The Royal Family Gets £86M A Year From The British People. Are They Worth It? | True Cost

[@nadiasawicki4108]

They pay very little if anything in tax. Meanwhile many live off benefits and food banks

[@amyboleszny543]

They pay income tax at 85%.

[@HTHAMMACK1]

@@amyboleszny543 Not bad considering they're already an insanely wealthy family that has imparted untold suffering on countless numbers of people for the sake of profit. I'd love to pay 85% tax on 86 million dollars that I did nothing to earn except attend events and stand around to be gawked at and photographed.

[@tiffinmeister]

@@amyboleszny543 What tax band is that then? What is your source for this claim? There is no data available and the royals are exempt from Freedom of Information requests.

[@amyboleszny543]

@tiffinmeister Duchy of Cornwall web site has tax rates and agreements. I have not checked the Lancaster site, but they could have similar details.

[@tylerpiret2712]

When the queen died they didn’t get taxed on the transfer of wealth. Yet they want everyone else to follow this law. Hopefully they go away soon.

[@bmabs35]

Monarchies simply don't belong in the modern world.

[@AirsoftPistachio]

They do

[@valorie444]

@@AirsoftPistachio if only apart of culture, preserve the legacy yes, but we live in the 21st century not the medieval ages so they shouldn't be regarded as anything but glorified celebrities at the very least, the British empire doesn't exist anymore, they have no actual power in this day in age, its time to move on and reallocate their funds for regular people struggling in their country.

[@AirsoftPistachio]

@ they create more wealth and they unite people

[@musheopeaus4125]

Biggest benefit spongers in the world

[@Lucas-kb6hk]

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.

[@Hinata.Sakaguchi]

Where is that place? Called vienna? haven't heard about it

[@mrbottler9627]

@@Hinata.Sakaguchi Cause you’re an illiterate.

[@blueblack3591]

Agree. Or versaille is still visited

[@alienzordfalcon5162]

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.

[@joanclayton5212]

Isn’t Vienna beautiful while the UK is rainy and gloomy?

[@BindaAK47]

A True King or Queen serves their people not rob them blind

[@myself3209]

What makes you think that? Just look at any king or queen in history and say that again lol

[@aaronzac268]

​​​​​​​@@myself3209Exactly, The Kings & Queens are not servants, they are meant to be served!. The Whole Fairy tale that Kings & Queens 'serve' their people is just ancient(mediaeval) imperialist propaganda. Sure, back then Kings & Queens actually protected their land and it's people from invading groups and nations. It is for this reason they earned the August Status of Protector of their people. But also back then a lot of people were illiterate and uneducated. Times have changed, we longer need Kings and Queens to protect us; we have the Army, more people are educated(if not almost all) and well informed. We need Democratic Leaders and not Monarchs.

[@DhruvSinghBrar]

Yess true, and British Monarchy are a true exemplar of that, Serving their people with 1.5B in the revenue

[@Flanvenus]

Royalty was always about taking money.

[@aaronzac268]

my comment got deleted

[@moereese5254]

Short answer: Hell No!

[@HTHAMMACK1]

The tourism argument is played out. You think tourists won't come to the UK because of no monarchy? What are your chances of even seeing a royal on a tourist trip, and when you see one, so what?

[@starknight103]

Lego Land Windsor is far more popular than Windsor Castle. Last time I checked Lego Land Windsor was ranked at number 11 while Windsor Castle was ranked at number 22.

[@Gothicgarlic]

Lets not forget much of the tourism revenue stays in London. The rest of the UK doesn't benefit from that.

[@TJTOPBOY]

Brilliant point.

[@AnakinSkywalker_1858]

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

[@WilliamMCMXII]

@@AnakinSkywalker_1858 LMAOOO

[@saismaran1045]

@@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.

[@deenalight9271]

Come to London an get robbed

[@sionv2009]

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.

[@susansmith4112]

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.

[@saismaran1045]

I am afraid that you would have a worse impression

[@ubergeek1968]

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.

[@saismaran1045]

@@ubergeek1968 because they are using tax payers money. People would obviously want to know where their money is going.

