2006-10-20 02:38:55 · 74 answers · asked by Ah! 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
Not in my opinion no!
And I think the tourist argument is pretty rubbish too. Every tourist I've spoken to has said that they never actually get to see the royal family and they would far rather be able to take tours around all the palaces etc. and just look at pictures of them.
I certainly don't think they should receive money from tax payers when they have money in their own right.
2006-10-20 02:52:33 · answer #1 · answered by libbyft 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Are any of the respondents here, necessary? How many of them are costing the taxpayers money or have extracted money from the state coffers for one thing or another? What has the nation received in return for the support? Probably little if anything at all. The British Royal family on the other hand are a brand. They sell England to the world. I don't know precisely what the figures are but I do remember reading somewhere that Princess Diana alone contributed over $50mil a year to the GNP. (Included tourism, souvenir products sales and fashion. )
If Britain got rid of the royals, do you think anyone would be interested in anything that has to do with the Blairs, for example? I doubt it. And not only have they NOT contributed, they have been a drain on the economy with their brood of children, each of whom gets a tax deduction and costs other taxpayers money in the form of social services and medical care.
2006-10-27 04:29:16 · answer #2 · answered by pepper 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
people seem to think all the queen ever does is sit on her ****, well thats not true she has loads of meetings everyday, they don't exactly cost that much to keep and they bring in money in the form of tourists who want to see the palace and them. Get rid of all the hangers on to the royal family but they are an essential part of british life. People also probably think they love the fact that they have all their people on hand all the time, this is also not true as I know someone who has met Charles and helped him get away from all the fuss he was getting. End of day they're good people, and I'm definetly against having president blair as a leader.
2006-10-27 05:16:27 · answer #3 · answered by DipperDog 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure... But I don't realy think so. The royal family costs more money and the people wouldn't b able to have they're own choice. That's kinda the reason why a lot of countries chosen presidents as leaders rather than Queens and Kings...
Even so, places with royal families usualy attracts more visitors...
2006-10-20 21:08:25 · answer #4 · answered by Crystal 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. I'm British and am completely against the Royal family and all the hangers-on that they attract. I'm sure they're all good, hard working people in their own way, but their existence perpetuates the class system and is contrary to a true democracy.
Mine you - if I had to choose between the Queen and Bush, the Queen would get my vote every time!
2006-10-27 01:19:04 · answer #5 · answered by Hilary Y 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i'm a Royalist! What i could prefer to assert in spite of the undeniable fact that's that aside from the vacationer argument, the Monarch performs a significant function in representing our hobbies worldwide extensive. She is very respected between worldwide leaders or maybe the main ardent republican among you may desire to admit that in the time of fifty 4 years as head of state, she has by no skill as quickly as embarrassed our united states. i'm valuable that (no disrespect meant) there are a number of individuals obtainable who wish their modern-day head of state ought to pass fifty 4 minutes without doing this. of direction the great question is... What could you replace the Monarchy with. Republicans continually pass quiet whilst this comes up via fact the on the spot image is President Blair and universal woman Cherie. And to all those people who call them parasites, do you relatively think of there could be a great tax decrease in the event that they went? by way of no skill. The parasites are the chavs who pass connect up and then pass at present for the TennantsSuper jointly as i'm slogging my guts out. it extremely is the place my taxes are going and that annoys me a dam sight greater effective than to make certain 50p (cos that'sall it costs - a MArs Bar) of it going to maintain a woman who I honestly have the excellent admire and affection for. Plus if we replace HM wit an elected president, the submit will grow to be political and then we are only inquiring for a farce! look on the elected mayor of London Fiasco. And what has Ken honestly accomplished apart from introduce a stealth atax on motoristsand poison the pigeons? that's stable that we've somebody who's above the political clownery who can save an eye fixed on issues. (undergo in ideas Blair faking a heart atttack whilst she summoned hi to describe why he grew to become into signing the ecu contitution without commons approval?) To our pals in Aus - i will comprehend you desiring a republic - you're 0.5 a worldwide away and after that debacle in 1974 (i think of) I completely comprehend which you relatively prefer some administration over your own destiny, yet right here in uk - the Monarchy is merely component of who we are as a countrywide identity. God save the Queen and long stay the Monarchy.
2016-11-24 19:38:33 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only use they have is to bring tourism, although I reckon the number of tourists coming to the UK would not drop a lot if the royals disappeared. How many people go to Denmark just because they have a royal family?
2006-10-20 02:49:42 · answer #7 · answered by msm1089 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I dont think they have as much power as they used to as the government deals with most things, but its tradition and they do bring a lot of money into the country through tourism but then again they also cost alot to look after. Are they necessary? I dont think so but I quite like having them around.
2006-10-20 02:52:23 · answer #8 · answered by bez 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes I believe we need to have the royal family in our midst, it's a wonderful tradition which has made UK unique.
Here is a trivial example: You marry the woman of your choice, she is beautiful, sexy and has a marvelous figure. As years go by, she gives birth to 1 or 2 children and this later leads to some changes to her beauty. She stops working and decides to be there for the children. You begin to feel the pinch of maintaining your family; do you divorce her because of this or you continue loving her as your lovely partner?
Such is the reverence which commands the royal family not only in the UK but worldwide. Britain can never wither financially because of supporting the royal family. Long live the royal family.
2006-10-22 08:56:46 · answer #9 · answered by marizani 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
How do you define necessary? They could be replaced by a president but it would be very difficult replacing an institution which has been part of society for over 1000 years, and we would lose benefits of stability/continuity, impartiality, and possibly some of the tradition and pageantry which add colour to life and both tourists and Britons enjoy. The Queen is part of the international British brand, and a popular one. No president could fill that role in the same way.
2006-10-20 02:43:13 · answer #10 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