2007-04-23 03:27:40 · 21 answers · asked by gortamor 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £6 billion as of 2006. Historically the possession of the monarchy, it transfers its income to the Exchequer.
Parliament is responsible for the finances of the UK, including paying the crown the Civil List allowance to meet the Sovereign's official expenses. (In 2002-03 the Crown Estate paid the Treasury £170.8 million in return for an allowance of £7.9 million.)
Only The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Queen reimburses the annual parliamentary allowances received by other members of the Royal Family. The civil list includes traveling expenses. The Royal Family also pays taxes.
In other words, you had better hang on to them, or you are going to be paying a lot more in taxes.
2007-04-23 04:54:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The monarchy doesn't cost us anything - the revenue generated by crown estates is paid directly to the treasury. the government then pays the monarchy (called the civil list) living expenses - the costs of the civil list add up to less than one third of the money generated by crown estates (ie property belonging to the Queen). Where the monarchy to be abolished these estates would still belong to the Queen, but the revenue generated would no longer go to the government. The Queen also pays taxes. so if you want the income tax of everyone else in the country to increase dramatcially - go ahead, abolish the monarchy.
2007-04-26 11:37:10 · answer #2 · answered by fallenangel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Royal Family and its expenditure is now totally accountable to the general public and costs around 5p per person per year, whilst generating a hugh amount of tourist revenue for the whole of the UK, for which the Royals receive nothing.
However, our Government is currently busy trying to stop the public having access to MPs expense accounts and the money the spend on refurbishments....which one give better value for money and which one is till trying to be a world power by waging war on Iraq, Afganistan etc etc
I have not worries about the tax money spent on the Queen, (Charles might be a different matter) I do worry about what the Government spends and wastes money on
2007-04-26 09:14:15 · answer #3 · answered by Breeze 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but methinks the Hanoverians wad be cast out of Britain !
The bloody law of traitors shad be abolished to permit the access to the throne of A Roman Catholic faith bearer !
An election cad be organized in order to know which Noble European Family May Be Choosen !
British Aristocracy Needs a breath of Purity !
2007-04-26 14:48:21 · answer #4 · answered by Meien-duc 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Commonwealth is pretty much held together by our Royal family. If we were to abolish the Royals then we would more than likely end up losing our alliance with the other Commonwealth members. It would weaken our country because of this and we would be dissolved into Europe.
I am far from being a Royalist but I can see a little logic to it.
2007-04-23 10:35:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Oh god yes definetely, any tourism they may bring in is nothing compared to all the land they own,they are the largest landowners in britain and the wealthiest, that money has come from the people's pockets the riches they have are obscene while we have people living on the breadline,I believe strongly in equal distribution of wealth,how can that happen when the taxpayers are paying for the whole of the royal family and their hangers ons,they actually charge childrens hospitals for rent if they are on their land.I abhor them and all their ilk but some people are just too thick to see it,if someone tells me they are a royalist my estimation of them hits the floor.
jo
2007-04-23 17:43:05 · answer #6 · answered by joanne a 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hmmmm. I'm no Royalist but this question is asked over and over and so far the best anyone can come up with as a replacement for them is 'an elected head of State' . Which is just an extension of the current government. And with that sleaze and corruption, rigged voting, etc etc. And I would rather stick pins in my eyes than see President Blair cavorting around on a punnet of strawberries waving to his 'subjects' and handing out jobs to his pals.
Replace them by all means but at least come up with a credible impartial replacement strategy
2007-04-23 11:53:52 · answer #7 · answered by Eden* 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. There are many states without monarchy, and there should also be states with monarchy. Besides, it is a tourist attraction. I would very much like to visit London when, please God, ether Prince William or Prince Harry is crowned as king of Britain.
2007-04-23 13:00:57 · answer #8 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not just the monarchy but the whole class system needs a revolution - the upper class still own the majority of the wealth and land in the UK
2007-04-23 21:07:47 · answer #9 · answered by ella 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Get rid of them, seize their holdings and put them back on the street where the belong. The monarchy of any nation is only at it's position due to the corruption and murdering of their ancestors. So congratulations, the Queen of England is descended from a long line of murderous, corrupt, cheating bloodline. That is all. It always amazes me when people go crazy over them, but then I guess the moral majority are morons anyway. They do nothing but consume resources on the planet and contribute nothing to the planet. They truly are just a waste of time, space, skin, air, etc.
2007-04-23 15:48:43 · answer #10 · answered by corona001500 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