The Royal Family Gets £86M A Year From The British People. Are They Worth It? | True Cost
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2023
- Meghan Markle and Prince Harry have quit, and Prince Andrew has courted controversy - but the British royals remain one of the richest monarchies in the world. King Charles and his family cost UK taxpayers about £300M every year, but it’s argued they bring in far more through tourism and business. So are they value for money?
MORE TRUE COST VIDEOS:
The True Cost Of Mexico's Maya Train | True Cost | Insider Business
• Mega Train Cuts Throug...
The True Cost Of Turning Lakes Into Land In Cambodia | True Cost | Insider Business
• The True Cost Of Turni...
The True Cost Of Our Obsession With Superfoods Like Açaí, Durian, And Avocado | True Cost
• The True Cost Of Our O...
------------------------------------------------------
#RoyalFamily #TrueCost #InsiderBusiness
Business Insider tells you all you need to know about business, finance, tech, retail, and more.
Visit our homepage for the top stories of the day: www.businessinsider.com
Insider Business on Facebook: / businessinsider
Insider Business on Instagram: / insiderbusiness
Insider Business on Twitter: / businessinsider
Insider Business on Snapchat: / 5319643143
Insider Business on TikTok: / businessinsider
The Royal Family Gets £86M A Year From The British People. Are They Worth It? | True Cost
I don’t buy the tourism argument. I live in Vienna. The city attracts millions of visitors each year to see the palaces, parks, operas and what not. The city’s face defiantly was shaped by the monarchy. Schönbrunn palace is in fact the most visited attraction in the whole of Austria. Without having Royals living there for over a century now.
Where is that place? Called vienna? haven't heard about it
@@Hinata.Sakaguchi Cause you’re an illiterate.
Agree. Or versaille is still visited
The “tourist” argument is all they have left. They are effectively saying that they are all just living in a live movie and are paying their actors. It’s a complete joke.
Isn’t Vienna beautiful while the UK is rainy and gloomy?
Giving a billionaire family millions sounds very stupid.
Why these people are fine paying the descendants of the biggest bullies from 400 years ago is baffling to me.
Why the people are fine paying the descendants of the biggest bullies to war crimes president ?
Why the people are fine paying to war crimes president ?
They're fine with it because they're not paying them anything. The monarchy is funded by the crown estate, not taxpayer money.
Yes send u to North Korea then u will know the answer..
@@jaden_ong Really! what about the sovereign grant? do tell me.
I would have a slightly better impression of the royal family if it was more transparent. I don't want estimated from companies. They should show us concrete figures of ALL the expenses and income.
Their a horrible group of people. Charles, Camila, William and Kate. Nasty and underhanded. Run and plant stories in the Daily Mail to make themselves look better. Yuck.
I am afraid that you would have a worse impression
Are you willing to show YOUR family finances to the world? NO? Then why demand that they do so?
Show only what affects the public and leave the rest private.
@@ubergeek1968 because they are using tax payers money. People would obviously want to know where their money is going.
@@ubergeek1968 Because my family works for what they have and they are not some historical freeloaders like these clowns.
Lets not forget much of the tourism revenue stays in London. The rest of the UK doesn't benefit from that.
Brilliant point.
That’s not London’s fault that’s just because places like Scotland and Ireland are shitty places to visit
also, haggis is something that I'd use to poison my enemies
@@AnakinSkywalker_1858 LMAOOO
@@AnakinSkywalker_1858 that is not the point,he is trying to say that the money used by monarchs comes from all over the country but the money generated from monarchs in the form of tourism is limited to London only.
Come to London an get robbed
That's why the Crown Estate is given to the government. Not the Monarchy. If the Government give the Crown Estate to the Monarch then all the earnings of the property will be given to the Monarch. Basically it's fair fair for the sovereign grant.
25% of the income goes to the monarchy. They made over 300mil last year, so you can do the math.
Yeah, but the Crown Estates aren’t a dynastic private inheritance - in a republic, they’d just be state land and the profits would go to the state without that accounting jiggery pokery.
@@domtromans2783 According to the agreement made with K. George III, When he gave the profits of the crown estates to the gov it states that if the monarchy is ever abolished the crown estates would be returned to the monarchy, with the profits solely going to the Monarch/RF. Thus the gov would lose more income.
@@aardappeleten7701 Where does it state that, exactly? I can imagine that any *breach* of the agreement under the present constitution would see the Crown Estates return to the Sovereign, as they are legally ‘the Sovereign’s by right of the Crown’ for the purpose of funding the monarchy, but with a monarchy no longer being in legal force there’d be no-one for the Crown Estates to return to.
It would most certainly not go to the present Royal Family, regardless: as essential state property, it is not in the gift of any king to pass the Crown Estates into private ownership. The Crown Estates have been passed to every successive monarch regardless of dynasty, and a deposed House of Windsor would have no greater a claim to them than the descendants of King James.
Buckingham palace is also owned by the government. That why during the free time, most of the royal family stayed at Windsor palace and many more palace. Buckingham palace is like the king and queen working place, and if any royal event held, it took place at there.
Fithly rich and continue to collect money from strugling tax payers.
Even if they make more for tourism than they spend, crucially, who gets the money?
Mostly the people who sell trinkets to tourists, hotel owners who give rooms to tourists, restaurant owners who serve food to the tourists, street entertainers who receive donations from the public, tv broadcasters who broadcast the royal family, brands and advertisers who use the royal family as a brand image/promoter, etc.
Money from tourism isn't actual money that someone receives.
It's much better to imagine it as an industry that earns a profit
The government, which in turn provides services and infrastructure to the people. The real answer is the people. Everybody benefits from money flowing through tourism. It's not just 'an industry' as stated above - money doesn't just disappear into the nether. It comes through taxes. Anything else is a benefit to those that are in the tourism industry or have anything to do with it.
Their estates make all the tourist money not the monarch or his extended family. So even if we abolish the monarchy, it will String bring massive revenue. People anyway don't get to see the king. They get to see his house. Which are two different things.
