[Liberty4eva]

As someone who lives outside of the UK, I would like to know why the UK still has a monarch. If I was to guess the answer to my own question I think it would be something like "the UK has always had a monarch. It's tradition and it would be strange if it didn't have one" or something like that. But this is the 21st century and especially with our economies suffering I wonder why the British people overwelmingly seem to put up with supporting the lavish lifestyles of this super-wealthy family through their taxes.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

As someone who lives outside of the UK, I would like to know why the UK still has a monarch. If I was to guess the answer to my own question I think it would be something like "the UK has always had a monarch. It's tradition and it would be strange if it didn't have one" or something like that. But this is the 21st century and especially with our economies suffering I wonder why the British people overwelmingly seem to put up with supporting the lavish lifestyles of this super-wealthy family through their taxes.

They don't :

Parliament meets much of the sovereign's official expenditure from public funds, known as the Civil List and the Grants-in-Aid. An annual Property Services Grant-in-Aid pays for the upkeep of the royal residences, and an annual Royal Travel Grant-in-Aid pays for travel. The Civil List covers most expenses, including those for staffing, state visits, public engagements, and official entertainment. Its size is fixed by Parliament every 10 years; any money saved may be carried forward to the next 10-year period.

Until 1760 the monarch met all official expenses from hereditary revenues, which included the profits of the Crown Estate (the royal property portfolio). King George III agreed to surrender the hereditary revenues of the Crown in return for the Civil List, and this arrangement persists. In modern times, the profits surrendered from the Crown Estate have by far exceeded the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid provided to the monarch. For example, the Crown Estate produced £200 million for the Treasury in the financial year 2007–8, whereas parliamentary funding for the monarch was £40 million during the same period. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, worth over £7.3 billion.

Like the Crown Estate, the land and assets of the Duchy of Lancaster are held in trust. The revenues of the Duchy form part of the Privy Purse, and are used for expenses not borne by the Civil List. The Duchy of Cornwall is a similar estate held in trust to meet the expenses of the monarch's eldest son. The sovereign is subject to indirect taxes such as value added tax, and since 1993 the Queen has paid income tax and capital gains tax on personal income. The Civil List and Grants-in-Aid are not treated as income as they are solely for official expenditure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch...ngdom#Finances

[Tom4784]

The Royals do the business when it comes to Tourism, there's a lot of international interest in them. You've also got the whole tradition aspect although there's quite a lot of opposition to them, they're very divisive among the public.

I'm personally not that fussed either way.

[Stu]

I reckon most British people now see them more as some oddball entertainment institution more than anything else. Like Reality TV stars. Highly paid ones.

[MTVN]

Well I think it's partly down to tradition, but also because it's economically beneficial with the money they bring in through tourism. I think most of the population are just indifferent towards them now, few are avidly opposed or in support of the Monarchy

[Liberty4eva]

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

[InOne]

Where you from, America?

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

It's a big part of it, there are certain tourist attractions which only exist because of the Royal Family, the Changing of the Guard being the most obvious one

Are you an American? Isnt there a huge interest in the Royal Family over there? There certainly is in a lot of European countries, especially Germany

[Stu]

Alex is lost .

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

Don't forget Windsor Castle .....

[InOne]

Originally Posted by Stu

Alex is lost .

Yeah was gonna ask if it was a relation

[Shasown]

Why in the 21st century, with selective breeding, gene screening, easy abortions etc does America still produce so many wuckfits?

[Omah]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...taxpayers.html

The visit - part of a 10-trip to Asia - will take place amid unprecedented levels of security in the city of Mumbai, where terrorists killed at least 173 people two years ago.

Extreme measures to ensure the safety of President Obama will include the complete booking of the 570-room Taj Mahal Hotel for his security entourage.

The building saw some of the fiercest fighting between Islamic militant gunmen and security forces during the November 2008 atrocity.

Other precautions include the use of helicopters, US and Indian Navy ships to patrol the Mumbai waterfront and the use of sophisticated surveillance equipment.

Sort of puts the Queen's "petty cash" into perspective, doesn't it ?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty..._United_States

Poverty in the United States is cyclical in nature with roughly 13 to 17% of Americans living below the federal poverty line at any given point in time, and roughly 40% falling below the poverty line at some point within a 10-year time span. Poverty is defined as the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions. Approximately 43.6 million Americans were living in poverty in 2009, up from 39.8 million in 2008.

Ironic, huh .....