[@pepelota74]

@@ubergeek1968 Because my family works for what they have and they are not some historical freeloaders like these clowns.

[@sharonshead8916]

NO THE ROYAL FAMILY ARE NOT WORTH TAX PAYERS MONEY,WHY THEY DO NOT GET RID ABOLISH THE MONARCHY 😊

[@Mixer2904]

Down with monarchy! Make Great Britain a republic!

[@myamdane6895]

🥱🥱 nah

[@Dee-mj3pu]

The Royal Family is like a reality show.

[@doreenbates]

will be after william has gone

[@johnmccormick3608]

Without the class.

[@TomNook.]

They need to pay inheritance tax.

[@jimbojones101]

Corona nation, ruled over by a parasite. We are all a bunch of slaves.

[@LIZZIE-lizzie]

They need to pay, period!!! They take the peoples' money. King Charles III is worth trillions. He's richest man in the world.

[@therockbottom5256]

To who? Their “inheritance” is coming from the place where tax payments go.

[@timbucktoo99191]

​@@therockbottom5256 pay it like everyone else has to!

[@KD-rh2cr]

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.

[@Jack-f2q1h]

End it now

[@mojojeinxs9960]

If the monarchy generates so much money then why most of the country can not heat their homes?

[@familyseed1555]

Your elected government waste more money .

[@mojojeinxs9960]

@@familyseed1555 I don't vote.

[@familyseed1555]

@@mojojeinxs9960 So

[@familyseed1555]

@@mojojeinxs9960 Your democracy government waste money.

[@cristhianramirez6939]

Because the parlament spends billions on illegal inmigrants and war on ukraine

[@imranetic]

Charles doesn’t need anything more than a two bedroom apartment.

[@Castle743]

Fithly rich and continue to collect money from strugling tax payers.

[@timlangdon6448]

The American people are the same way., You're letting the politicians get rich? .... It's all b*******..

[@SebastianEnamorado-ql4rh]

Is more the political corporation

[@johnlong572]

oh no they bring in almost two trillion a year for the government and you have to pay 77P? how dare they steal from the poor poor taxpayer

[@thalmoragent9344]

You think the Royals being gone would improve everyone's lives? You're a fool

[@SebastianEnamorado-ql4rh]

@ yep royal slave

[@Angelwing1963]

Staggering greed

[@michellenorris8471]

Charles Windsor was weeks into his new reign when he asked for a wage rise, & even though he'd received 2 massive taxpayer-funded inheritances ( tax-free for himself course! ) he still charged the U.K. taxpayers over £ 125,000,000 ( during a cost-of-living crisis ) for the coronation that only 7,000 U.K. citizens even bothered to watch live! The U.K. royal family's taxpayer-funded yearly living expenses alone are TWICE the COMBINED amount when compared to ALL of the European royal families:- U.K. £ 125 million Spain £ 7. 4m, Sweden £ 11. 5m, Belgium £ 12. 5m, Denmark £14m, Luxemborg £ 16. 9m Source:- The Guardian, 5th April 2023 Article:- 'How the British Royal Family hides its wealth from public scrutiny.'

[@sjordan7085]

End the monarchy now!

[@cosygoose1813]

So let me get this right. Americans can pardon a turkey, Indians can worship cows and every other country can keep their culture. But Britain has to give it up because of some babies. The royal family is a tradition, whether you lle it or not it represents Britain. You don't like Britain well sucks for you.

[@Fordnan]

​@@cosygoose1813And you don't know the difference between the monarchy and the royal family. So you don't even know your own manufactured 'culture'. You're an embarrassment.

[@joeybaseball7352]

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.

[@RealLordVoldemort]

are you american?

[@YewrMan]

There's a bit more to Britain than the Royal Family.

[@yojanalokhande5878]

​@@YewrMan0 AA. p😊 Dada 0op😅i

[@Richard_176]

@joeybaseball7352 That's some pretty unreasonable hyperbole.

[@MyLittleMagneton]

Are the Kardashians the rulers of hollywood?