Even taking money aside these non-elected people has power us, don't forget that
The fact that all the attention goes to the BRF and people think it's the only royal family in the world, the Spanish royals get tons of money, and the Prince of Liechtenstein is the richest monarch in Europe, and Buckingham is nothing in size if we compare it to others like Versailles, Royal Palace of Madrid, Palace of Caserta in Italy, Winter Palace in Russia and honestly dozens more.
The attention is due to the upcoming corronation of Charles III. Lichtenstein is the only de facto absolute hereditary monarchy in Europe so its logical that they're the richest.
That is right! Don’t forget UK has Medicare for all and other benefits usa lacks. They do that and the pay for a monarchy. We don’t pay 500 million to a king but god knows where our taxes go!
The White House is nicer than Buckingham
@@marcusbrown188 white house is new lulz. It got burned by the british in the past.
I mean, they're the only monarchs that are relevant to most of the world outside Europe. The Royal Family of France, who's empire was the second largest and who were very involved in American history, were driven to extinction by the revolution, as was the Russian and effectively German/Austrian monarchs by the end of WW1. Lichtenschtein, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Andorra, Monaco, and the Netherlands are all minor powers with no long lasting colonial holdings. Only Spain is potentially in a position to get this kind of attention as a result of it's wide-sweeping colonial efforts but unlike Britain who really kept a cultural chokehold on almost all of their colonies until the last hundred years, Spain was relatively unconcerned with exporting it's culture until it lost its hold over them 200+ years ago.
In terms of Historical focus I'd say it's pretty equal amongst the four major powers plus Spain, but in the modern day the British Monarchs have just done more historically to stay culturally relevant outside of Europe, and everyone else who might have done so is dead and extinct/removed from their privilege, automatically making them much less culturally important.
I've never once wanted to travel to Britain because of the Windsors. That's like saying I want to travel to Hollywood because of the Kardashians.
are you american?
There's a bit more to Britain than the Royal Family.
@@YewrMan0 AA. p😊 Dada 0op😅i
@joeybaseball7352 That's some pretty unreasonable hyperbole.
Are the Kardashians the rulers of hollywood?
A True King or Queen serves their people not rob them blind
What ever it costs, it's a waste of money
Short answer: Hell No!
I see a lot of people who are pro-Royal say they generate tourism income. However, wouldn't the same landmarks and buildings owned by them still be exactly the same if it were managed by the state just like how all other museums and cultural sites already are? It's not like you get to see the Queen every time you go to Buckingham palace...that place will be exactly the same with or without the royal family. Idk, it's a weak argument IMO but I'm open to having my mind changed.
It’s special because it’s not some historical relic. It’s a real palace that’s STILL in use
Probably not. People don't take as much interest in history as they do in the present. With a living family providing continuity with the past you have a much more compelling story and spectacle.
Tourism to Versailles bears out the fact that locations do not need a resident royal to attract the crowds. Versailles has roughly 10 million visitors a year.
Portugal has millions of tourists that visit their palaces etc and they removed their royals centuries ago! Portugal has been much better off since exiling the royals and business is booming for them.
@@gerry343Exactly, and you actually get to enter and walk around Versailles. With Buckingham Palace you get to stand behind a fence and gawk from afar, it’s so underwhelming of an attraction that Legoland Windsor gets more visitors per year than Buckingham Palace.
The Royal Family is like a reality show.
will be after william has gone
As an American, I can see why I having a constant patron could be a good thing, but the son is nowhere near what his mother was
What in the world are you talking about
I would suggest that some people do a bit of reading, even very light quick , on the royal house for the last 300 years. Done quite quickly . You would be amazed by the number of times they have been unpopular.
dondt forget the time when there was no king(oliver cromwel). and the people decided to get it one back.
And the same left wing people who support a republic hate Cromwell
@@FatRonaldo1 I am sorry but can you read? Or understand what you just read?
@mitch8072 that's because Cromwell was a extreme religious fanatic & if royals ran UK for hundreds of years uneducated people wouldn't like change but if then/now had a decent gov or decent politicians they'd prefer them but then & now still our politicians are as corrupt as royals. Henry 8th & King Charles wasted fortunes/brought country poor to starve & started wars to waste cash wile there subjects starved.
They pay very little if anything in tax. Meanwhile many live off benefits and food banks
They pay income tax at 85%.
The statement at the end - ‘People are inherently conservative and don’t want to change anything’ is infuriating. I think there’s quite a lot we’d like to change. I’d like to live in a world where people don’t have to sleep on the streets in one of the richest countries in the world, just to name something extremely relevant I’d immediately love to change. It’s hard to maintain the argument for their exorbitant costs when so many people suffer as a result of the circumstances created by extreme wealth division. Sure they might generate more based on some enigmatic calculation, but take care of the people who pay your insane rent as a built-in cost of living in their own houses. Throwing your hands up and saying… ‘tradition.. we stay out of government’ is a copout. Private wealth can be donated or otherwise put to use in amounts only limited by the size of their wallet, and they have a particularly large one. There is a cost to society that results from implying that people are better by birthright. It enforces a caste system and devalues other lives. Children’s lives who don’t even understand the crap that’s about to be enforced on them due to their class and circumstance. I thought this would all be obvious in 2023. I guess that’s progressive? So maybe this inherent conservatism thing he mentions is him saying he’s inconsiderate and justifies that by incorrectly saying that we’re all inconsiderate deep down, which is (fortunately) deeply untrue.
This was extremely well written. I'd also like to add that more people want change than there statement implies. The people in power have done an excellent job at maintaining their positions for generations. Even in the US, where there is no official Monarchy (yet), you can see that politicians in the highest echelons of society are almost always descendants of other previous powerful political figures (or those closely assisting their cause). Even the descendants of those who signed the Declaration of Independence still hold political and/or financial power to this day. The American nobles have been passing the torch (and their inheritance) to their own children for generations. They'll do everything in their power to maintain the status quo, which means doing everything in their power to keep us in our place. More people want change than they're implying. More people are frustrated than they are implying. But those in power can easily brush off any public outrage because, well quite simply... they have the power to do so...
New rule: Make contributions to the monarchy voluntary. Then we'll see how many royalists there truly are.