[Liberty4eva]

Originally Posted by MTVN

It's a big part of it, there are certain tourist attractions which only exist because of the Royal Family, the Changing of the Guard being the most obvious one

Are you an American? Isnt there a huge interest in the Royal Family over there? There certainly is in a lot of European countries, especially Germany

I suppose there is a casual interest in the Queen to some people in the US but I don't think it's a lot. I'm pretty sure at least 95% of the people who visit the UK from the US do it for other reasons. Interesting that you said there's a lot of interest in the Royals from the Germans because the Royal Family have their roots in Germany.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

So some people think the tourism helps but the people who go to Buckingham Palace don't get to see the Queen personally so that's not the reason they go there.

Conversely, tourists visit Washington DC to 'go' to the Whitehouse, take the tour....... I wonder why they bother doing that? Hardly as if Obama is going to ask them to join him for a morning bagel? Yep, no reason for any person to go visit the Whitehouse either eh...but still they do.

Completely off topic, but can anyone confirm where the word 'dumb' originated?

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Conversely, tourists visit Washington DC to 'go' to the Whitehouse, take the tour....... I wonder why they bother doing that? Hardly as if Obama is going to ask them to join him for a morning bagel? Yep, no reason for any person to go visit the Whitehouse either eh...but still they do.

Completely off topic, but can anyone confirm where the word 'dumb' originated?

http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?dumb

Origin: AS. Dumb; akin to D. Dom stupid, dumb, Sw. Dumb, Goth. Dumbs; cf. Gr. Blind. See Deaf, and cf. Dummy.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Omah

http://www.mondofacto.com/facts/dictionary?dumb

lol. Thanks but not really needed!

I was being facetious. Since some appear to be more 'lost' than others.

" For this change in meaning, it appears that the Germans are responsible. German has a similar and related word dumm that means "stupid," and over time, as a result of the waves of German immigrants to the United States, it has come to influence the meaning of English dumb. This is one of dozens of marks left by German on American English.

[Benjamin]

I have no issue with the Royal Family, they are part of our British traditional culture, and since we seem to be losing a lot of our identity in other areas, I'm actually glad we still have them here.

[Patrick]

I don't know it's something they like to show off, I very rarely agree with you 'Liberty4Eva' when it comes to Big Brother.

But I agree here, it's Silly.
It's not as if The Queen does anything.

Pat Butcher is more useful to The United Kingdom.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by Patrick

It's not as if The Queen does anything.

Pat Butcher is more useful to The United Kingdom.

And you would know that how?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/D...orkingday.aspx

Not everyones life revolves around BB, serial dramas and masturbation Patrick.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Shasown

And you would know that how?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/D...orkingday.aspx

Not everyones life revolves around BB, serial dramas and masturbation Patrick.

[Omah]

Originally Posted by Shasown

And you would know that how?

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/D...orkingday.aspx

Not everyones life revolves around BB, serial dramas and masturbation Patrick.

[Shaun]

it's quite harmless I suppose. Noone really cares about them - just an excuse for the occasional national holiday and some extra (odd) tourists.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Liberty4eva

As someone who lives outside of the UK, I would like to know why the UK still has a monarch. If I was to guess the answer to my own question I think it would be something like "the UK has always had a monarch. It's tradition and it would be strange if it didn't have one" or something like that. But this is the 21st century and especially with our economies suffering I wonder why the British people overwelmingly seem to put up with supporting the lavish lifestyles of this super-wealthy family through their taxes.

We have a monarch because we still want one. The royal family represent what's left of our traditions and heritage and they contribute as much financially to the economy of this country as they may take from it. It's a symbiotic relationship. Furthermore, the Queen is a taxpayer (since 1993) just like the rest of us. Being an American you can't be expected to understand a country like ours, steeped in history and tradition, seeing as you have so little of your own, most of which is nothing to be proud of as it happens.

Would we want a Presidential style autocracy, with the endemic corruption that entails? Err, no thanks. The British Monarchy is a constitutional monarchy in which the King or Queen reigns as Head of State but with limits to their power, and the day-to-day government is carried out by Parliament. All far more civilised than the unseemly bunfight Americans undertake, where the wealthiest contender with the best connections and most influential backing ends up as President.

[Jessica.]

I think it's absolutely mental how some people view the royal family as great people who must be respected no matter what, I know that's rare now but there's still a few.

I think it's nice that there is a royal family, it's quite cool, I just don't think they are any more special than any other celebrities