[@shamrock141]

No they are most certainly not worth it, moreover in reality they cost hundreds of millions of pounds per year, not 86 million. Security and estate renovations for example are completely comped by the taxpayer and are not included in the 86 million budget

[@golden-63]

It's been estimated they cost a total of 500 million pounds in 2024. However, the Crown Estate covered that and the surplus was twice that. The surplus always goes back to the treasury.

[@stephentyler9697]

Stability? The royals? What a joke!

[@golden-63]

1200 years seems more stable than others.

[@stephentyler9697]

@golden-63 slum landlords since 1066!

[@johngovus2734]

I wonder how many pensioners that money would help to keep them warm this winter

[@cosygoose1813]

Thats not the monarchys fault at all. The government is responsible for that blame Labour. As Royals bring in the money and do countless amounts of charity work.

[@Fordnan]

​@@cosygoose1813The monarchy hands its powers over to government to render any democratic move that threatens the establishment's position powerless. Which you would know if you understood the system you're so keen to defend.

[@cosygoose1813]

@@Fordnan You don't know anything about it at all. Just because they don't have political power doesn't mean they don't have influence. And stop trying to use big words, it might hurt your head. In trying to sound smart you just sound like a baby.

[@Fordnan]

@@cosygoose1813 Let me know what big words you want explained, and I'll try to help, but I strongly suspect even you understand the meaning. You just want an excuse not to challenge your perverted Disney fantasy view of the world.

[@cosygoose1813]

@@Fordnan "perverted" so you have a screw loose or you would see how creepy you are.

[@DJE-fz9tm]

Down with the British monarchy.

[@bill...9566]

Time to cut them off

[@BrinJay-s4v]

Let them go fits

[@golden-63]

From what? They pay for themselves.

[@thefisherkingmkh9873]

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

[@brettvogel8418]

What in the world are you talking about

[@thalmoragent9344]

Sure, but these are different times. We'll have to see what the royals do during a time of war

[@LEEAIM]

510 MILLION POUNDS THEY COST LAST YEAR

[@golden-63]

And the Crown Estate contributed 3 times that amount! They paid for themselves plus 1 billion pounds.

[@LEEAIM]

@@golden-63 the crown estate is owned by the people. that was our money you crank

[@Fordnan]

​@@LEEAIMSpot on. Funny how after the Dispatches documentary we suddenly have all these propagandists spewing disinformation all over social media.

[@were455]

Everything comes to an end. The royals are no exception.

[@jaden_ong]

by that logic republics are no exception either. Maybe they'll turn into monarchies.

[@Sweetthang9]

@@jaden_ong Do you understand the word "logic"?

[@Mymusicchannel-z2m]

Actually may countries are supporting a restoration to monarchies so if you do the research you'll see

[@maximumtrollmagic]

New rule: Make contributions to the monarchy voluntary. Then we'll see how many royalists there truly are.

[@jaden_ong]

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.

[@jaden_ong]

what do you mean by "contributions to the monarchy"?

[@susansmith6737]

@@jaden_ong Whose money do you think supports the monarchy? It certainly isn't their own.

[@sweetchestnut]

​@@jaden_onglf what the British monarchy received financially was given freely & not taken, there would be a great deal less money being given to them. Theres no need for these people, in any country! They have far too much spare time on their hands to concoct daft/evil ideas of no Importance.

[@thalmoragent9344]

​@@susansmith6737 The Royals own a good bit of land too, don't forget. They make some good money even on their own

[@12345678abracadabra]

Even if they make more for tourism than they spend, crucially, who gets the money?

[@ZOCCOK]

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.

[@ZOCCOK]

Money from tourism isn't actual money that someone receives. It's much better to imagine it as an industry that earns a profit

[@ElusiveTy]

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.

[@harveyspecter111]

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.

[@chuliluli]

Even taking money aside these non-elected people has power us, don't forget that

[@yinji88]

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.

[@Ra99y]

It’s special because it’s not some historical relic. It’s a real palace that’s STILL in use

[@onepartyroule]

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.

[@gerry343]

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.

[@carmie9759]

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.