The monarchy isn't funded by the public. It's funded by a percentage of the profits from the Crown Estate which is a business and I'm pretty sure going to a restaurant or movie theatre is voluntary.
what do you mean by "contributions to the monarchy"?
@@jaden_ong Whose money do you think supports the monarchy? It certainly isn't their own.
Everything comes to an end. The royals are no exception.
by that logic republics are no exception either. Maybe they'll turn into monarchies.
That was like a first years University essay, padded out and not much said.
Chat GPT wrote the narration for the video
I don't think denying a Constitution because of Tourism is a valid reason. The fact that at the end, the monarchist said that people DONT want change should tell you all you need to know about the gap between the Wealthy and the rest of us.
They aren't wrong, nor is it denying any constitution. The monarchy is an institution that honestly by this point, is a major identifier and extreme draw for tourism (which yes, is a major point as it earns a HUGE amount of money, which improves everyones life as a result, for the UK). When people think of the UK, they think of monarchy. When people think of Norway, Sweden and Denmark? They're all monarchies too, yet they just think of high standard of living and clean energy, maybe in the case of Norway, EVs. They don't think of monarchy though.
The UK has such a rich history, and no longer having a monarchy will shatter that. I think that at the most extreme, if it gets to that point, the monarchy should just become extremely stripped back with much less expense (and if necessary, moving executive powers to an elected party). Some would ask, "why keep them then?" In that case, you'd have a monarch, mostly for tourism, tradition and identity, without as much of an issue for those against, or cost.
@@ElusiveTy I think the UK would rather be known as one of those high standard of living and clean energy countries. I think every country would. Scandinavia (you forgot Iceland) gets it's economy by selling it's oil and investing in a future where they don't need oil or land or sun to grow food. They work together, but it has to do with their location and relative non involvement in the protection of others around the world.
that family has no money. its another Trump family. lots of buildings no billions. and REAL ESTATE is tentative. its not gold.
I think change can happen but with a monarchy, look at the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, there’s little opposition there to their royal families, if we do things like take away their constitutional power, make their business and financial dealings more transparent, ensure an inheritance tax, have the succession not be based on gender, etc. I think that’s a monarchy of the future
@@michaelrae9599Lol keep on dreaming then UK becoming like Scandinavian countries. Well guess what?? The politicians are crooked as hell and abolishing the Monarchy aren't gonna stop any of that
Starting with Rishi Sunak's wife company who's recently been awarded the contract for phone alarms system in the UK. Ain't that one beautiful kind of Nepotism 😂😂
If the monarchy generates so much money then why most of the country can not heat their homes?
Your elected government waste more money .
@@familyseed1555 I don't vote.
@@mojojeinxs9960 So
@@mojojeinxs9960 Your democracy government waste money.
NO THEY ARE NOT WORTH IT!.
And the British people are worried about inflation. NHS staff is on strike for non payment of salary. 😂
Because that's a real issue.
@@ElusiveTyThen you're barking at the wrong tree. It's not the ones who slept on Buckingham who's been stealing money from NHS and the elderly. It was that bloke residing in 10 Downing St and the Parliament
Why is the public funding these when they are so rich ?
Why even have royalty in 21st century ? So arcane
because the public isn't funding them. They're private income is self-funded and their public income comes from investments in real-estate.
@@jaden_ong Of course they are funded by the British taxpayer - Sovereign Grant, non- payment of Inheritance Tax, off shore accounts which do not benefit GB and lack of transparency as to their actual wealth.
Oh look they are set to get a 45% increase … while the rest of us this winter will decide to either Heat or Eat !!!!
The issue not mentioned is the comparable cost of an elected head of state, who would also require immense security and need to be flown around the world at great cost.
Key word....Elected......
The key is elected and they can be unelected. We have no choice with this family. Your kid could be President of the UK. Your kid will never be King or Queen.
@@captainwin6333 the fact that you said “president” leaves me confused as to why you’re so passionately against the royals when you in fact have no idea what you’re talking about!
That would be taken care of in the Prime Minister budget, or whomever the Brits use for international relations. That bill won't change.
Regardless of your opinions towards politicians, they play a vital role in maintaining the county's social, political, and economic well-being...so yeah I'd rather they not die every time they go out so countries are not plunged into chaos 24/7. However, the royal family plays no role in policy making and are inconsequential tourist attractions akin to exotic pets for people to go "ahhh, ohhh". They're a fun concept but not worth the upkeep costs, especially in this day and age when the vast majority of people are struggling with basic needs.
Down with monarchy! Make Great Britain a republic!
Workers bring in the money from tourism, not the family 👍🏼
so tourists are going to watch the workers then?
@@potatosalad9085 No, they go to see the infrastructure that workers have built for the family; Buckingham Palace, The Mall etc. Take away the family and this infrastructure still exists. There are no Pharos that currently exist in Egypt, but tourists still go to see the infrastructure workers built for the Pharos; Pyramids & Sphinx, Petra, Jordan etc. 👍🏼
@@ER-zf5tr bro, who tf do you think payed the workers to build those castles? Oh yeah that’s right, the monarchs. Workers don’t just build things spontaneously, they must be contracted. Historically the monarchs have been quite large contractors of such workers
@@drummingkiwi8766 Irrelevant. Contractors/employers don’t create new value on their own only the performance of labour can. Workers are the ones performing labour that creates value for the tourists not the family.
@@ER-zf5tr yeah but again, workers don’t make shit unless you give them a reason to. Mainly by you know paying them. And most laborers don’t just agree to build you a castle, house or anything else for that matter unless you pay them to do so.
Plus if it’s all about Labour than why are the Chinese knockoffs of famous world landmarks not just as visited as the actual ones? Because there just buildings with no substance no history behind them. The value of castles of the monarchs are not derived from the the Labour of those who built them but by the history of who lived there and the events which took place inside the building. Which again is value not derived from the Labour of those who built the building
There is another element to this not addressed in this….the APOLITICAL role played by the monarch in our constitution laws. We have an apolitical police force, military, legal system, judiciary & civil service, their allegiance is to The Monarch. Look to USA & Jan 6th hearings to see how attempts were made by exerting party political pressure on each of those branches, the revocation of Roe vs Wade etc to see the benefit of THAT. The Monarch is our defence against overweening politicians & that is not to be taken lightly.
