals just sat around, doing nothing, wasting money. He completely ignores the fact that right up until the 20th century, the Royal family had quite a lot of influence and power, and they generally used it well. Yes I know they weren't absolute monarchs and not much of British progress since the 1700's can be attributed to them, but they were responsible for a lot, especially in the time of Queen Victoria.

In short both videos are very biased and flawed and greatly oversimplify the issue.