[@dod6031]

@@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.

[@linethgonzalez5878]

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.

[@ordenmanvrn7685]

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.

[@pretty5793]

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!

[@marcusbrown188]

The White House is nicer than Buckingham

[@tayyibali5052]

@@marcusbrown188 white house is new lulz. It got burned by the british in the past.

[@charliecoke7396]

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.

[@icomxwing42]

Why these people are fine paying the descendants of the biggest bullies from 400 years ago is baffling to me.

[@familyseed1555]

Why the people are fine paying the descendants of the biggest bullies to war crimes president ?

[@familyseed1555]

Why the people are fine paying to war crimes president ?

[@jaden_ong]

They're fine with it because they're not paying them anything. The monarchy is funded by the crown estate, not taxpayer money.

[@ADONOI]

Yes send u to North Korea then u will know the answer..

[@SomedaySomeway7000]

@@jaden_ong Really! what about the sovereign grant? do tell me.

[@jujitsujew23]

No they’re not even close to worth it

[@golden-63]

Financially, they are.

[@jujitsujew23]

@ no

[@golden-63]

@@jujitsujew23 Last year, the royal family cost about 500 million. Their trust, the Crown Estate brought in 1.6 Billion. Do the math.

[@jujitsujew23]

@ 😂😂😂 first, your numbers are a tad off. It was 510 million and 1.1 billion. Second, a not insignificant portion of that 1.1 billion comes from the British people and businesses via leases and rent on land and real estate. Third, last time I checked people still visit Versailles and it makes over a 100 million Euros a year with no royal family. Fourth, the government could easily replace every single role the royal family fills. Money would still go into the consolidation fund, and the UK wouldn’t have to pay for a family whose fortune is built on a pile of stolen wealth from around the world. Prince Philip was once asked what his job was, his role in society. At first he laughed it off with a joke but then when asked again had to sit there silently with his head down and think. He could barely answer the question when he came up with one. They do nothing. It’s all theater and it’s long passed time they go away

[@ivanscottnikolaev5217]

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.

[@TJTOPBOY]

25% of the income goes to the monarchy. They made over 300mil last year, so you can do the math.

[@domtromans2783]

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.

[@aardappeleten7701]

@@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.

[@domtromans2783]

@@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.

[@robertb4000]

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.

[@fflk4]

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

[@Bernd428]

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

[@nwann753]

imagine investing in Bitcoin earlier... You could have been a multi millionaire presently

[@fflk4]

You are right. Been thinking of going into gold and cryptocurrency

[@fflk4]

Because It's obvious everyone is doing this online Investmnent

[@Kjartan888]

I totally agree with you it has been an eye-opening experience for a lot of people.

[@peter0010]

NO.

[@rexochroy2]

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.

[@mitch8072]

dondt forget the time when there was no king(oliver cromwel). and the people decided to get it one back.

[@FatRonaldo1]

And the same left wing people who support a republic hate Cromwell

[@rexochroy2]

@@FatRonaldo1 I am sorry but can you read? Or understand what you just read?

[@ninpo9]

​@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.

[@johnmccormick3608]

@@mitch8072 The people decided no such thing, do you honestly believe they asked the views of the common man, they were restored by the elites, and have been taking the piss ever since.

[@kishorimalvi2405]

In this day and age where people are struggling with bills especially the elderly who have to decide between food and bills and we are giving them more money, the duchy of Cornwall makes billions and it’s there for them to use and buy things so why can’t they use that money, it’s not like they will run out! The money UK makes from tourism doesn’t affect my bills or council tax - I don’t see a penny from that

[@RollandGervais]

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.

[@amadoudawsonbarry8620]

They are far from being worth it. Abolish monarchy

[@Mymusicchannel-z2m]

They stop a coup from happening so if the pm attempted something against the constitution they can stop it since they are the head of the armed forces

[@soton5teve]

*HALF A BILLION* ACTUALLY

[@zinawarriorprincess]

Abolish the monarchy

[@ibobeko4309]

Giving a billionaire family millions sounds very stupid.