Huh, that's actually a really interesting concept. A lot of political parties in republics tend to try and make themselves out to be the "true" embodiment of "the nation" in order to gain leverage over different aspects of society that are meant to be neutral, but when you make the definition of "the nation" a bunch of vague ideas centralized around a relatively politically irrelevant family who are careful to never say anything too strongly, it actually does make sense that it would cut out a lot of the noise that creates corruption and bias in those kids of institutions.
@@charliecoke7396 Your almost there🤣 but APOLITICAL does not mean “politically irrelevant “ in U.K. The monarch is the defender of Our constitution & actually has quite a few powers to put brakes on the political process. The “power“ lies in the judicious use of those, the late Queen rarely had need to use these powers, a warning from the palace to the government was usually sufficient. also do note that the history of our royal family is the history of this country for over 1000 years, so in that sense the royal family do indeed embody “the nation“.
Apolitical president. GG ez
No. The Monarch does absolutely nothing. What the monarch signs is for ceremonial purposes only, they have no choice but to sign.
@@brettvogel8418Most definitely not “nothing”. Their role is to warn, consult & advise …politically speaking. Why do you think the PM has weekly meetings with the monarch…? It’s the exertion of “soft power”. Plus there’s many things a constitutional monarch COULD do..if necessary, but they don’t….how do you think there was such a kerfuffle over Johnsonthreatening to prorogue Parliament a few years ago…& how do you think that crisis was averted?
Biggest benefit spongers in the world
Can't the brits do a referendum to decide to keep of erase the royal family?
They seem to have a thing for referendums
Lol Brits aren't the Swiss. They never liked 'referendums' unlike the Scottish or Irish
Even if keeping the crown would make money, you'd make dramatically more money by pushing the retirement age to 70. Some things are not about the money, and the British Monarchy is far from a source of stability today.
They need to pay inheritance tax.
Corona nation, ruled over by a parasite. We are all a bunch of slaves.
They need to pay, period!!! They take the peoples' money.
King Charles III is worth trillions. He's richest man in the world.
To who? Their “inheritance” is coming from the place where tax payments go.
@@therockbottom5256 pay it like everyone else has to!
It’s unfathomable how much money they’ve lost over the years because the monetary value of losing the power to directly command a country is probably hard to value.
There are royals all around the world with less influence. I don't think it's necessary for their monarchy to die/forcing them to "abdicate"(since in practicality this had happened) it's just that the Brit royals are overglorified and that probably needs to change a bit. Where I live I know there's still princes/princesses and palaces but even if I pass them by the street I wouldn't recognize them. They're just still keeping their "family tradition" alive by keeping their title. I think people love/hate the Brit royals so much that they foget there's no need to choose between glorifying or eradicating them 😅
When William and Catherine lived in Kensington Palace, Catherine often jogged around the palace gardens in the early morning without security. When my elderly dad bumped into her the first time, he couldn’t believe she was allowed to do such a thing
@@JM-to9dk "he couldn't believe she was allowed to do such a thing". That's the point my man.
Honestly, if they paid proper taxes and the public didn't have to pay out the ass for ceremonial jerk-off for the next OAP to be given an utterly ceremonial title, I wouldn't even give a shit. The title of King or Queen means about as much as being the best potato stacker at McDonald's. The royals lost the advantage of legacy when Elizabeth died, now they're just normal rich people except with more fancy jewellery.
They have Gen Z to deal with , just like the rest of the world. This Generation will abolish the Firm/Monarchy! Short lived reign! Do you really think it will survive, until Prince George is old enough?
ah genz anarcy
That would be a true shame, as the monarchy deserves to see Prince William and Princess Catherine crowned.
@@ElusiveTysooner no one was crowned ever again
@@ElusiveTy why though? Living off of grand grand (raised to nth) grand papa's money is not "deserving".
That 26 billion dollars is extremely misleading. The family only owns a small portion of the property related to them are owned by the family. The rest are owned by the government. The same goes for the jewels.
Yeah. And that's why even as a republic, those exhibits will still draw tourists. Just as Vienna draws tourists without emperors.
The excuses of the monarchy bring tourism is a bunch of bs Look at france they have one of the biggest tourism industry in the world many visit the palaces, and castles there and they dont even have a monarchy any more
Abolish the monarchy
"lots of evidence that the monarchy does create his wealth" yet his financial "report" just says estimated and provides none of this evidence.
The release of this report had a launch with a director from the Princes Trust speaking, they have a charge on companies house from The Crown Estate Comissioners on Behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and he also runs a PR company.
So looks like David Haigh has some vested interest in claiming the monarchy is good value for money so not an unbias source.
Also there is no data from the national tourist board Visit Britain to back up the tourism claim either.
Poor reporting from Business Insider
We work for years to have, $1 million while some
people I know put a few thousand dollars in some
crypto coins trading and they are millionaires
Wow thank you for your kind heart, I really find it
difficult to trade myself I am looking forward to
find an Expert to help me out when I ran into you
imagine investing in Bitcoin earlier... You could
have been a multi millionaire presently
You are right. Been thinking of going into gold
and cryptocurrency
Because It's obvious everyone is doing this online
Investmnent
I totally agree with you it has
been an eye-opening experience for a lot of
people.
With the interest and focus Charles has on the climate and rewilding the UK. And William and Catherine's work with numerous charities, in a few years time they could make the Government in the UK and the world seem like the wrong way to go if they don't follow through with all their promises.
People don't want royal charities or charities of any kind. They want decent living and jobs.
They're good business but probably not necessary to make money from the panoply of palaces and other attractions. And putting money aside, monarchy is a cultural vestige that some sections of the British public might have trouble letting go.
A lot of the world too will struggle to let go. Monarchy and the UK are synonymous. Without one, what is the other? Nothing.
Not that they should let it go.
