By creating an account, you agree to our terms of service.
Hello guys!In the previous days bbc tortured me by talking relentlessly about the prince George Alexander Louis Arthur Henry Vladimir Merlin Goofy's (etc...)birth. And some (maybe) simple questions have occurred to me...how much do you pay in UK to have his nappies changed? And in more general terms, how much do you pay to mantain the royal family? Do you have a specific tax designed for this reason? Also other countries of the Commonwealth contribute?Of course I am not asking for exact figures, just indicative ones ;-)
Thanks in advance, if you answer them!
I was forgetting: do you think it is right to pay for them?
Yeah, and why do we never hear in the media about how any of the Royals have been busted for smoking pot (marijuana), driving drunk, or getting in a bar fight, you know, like normal celebrities or sons of politicians? At the very least, for assaulting a paporazzi? It's pretty obvious to me there is a double standard in relation to these people. I bet the same thing exists in "communist" countries like China for the sons and daughters of the party bigwigs.
Every country pays taxes to maintain their heads of state. The British royal family's' main income comes from the money that they have personally inherited from their parents over the years (from king to king and so on). The Queen pays taxes as well. Most of their possessions are actually owned by the people of the UK as public possessions. This includes the majority of jewels, cars and palaces.Prince Charles also has income from his farms.Tourism also contributes to the maintenace of palaces etc. Many of the younger royals also have jobs.
The UK government has routinely stated that the royals pay out more than they receive from the taxpayer, and the majority of Britons agree with this according to polls that have been taken over the years.
Actually USA pays more for the maintenance of the first and second families (federal and states) than Britons do for the royal family.
Well, I'm not that much up on my English history, but wasn't it after the civil war in the 1500's the monarchy was disbanded and then later on they re-instated it. Those royal families in Europe were alwasy intermarrying and were interconnected, and maybe the aristocracy. Back in, like, 1917 one of the English princesses had some kind of ties to Germany or something like that, so one wonders if all those people died because of family squabbling. That, and I read in my biology textbook about how the genes for anemia or something was common in those populations because of this. I don't know why I'm telling this to a European who probably knows more about it than I do...
I'm sure the average UK citizen can stay over at Buckingham Palace or take in spin in the royal Bentley, you know, at least twice in their life.
@Jura: thanks for your info! But as an Australian citizen do you pay something in taxes (even only few cents) to mantain the royal family? I didn't want to be argumentative with my questions (or...just a little bit :-P), it is only curiosity ;-)
@Alex: ahah, maybe in US and for sure in Italy we pay attention only to the big events and big scandals (or presumed ones) relating the British monarchy, but in UK I've noticed many tabloids, if they could, would report and show pictures also when one of the princes takes a shower. Anyway, if I am not wrong, the whole house of Windsor has German roots, not only a princess, and changed its name due to the anti-German sentiment in the British empire during the 1st WW. So, in some way, Germany strong influence goes beyond the continental Europe :-P
My country is not one of the commonwealth . We do not have princess king or queen etc and certainly we seem not to have models to admire or worship . However, we have numerous scandals and corruption news still . We pay lots of money in maintaining the life of the head of our state , even they did not do well at their position . Most of them are so unabashed which really disappoint me . We still have president election here , but I do not think a society with queen is worse than one with a elected president (or emperor? ) .
I criticize monarchy, arisocracy, social class, etc., but Robespierre...that guy was a nutcase and a psychopath.
And a tyrant.
When someone tell me that a country ruled by monarchy isn't worse than a republic I cannot disagree. Also because concrete powers of a monarch over the daily life of citizens have almost disappeared in this current age. Furthermore in many countries with a king as head of the State, like Sweden, quality of life (including freedom rights of course) is much higher than anywhere else. My point is another one. The head of a state, whether it is monarchy or republic, should represent and identify with the people of a country and deal with the big issues relating it. But the British monarchy, unlike Norwegian, Spanish Japanese,etc.., sees a queen or a king as the most important public figure of countries like Australia or Canada visited by him very few times and tied to the value he/her rapresents much less than in UK. In the case of a serious institutional crisis in those countries, who is charged with resolving it? A monarch who is essentialy sobstituted by a governor? Or if his/her powers are very very limited what is the meaning of maintaining his/her role? The head of a state shouldn't be a faded of the past. It seems to me like someone is wearing an hawaiian shirt and bermuda shorts during a meeting of company board.This is only a personal opinion as outsider and I'd really like to know what do you think (especially if you are Canadian, Australian,...).
@m-rk-s: I tried to sing it but after 1min an advertising message (it seemed to me Cameron's voice but maybe I am wrong) which threatened to send me a gift box of the royal baby souvenirs...so I stopped. I know, I am a coward!