[@golden-63]

The royal family is funded by the Crown Estate, not the taxpayers.

[@RejaUnofficial-z5y]

Abolish monarchy... British,, be citizen not subject🎉

[@ashishpatel350]

they dont even pay an inheritance tax

[@musicmanmatt87]

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.

[@Sedna063]

Yeah. And that's why even as a republic, those exhibits will still draw tourists. Just as Vienna draws tourists without emperors.

[@rorynell4962]

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.

[@SC-sf8xt]

Key word....Elected......

[@captainwin6333]

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.

[@Ra99y]

@@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!

[@michaelrae9599]

That would be taken care of in the Prime Minister budget, or whomever the Brits use for international relations. That bill won't change.

[@yinji88]

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.

[@ER-zf5tr]

Workers bring in the money from tourism, not the family 👍🏼

[@potatosalad9085]

so tourists are going to watch the workers then?

[@ER-zf5tr]

@@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. 👍🏼

[@drummingkiwi8766]

⁠@@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

[@ER-zf5tr]

@@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.

[@drummingkiwi8766]

@@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

[@susanapol382]

They need to finance themselves and pay taxes, like we all do.

[@ziontenuia9266]

They do pay taxes & do fund themselves (the duchy of Lancaster, Cornwall etc).

[@himbisaquatics]

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.

[@jaden_ong]

75% of the profits from the Crown Estate go to the government. They're literally paying 330 million pounds a year to the government.

[@DigitalMangoShake]

you haven't watched the video have you

[@Fordnan]

@@ziontenuia9266 Neither of the duchies belong to them. They just claim the profits.

[@1943colin]

'The Royal Family Gets £86M A Year From The British People. Are They Worth It?' A better way of framing the question might be: 'should we have to pay money for nothing?'

[@cosygoose1813]

They represent the country and carry tradition. They bring in countless amounts of money and are iconic all over the world. So yeah they are worth it. If anything they are still doing charity work constantly. So maybe do a little of that before demanding they go.

[@1943colin]

@@cosygoose1813 They don't represent the country. Parliament does! You want somebody who once was heard to say he wished to come back to life as Camilla's tampon? How low has the country sunk?

[@natan666]

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.

[@cainmathewson1857]

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...

[@rb5325]

NO THEY ARE NOT WORTH IT!.

[@carlosgravil3325]

Remove them! but the conclusion of this video is unfortunately appallingly true.

[@onepartyroule]

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.

[@gerry343]

Slavery and capital punishment are intrinsic part of Britain's continuity and no doubt we are better off without them.

[@CordeliaWagner]

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.

[@Kuricang31]

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

[@Fordnan]

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.

[@billcipherproductions1789]

​@@FordnanI mean the current British parliament is a circus

[@Castle743]

Outdated and ridiculous Cost tax payers is wrong

[@carlalefan9578]

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?

[@thatundeadlegacy2985]

ah genz anarcy

[@ElusiveTy]

That would be a true shame, as the monarchy deserves to see Prince William and Princess Catherine crowned.

[@deenalight9271]

​@@ElusiveTysooner no one was crowned ever again

[@harveyspecter111]

@@ElusiveTy why though? Living off of grand grand (raised to nth) grand papa's money is not "deserving".

[@jflsdknf]

They need to abolish it but they should have done it a long time ago. Today without the monarchy Britain wouldn't know what to do with itself, they have completely entwined the monarchy with its identity in the modern world. They have nothing else both when it comes to tourism and media etc.

[@Fordnan]

Tell us you know nothing about Britain without telling us you know nothing about Britain...

[@jflsdknf]

@@Fordnan Triggered Brit, probably a boomer.

[@Fordnan]

@@jflsdknf Great retort. Presumably you've never heard of any of our cathedral cities, our castles, our industrial or scientific heritage, our military heritage, our cultural heritage that includes the language you're barely able to use. We have a lengthy history, chequered, yes, but enormously influential on the globe, with much to be proud of. The monarchy has arguably played a role, as it did in France, but we have no less a rich history or culture than they do. You could spend years in Britain and still only have scratched the surface. Every day you'd interact with objects with a longer history than your entire nation. For all its faults, this is a great place to visit.