@@ElusiveTy not really
Plenty of countries get tourism for their spectacle, history, and zany rich ppl. They can keep their castle and pay for their own ceremonies if they really want. Insane that a country doesn’t own its own ducking sea bed
The monarchy is part of uk history and enriched with traditions.
they dont even pay an inheritance tax
Outdated and ridiculous
Cost tax payers is wrong
There'd still be tourism regardless of whether those benefit scroungers are in the palace or not
Here's the thing, passing down power and wealth in your family is the way it works for every family, everywhere. I'm not convinced it should be different for the king. I'd argue that many multi millionaires and billionaires all do the exact same thing in every country across the world.
Not an issue if you're passing down what was yours. This is being funded by a struggling public via what--- almost a 50% taxation. To make matters worse they're not even answerable to the citizens who support them.
@@kenamaro3942 are u a fool or something? The whole country belonged to them before they hadn't signed deals with parliament. It would be a betrayal to the monarchy if they get abolished today because they has sacrificed their power and wealth for the sake of the country
People are Also against billionaires, and sons or billionaires that get to do whatever they want. Not the best comparison.
But if you do wanna compare it, then force the royal numbers to be more transparent and tax them to hell and back. That's what people want to do with other wealth hoarders.
Royals aren't subject to inheritance tax, a normal person can't pass their wealth on to their family because the government taxes it significantly during their lifetime and then, once they've passed on a further tax...meaning children have to sell family homes etc to pay tax bills
@@kenamaro3942 the video just explained how the monarchy is a net profit for the UK, mfs are literally contributing to their country
No they’re not even close to worth it
Most people are funtimentally forgetting: the United *Kingdom* does not exist without them
Funty enough, a lot of us are more than happy for the UK to cease to exist
I don't see why we tax payers should pay for them,they should pay tax ffs.makes me mad that the RF lives off us the people.they don't care about us at all.
Tax payers don't pay for them though. The monarchy is funded by the Crown Estate, not tax dollars.
Don't believe the propaganda being spread by @jaden_ong.
Interesting , a number of the most eminent market experts have been expressing their views on the severity of the impending economic downturn and the extent to which equities might plummet. This is because the economy is heading towards a recession and inflation is persistently above the Federal Reserve's 2% target. As I'm aiming to create a portfolio worth no less than £850,000 before I turn 60, I would appreciate any advice on potential investments.
@@sandrabeckham602Mind if I ask you recommend this particular professional you use their service? i have quite a lot of marketing problems
@@sandrabeckham602thank you for saving me backward and forward hours of researching the markets, I just copied and pasted sofia erailda sema on my browser, and her site appeared top search, no nonsense at all. She looks impeccable.
They need to finance themselves and pay taxes, like we all do.
They do pay taxes & do fund themselves (the duchy of Lancaster, Cornwall etc).
They are not required by the LAW. As the monarch owmed the Crown Estate. If the UK ever abolish the Monarchy, the Crown Estate will be handed privately to the Royal Family.
75% of the profits from the Crown Estate go to the government. They're literally paying 330 million pounds a year to the government.
you haven't watched the video have you
@@ziontenuia9266 Neither of the duchies belong to them. They just claim the profits.
I can't say i've taken much interest in the royals, but they are an intrinsic part of Britain's continuity with the past and therefore identity. If they generate more than they take and don't weild any real power that can compromise the democratic process what does it matter if you have a monarchy? Don't shoot yourself in the foot for foolish, ideological reasons.
Slavery and capital punishment are intrinsic part of Britain's continuity and no doubt we are better off without them.
Monarchy is outdated. Sad if the Brits need them for their identity.
Plus what about all the immigrants? You don't need royals when you are from Syria.
Tell me about it. Not a single soul ever criticize why British citizens couldn't elect their own Prime Minister instead of the political party doing it for them yet they're now asking to abolish the Monarchy like it was Stalin or Castro lol
And if they have significant power which undermines parliament? Even if the lies about them generating a trivial amount of money were true (and they're not), the monarchy is still wrong in principle and harmful in practice.
People love UK across the world whatsoever. UK has a rich culture and heritage from science to literature. I've never heard anyone around me who said they want to travel to UK because of the monarchy. Most of them are talking about Harry Potter the entire flight.
👏👏👏 thank you! We are so much more than a family who were forced upon us a thousand years ago
Sounds like you’ve been talking to the wrong people
@@myamdane6895people who think our country is alot more than an ancient family imposed upon us a thousand years ago are the wrong people?
Harry Potter is nothing compared to The Witcher book series by Andrzej Sapkowski. Too bad all movie adaptations were bad.
@@karolinakuc4783😂Rubbish James Bond bigger than the Witcher series if we are going there then, don’t ever compare Polish entertainment to Britain’s.
Celebrating and paying for " Elitism"
By the way, the money gained from the royal family is often returned to fund the royal programs, the only difference is that the government gets to choose which program gets funds and which doesn’t.
As someone who lives in a country with a monarchy, i think it's more of a historical/cultural heritage thing rather than a purely economic one. I like having it in my country and i think it would be a shame to abolish it.
Exactly, I mean it’s the United Kingdom. It’s been the United Kingdom for thousands of years. Why should we change it now? What would it even be called at that point? The republic of Great Britain?
No royal guard, currency would need to be overhauled considering coins have the monarchs face on them, and more.
@@ieajackson5518so what you're saying is "change is too hard, let's just not"
"my" country? dude your name is gandhi🫨
@@peak_911 It's a random generated name my dude.
@@peak_911 😂😂😂 what is ur pRime minister last name again ?
The Crown estate doesn't make money because of the monarchy, the way this point is painted is like the wind turbines stop generating electricity without the monarchy or people stop visiting historical landmarks with a monarchy. We all know how no one visits Versailles because France has no monarchy, this point is ridiculous.
The Crown estate can of course generate money without a monarchy (probably would be called Crown estate at that point anymore).
The government only gets the money from the crown estate because the monarch willingly surrenders that income. If the monarchy is abolished then that would almost certainly invalidate the entire agreement. In very simple words, no monarchy = no crown estate income
Crown, not crewn.
