Palace: Prince William's wife Kate in labor

[kentonio]

I think everything you mentioned is a massive waste too.

YOUR POINT?

Contrast that £35m against the millions of visitors a year who come to see the palaces and Royal events, plus the trade agreements that the Royals play a major part in helping facilitate, plus the countless events they support which help promote business and charities across the country. £35m is an absolute ****ing steal.

[giblets]

The visitors come because they arrive in the UK and then realize there is nothing else to see.

[Wezil]

Disneyland Royals.

[PLATO]

Wow. God save the Queen...'Poly sure wouldn't

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dunno, I think we should be a republic despite the terrible example in elected heads of state from across the pond.

Well, you know, as long as the royals are just there for entertainment purposes, it doesn't matter much if they are around while Parliament decides on things. Doesn't really hurt anything and brings in extra tourist money.

[Colon™]

Voted boy.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Queen gets £35m a year, which includes upkeep of palaces etc. i.e. we pay her less than you spend on one Obama trip to Africa. US presidential election spending was nearly $2bn.

So it's worth having some perspective on it.

That £35 million doesn't include security, which is a major expense.

It also doesn't factor in anything for the state-owned assets used solely (and hugely inefficiently) to provide luxurious lifestyles for unemployed aristocrats.

[Wezil]

Voted boy.

Good call.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Contrast that £35m against the millions of visitors a year who come to see the palaces and Royal events, plus the trade agreements that the Royals play a major part in helping facilitate, plus the countless events they support which help promote business and charities across the country. £35m is an absolute ****ing steal.

Whereas nobody ever went to see palaces with no monarchs in them, like Versailles or the Louvre, for example?

You could turn a much bigger profit by dropping the royals and using those properties more efficiently. Budget arguments just don't work.

[Colon™]

Good call.

Timing is everything.

[Colon™]

You can't have a United Kingdom and abolish the monarchy. That's just silly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whereas nobody ever went to see palaces with no monarchs in them, like Versailles or the Louvre, for example?

Let's be honest, a lot of tourists to the UK want to see where the royals live. Castles are fun, but Britain doesn't really have anything like Versailles and people go to the Louvre for the fancy paintings.

[kentonio]

You could turn a much bigger profit by dropping the royals and using those properties more efficiently. Budget arguments just don't work.

Yes they do. They only don't work if you assume that the Royals play no real role in tourism and promoting Britain, which is what you appear to have done here. You might be a Republican, but surely you can at least acknowledge that vast numbers of people around the world are extremely interested and fascinated by the British Royal Family, and that does have a financial effect in our favour?

[giblets]

The question is why British royals get more attention than other European monarchs- which is obviously because America cares more about monarchs in English speaking countries and America is influential. Clearly America is propping up the British economy. Without our generous aid you'd be a third world country already. Luckily your country is one giant amusement park.

[Sava]

Contrast that £35m against the millions of visitors a year who come to see the palaces and Royal events, plus the trade agreements that the Royals play a major part in helping facilitate, plus the countless events they support which help promote business and charities across the country. £35m is an absolute ****ing steal.

No. But nice idiotic rationalization.