Quote: (01-21-2014 09:53 PM)Mekorig Wrote:
Very interesting. The own land worth 160 millong pounds/years and cost 40/year. Why not just taking that land and gvigin it to the country?
I mean, why stop there? Why not take all private lands from wealthy families and give it to the country?
These are not things you can legally do in a democracy.
Quote:Quote:
The you get the 160 milllon pounds.
The country (UK)
already gets that money:
Quote:Quote:
The cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year.
But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million.
200 million in revenue subtract 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit.
That’s right: The United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family.
That isn't counting all of the income the royal family generates via its appearances, events, media profile, ability to draw tourists, etc, etc.
Quote:Quote:
Could be my liberal education, or the values that hold the founding father of my nation, but i do not like monarchies, even if they are plastic ones. I still belive that people from england and the british islands would be better without them.
You've a right to your opinion, but in this case it's just not a practical one. The monarchy costs the UK very little money, but provides plenty. Its historical significance and status draw substantial income from across the planet via tourism, media and marketing. It is one of the few fundamental aspects of English cultural identity/history that remain in an age when Britain is a shell of its old self (no more empire, no more global superpower, minimal remaining industry thanks to globalization, etc, etc), and
it's profitable to boot:
Quote:Quote:
Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.
Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.
Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.
And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.
After they’ve finished buying maple syrup and cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services and illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?
The United Kingdom.
Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.
And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.
The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.
It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.
Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.
12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million [7 Billion] pounds.
Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.
There's just no good reason to get rid of it. The elimination of the monarchy provides zero practical benefit (the royals have no actual political power and don't cost anything) while also bringing substantial losses (removal of one of the last remaining fundamental pieces of English cultural identity and removal of one of the few solid economic contributors the UK has that provides a stupendously high return on investment and
cannot be outsourced).
Anti-monarchists would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It just wouldn't make sense.