@@Kodlaken No, because they wouldn’t get to keep it. The Crown Estate doesn’t belong to the family itself, it belongs to the nebulous legal concept of the ‘Crown’. Absent a monarch, the proceeds would just go to the exchequer.
@@domtromans2783 Of course they'd get to keep it, it belongs to the monarch. That's the whole reason the monarch needs to sign the agreement to cede the estate income in the first place. Because they own it and such an agreement would require the owner's signature to have any legitimacy whatsoever.
Nobody else is needed because nobody else owns it. There's nothing nebulous about it, in fact it's about as clear cut as you can get.
This isn't even some obscure fact either. You can very simply google "Crown Estate Act 1961" It is available to read for the public and in there you will find all you really need to know about it.
"Act wholly in force at Royal Assent."
Royal Assent in layman's terms = the monarch's approval is required for the whole corporation to exist because the monarch owns the estate you pillock.
@@domtromans2783 the Crown Estate is a private property in nature. Abolishing the monarchy then confiscating the property of the Windsor family is a blatant example of a violation of human’s right (the right to own things).
Hands down, the monarchy generates a huge economic benefit for the UK.
They also project a tremendous amount of soft power and influence worldwide.
Structurally, they also remove the "religiousness" from politics. Look at how hysterical many Americans become about the President, for example. It's great that the monarch takes that away from government.
Some traditions can't just be brought back once they have been abolished. We should be careful what we change.
I'm not religious but God Save The King.
Thanks. You just completed my 'monarchist propaganda' bingo card for me.
I came from Rotterdam to London last weekend to experience the coronation, spent 4 days in the UK. Including visa etc., I spent like £500-600. I can’t imagine doing the same thing for a republican thing, such as inauguration of a president.
And how many would come if they had unrestricted access to all our architecture and art the royals currently horde?
Is it a good idea for Charles to reign until he is 90-100 years old and just survive, then happily retire and have his son take over?
It's actually a return from their own tax. The money from the sovereign grant comes from the Crown Estate's contribution to the treasury. The Crown Estate belongs to the King.
I think the crown estate belongs to the treasury who then decide how much of a share the ruling monarch gets.
@@johnvonhorn2942 no it's not. It's the public property of the monarch and always has. It is held on trust for the monarch in exchange for the taxpayer paying for the civil service which otherwise is the responsibility of the King. This happened a few hundred years ago. It's only fair now that the Monarch does not pay out of his own wealth what now exists for utilitarian and common good (i.e. the NHS), so the CE should be handed back to him to resume ownership as private property again.
@@andyb619 The Crown Estate is not, nor hasit *ever* been the personal property of any monarch.
Brand Finance is essentially a PR company helping to give the Palace some positive spin.
Many of the material assets like the Crown Jewels cannot be sold, so their valuation is meaningless - but more significantly, lands such as the Crown Estates and the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster would become state property if the monarchy were abolished: the dynasty currently reigning has no private ‘right’ to them any more than the descendants of James Stuart they supplanted. That these can be considered a point on behalf of monarchy is absurd.
As for the ‘intangible’ assets, that’s for the birds - but solid evidence has never actually been provided to show that a statistically significant number of tourists come to the UK because of our monarchy (let alone the notion that people buy products because they have the royal coat of arms on them 😂). And in any case, it reflects a severe lack of confidence in what our nation has to offer if *that* is considered to be the main reason for retaining the institution.
I like having a monarchy. To get rid of it you would need to upend the entire system of government. Coins changed, royal guard removed, laws regarding the monarchy amended, name of the bloody country Changed, and more!
Not to mention removing what has been a major part of the country’s identity for thousands of years!
They have a right to them....they own it. No matter what you think about the agreement they (the Royal Family) owns the right to the land. So you are advocating, if they become a republic, a private citizen having their land removed because reasons? The law when it comes to inheritance is very clear about titles, titles as in land titles not noble titles, that they would still own it. As every monarch after George III has signed the agreement making it their land as they are new holder of the agreement. When it comes to the Duchies those are corporations with special rights, even the crown estates are also. Also Queen Victoria, which the current monarch descendent of was the granddaughter of George III therefore in UK inheritance law, which states that you can grant ownership to whoever you want, they have a claim to that land through the agreement and to counteract your claim of them "not having a right to it"
@@Anthony-uu2tk As I noted in my other comment, it seems you do not really understand the difference between the Royal Family/Windsor dynasty and the constitutional terms of the monarchy/Sovereign/Crown. It boils down to this: some things are owned by Charles Philip Arthur George of the House of Windsor; but other things are owned by the monarchy itself as an organ of state.
The Windsors are not the monarchy in its entirety. They are merely a dynasty which presently holds the position, as did the Stuarts, Tudors, and Plantagenets before them. Indeed, Parliament could legally unseat them tomorrow by repealing and replacing the Act of Settlement which placed them there, and welcome a descendant of King James back to the throne. The entirety of the Crown Estates would be transferred to the new King or Queen.
The Windsors, just like everyone else, are certainly entitled to their own private alienable property, which they have purchased with their income and passed down to their descendants or sold for a profit. They do have some such properties, including Sandringham.
What they are not personally entitled to is the land which funds the institution, as it never belonged solely to them in the first place. It is Crown land, sometimes controlled by a monarch but utterly inalienable from the state. It has passed from dynasty to dynasty, and once there are no more dynasties, it would be a legal and moral absurdity to pretend that a dethroned potentate had any personal claim to the sea floor or all swans in England!
Do you understand the distinction?
I'm so sick of the British Royal Family. Either have a series of referenda with an explanation to the British people of the Crown and an "up or down" vote as to whether it remains. Let the Windsors have a few million each and turn them out.
They can give back to the community by putting up some homeless indigenous folk
Completely antiquated
They're not inofensive. They wield real power. There have been several scandals of """royalty""" lobbying for their interests or for parties that support them. Just because their cost is not shown in records, it doesn't mean they do not cost anything the people of their country. Wonder how much money have gone to their pockets instead of the public treasury or through "donations"
Not the corrective usage of 'inoffensive', but no - we're talking about a constitutional monarchy. While yes, that does tend to mean that they have executive powers (akin to a President when the Prime Minister is the one that does policy making and the President has executive power), however it's generally not exercised. They act as a fail safe in case the country goes to shit. It is still their country, they've just given up a hell of a lot of control (since Queen Victoria)
Its not the royal family fighting to keep the monarchy. They would get out tomorrow if the British people let them.
People don't realize how much property these people, this family owns. Property that, since they are royalty, has been forced into a trust that is ineptly, incompetently and corruptly managed by government bureaucrats.
The royal family would gladly trade in their forced responsibility as heads of state and, between, a £100-1,000k stipend each per year, to regain the ownership and control of the family real estate, companies, buildings, trusts, etc., that government civil servants get to mismanage and skim money from.
None of the royal family want these awful jobs. Its not worth what they get in return.
And you know this how?
@@prakharkumar7892 by reading? It's called a book, stinky
@dem08 It's quite common, but that's how it is with everything that involves anything pertaining to responsibilities. Your comment reeks of immaturity, someone who has never had or taken any kind of responsibility. You could never last a single day with any kind of responsibility or duty with that kind of attitude.
@@tddz4741Pretty sure you're just describing the jobdesk of your local representative in the Parliament lol
Yes. All the more reason to abolish the monarchy.
Talking about the short-term economics damage caused by Andrew and Harry, disgusting comparison. One is sleazy and possible a p*do and the other just got sick of being a show pony and moved away to raise his family where they had some autonomy over their and their children's lives.
Autonomy.
Pales in comparison to what elected representatives in america get from its people
It's very interesting to see how people think extremely black and white. Either they do have a monarchy or they have a democracy. In the Netherlands we do have a royal house and the reigning king or queen does have some duties they have to perform. The king or queen doesn't hold any extreme power, but rather the minister does since they're an elected figure
Then why have them ? What purpose do they serve beside ornamentation ?
What exactly do the Royals do?
sip on the taxpayers money for being born
Good Return on Investment. More appropriate than Tory government. Priceless to have continuous apolitical representatives for the nation. They are captives. Keeping many great arts, crafts, and traditions alive. Quality.
Time to cut them off
And of course the aint monarchests argument was still it costs money.....literally as they proved how the monarchy pays for itself🤦
you think seizing crown assets won’t generate equal value ? Plus tourism revenue cannot be easily calculated lol hereditary transfer of wealth and privilege maintains the status quo where rich get richer.
They will still get tourism even if the monarchy is abolished...look at France and many other countries...such a stupid argument
@@CW-rx2js a large chunk of British tourism is monarch related. France and other countries get tons of visitors for their beauty and magnificence. The u.k gets it from its heritage, you kill the heritage you lose the tourists. And the family brings in revenue from hosting events in their hour, you think people would in those same number from ordinary boring people?
Umm I want to go to the UK and experience a Royal event :) i’m one of those foreigners. I’m saving enough money, hopefully someday! :)
Oh wouldn’t it be nice to just get 40million and live a lifestyle people could only dream of all just because you exist
* He says £4Billion and the USD says $4Million. Just a mistake*
It would be good to see also how much income the royal family creates to their people. London is full of mugs with the king or queen's face, T-shirts, etc...
5:29 UK gains about £1.5 bill a year from its monarchy.
More and more people don't want this disgustingly tacky stuff.
It will be thrown away anyway so why buy it?
Just a waste of money.
@dem08 No, people definitely go for the royal family and the marketing that they're used for.
@dem08 That is definitely incorrect and a very narrow view, the British royal family is one of the biggest things about the UK and a big part of its appeal.
Nobody buys those hideous mugs and shirts besides middle class americans. They'll start buying other things if we stop making royal merch. Besides, the royal family itself doesn't generate money. Their estates do. It's not like, every visitor gets to see the king on every visit. They pay to see the estate not the family themselves. Versailles still gets 10 million visitors per annum. But they've kicked their undeserving monarchy centuries ago. We should kick ours as well.
based of the numbers you can say that they are valuable for the British economy. Are they necessary in running a country though? Are they not just insanely lucrative and popular landlord influencers at this point? Would they move if they stopped receiving tax payer dollars?
The Royal family should be more transparent and pay tax
nOT WHEN YOU ARE HARBORING A DRUG ATTIC, AND I NOT MEAN HARRY!!! OR KEEP YOUR ROYAL HOOKER WITH TITLES!!! NOT THE KING THOUSANDS WANT! tHE BRITISH PEOPLE SHOULD NEVER BE PAYING THE ROYALS THAT GIVE TO THE RICH DRUGGER OR THE HOOKER...ROYALS ARE SINKING EVERY DAY! WAITING FOR WILLIAM TO BE KING, THEN WE MIGHT BE GOING SOMEWHERE.
I can't think of anything in this country that has improved because of the monarchy. For me, they symbolise the top of the very damaging class system that still imprisons us to this day. Also, to say that they 'bring in tourism' is hilarious because Legoland Windsor has more visitors than Windsor Castle. An elected Head of State that can speak in the interest of the people is far better than a family with no concept of normal life or normal people. It's time we start discussing alternatives. We got rid of the monarchy once, we can get rid of them again.
You people make me sick. No understanding of how the government works. We need the Royal Family. The Monarchy is our greatest strength. Abolishing the Monarchy would be the worst possible decision. Young people who think they know everything... just want to do away with all tradition and history.
@@crcoggin In 1066 a man from France decided to invade Britain, tax it’s people and demand that we see him as our God given leader. There are families to this day benefitting from land given to them by this invader. We do not need the royal family and there are plenty of countries that do just fine without one; Ireland, France, Germany… It really is laughable to say that the royal family are ‘our greatest strength’ when they literally cut ribbons, visit charities for PR or even abuse their power to sleep with young girls… The people are our greatest strength, we owe our freedoms to ordinary citizens who have fought for change over hundreds of years. That’s tradition. There’s nothing wrong with criticising a questionable institution and evolving as a nation.
I can't think of anything in this country that has improved because of the democracy.
Please Amy, remind me what happened after England got rid of their monarchy? Please tell me how much of a paradise England was then. Ask the Irish and Scottish while you’re at it, they love Cromwell to. Useless bint
@@crcoggin That was a comment devoid of substance. Why did you bother?
The argument that the monarchy generates huge tourism dollars doesn't hold water. Nobody is saying we should burn down Buckingham Palace, just that there shouldn't be a bunch of old white aristocratic nobles residing inside. The tourism dollars would still be there with or without the monarchy physically still being current. The Palace of Versailles by itself generates around €100 million per year in revenue and a monarch hasn't occupied that palace in over 230 years.
And yet we don't know how much the Palace of Versailles (which, by the way, is a lot more interesting than any palace in the UK) would generate WITH a royal family. I for one am a lot less interested in it without the French royals.
It certainly "holds water", as people are interested in an *active* royal family. Not their defunct palace.
The UK without monarchy is nothing.
What a bad argument, what would the tourism revenue be if a monarch was still there? We don't know, so you can't use that as an argument, unless you want to argue from a position of ignorance of course.
@@ElusiveTy When you go to Buckingham palace, how often do you meet the king? You make it seem as if palaces with active royal family gives you the chance to do a meet and greet with them
7:19 - This right here. I believe this video could have been cut down to one sentence. Besides other disagreements, I don't even know how they can talk about money. I know the U.K. doesn't look too fondly at the U.S. in many regards today. However, when they broke from the British Empire, they would additionally inquire enormous costs in maintaining an army, government, and order. It had absolutely nothing to do with money and everything to do with what they viewed as right, just, and fair.
The fact is 1776 was over George III, not the monarchy as a concept. If the King had been more lenient perhaps America would still be in the commonwealth today
1. These days the crown estate is *owned* by the State so you have to think if we did abolish the monarchy who would it go to… I shouldn’t imagine it would go to the royal family given that the crown is not the personal property of the royals
2. The political ‘cost’ of having an unelected head of state is quite high. There is no evidence that Constitutional Monarchies do anything to save democracy, they only really care about self preservation, and when it comes down to full on authoritarians Republican presidents haven’t been much better but when it comes to suspected violations of the constitution the Irish, German and Italian Presidents have all vetoed bills and government decisions while our King has never done so. So try to think… what does the King do for the money and property he gets to use?
3. My argument for the royalty during Elizabeth’s Reign would be their popularity but now they only have the support of around 45% of the nation I would hardly call them unifying.
Britain is still living in 1500s monarchy era in 2023
The UK is living in a 2023 monarchy. Saudi Arabia is a lot closer to a 1500s monarchy.
And what's the problem? Everything old has to be destroyed?
People say that monarchy is outdated , even though democracy existed since 400 b.c.
How many orgs do they support? Tourism they bring? Stability they bring and diplomacy. All those should be part of equation when looking at cost
Yes, absolutely. THey do none of those things. Now that's out of the way, end the monarchy.
This money should be paid to poor people of Europe first than to other World.
I love the pomp, ceremony and majesty the monarchy brings, I love it's aesthetics and principles, and that the PM can speak with the monarch and seek advice on steering the ship of state. I don't want to abolish a millennia-old institution and lose the last vestiges of tradition and our living history on economic grounds.
Brainwashed by these tyrants
yeah we should bring back kings too, it would be a shame to try putting the tradition of giving influence and money to pepole that poped out from the right genetals to rest. I bet coronations are a blast too.
Seriusly I think the argument that they kinda nice could be aplied to horrific practices just as easily, it might not be transperent here but a lot of money is trown out the window for pepole that basically got a lucky spawn point that could be better spend elsewhere.
It isn't about economcs, though. We argue over the financial cost precisely because the facts have been deliberately obfuscated. The true costs are to our democracy and our society.
Pricey useless fixture
When will the British common people finally put their feet down and demand the abolition of the monarchy which as no place in this modern world in which we live in today.
LONG LIVE THE ROYALS NAMESTE
Well, to be fair to them. Their assets, tourism, and branding could create 2 Billion pounds for Brit econ. So it is still worth it. Why do we have to cut 1.5 Billion pounds of benefits for the country out
it IS generating 2 Billion pounds for the british economy though, as the money goes straight to the government and it reinvests it
Oh, that's fine then. 0.005% of GDP is well worth sacrificing our democracy for... 'Strewth...
The things you listed, castles, crown jewels etc are not fungible. they are British historical items and can never be converted to cash. Its disingenuous to add them to their wealth. What makes them important is their uniqueness.
No, they're stolen. Looted from other countries like most things in British museums.
“No, they’re stolen”
No to what? They never claimed anything about their origin.
@@Ra99y no, they shouldn't remain the property of England, because the British stole it all. Your Empire has dissolved because of the way the monarchy treated it's foreign territories.
But they can be converted to cash and he is just talking about their worth lol, it’s theirs. Idk what u r on about. Paintings and things are sold all the time
Fair enough. Let them start paying rent for those things!
5:30 not from the monarchy, from the Britain's shores and tourist places, maintained using public taxes!
If I were the King of UK, I will change the rules. All UK citizens including migrants must pay taxes more and I will freeze the parliement.
If they are so wealthy, why can't they pay for everything themselves? "The Firm" should act like a firm.
thank you!
Their wealth is tied up in the form of estates and land. And all the revenues from tourists and lease goes to the state.
"They get £86 mil a year"
Literal pennies per person in taxes.
Pennies make pounds. And for this one family, our pennies make them £86 million pounds, literal pounds.
86 out of the near-billion they give to the government
@@wilhelm4760 money invested in the royal family gives better return than giving out benefit to those that don’t contribute back to the system.
@@prasanta5139ven people that are on benefits (and many of them are on in work benefits) return the money by the tax that is added to clothes, food, furniture and everything else. If you're so keen on funding the Royals I think they should have a vote. Those that don't wish to fund them do not have to and people like you who want to can pick up the tab by taxing you more.
@@potatosalad9085Their figures and not actual figures. With all their wealth they should not be expecting the UK taxpayer to fund their extravagant lifestyles. It is a disgrace.