[@Castle743]

TOURIST INCOME..REALLY..???? TOURIST ARE SMARTER THAN THIS. THEY SEE A BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY. WARM PEOPLE AND MANY WONDERFUL TRADITIONS...I DONT REALLY THINK THE ROYALS ARE WORTH IT YOU GUYS KEEP PAYING FOR IT..TOURIST WILL CONTINUE TO VISIT WITHOUT THE ROYALS.. I WOULD THINK THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN THINKING THE ROYALS ARE IT.. OTHER COUNTIES WITH NO ROYAL FAMILY ARE DOING OK

[@Mr.Carter777]

Celebrating and paying for " Elitism"

[@lenkalenka7988]

Of course not

[@LinusLarrabee]

Completely antiquated

[@noneofyourbeeswax371]

Short answer? No.

[@cosygoose1813]

Short answer: yes, they do countless amount of chairty work. Carry on British culture, and bring in lots of money. Who thinks Britain and not the royal family. No one.

[@starknight103]

​@@cosygoose1813 a billionaire working for charity is like an arsonist working for the fire brigade.

[@cosygoose1813]

@@starknight103 No, it's not. That makes no sense.

[@michaelrae9599]

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.

[@ElusiveTy]

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.

[@michaelrae9599]

@@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.

[@cinnamonstar808]

that family has no money. its another Trump family. lots of buildings no billions. and REAL ESTATE is tentative. its not gold.

[@caleblorcan1481]

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

[@Kuricang31]

​@@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 😂😂

[@Grangy27]

NO!

[@nathanigel]

They're the biggest scam

[@johnmccormick3608]

Close tie between them and religion, both man made concepts to keep the lower orders in their place.

[@Lvlaple4Ever]

I would never visit the UK because of the royals.

[@brettvogel8418]

Stupid people think the royal family is worth it. End of discussion.

[@tedguy2743]

No.

[@janesmith8831]

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.

[@charliecoke7396]

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.

[@janesmith8831]

@@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“.

[@Britishdarnlib]

Apolitical president. GG ez

[@brettvogel8418]

No. The Monarch does absolutely nothing. What the monarch signs is for ceremonial purposes only, they have no choice but to sign.

[@janesmith8831]

@@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?

[@shakespeareintune]

Now HRH is at it too!! My response to the Organise petition on hospital parking charges... "Ask the King to confirm that he, Kate, Camilla et al had to send their respective chauffeurs to feed the meter!! Since they separated His esteemed namesake from his head we are said to live in a democracy in which equality and fairness reign. The King could set an example but is happy to continue raking in the hard earned resources of his subjects. Let the King help supercharge our community's campaign and thousands of others will quickly follow! The state of the Head of State's head may depend on it"

[@alby910]

What ever it costs, it's a waste of money

[@tobeytransport2802]

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.

[@golden-63]

That's a difficult question. Technically speaking, neither the royal family nor the State "own" the Crown Estate. The State holds it in trust for the monarchy per the agreement made with George lll in the 18th Century. Both sides have obligations that must be met. That property was originally owned by the royal family. It was put in a trust with the understanding that in exchange, the royals would get a portion of the annual income generated from those properties but the government would get the overwhelming share of the income. If the monarchy were abolished that agreement would be broken by the government and should rightfully be returned to them.

[@Lordxzamasu]

No

[@sharonshead8916]

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.

[@jaden_ong]

Tax payers don't pay for them though. The monarchy is funded by the Crown Estate, not tax dollars.

[@Fordnan]

Don't believe the propaganda being spread by @jaden_ong.

[@pushpanepal2400]

British monarchy should be abolished after king charles

[@BrinJay-s4v]

Charles is the reason I ceased being a Monarchist . I liked George in WW2 but its all been negative since.

[@BarbaraWaterfall-ob4zv]

Not. Worth. It. They. Must. Go.

[@michellelee8933]

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 😅

[@JM-to9dk]

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

[@michellelee8933]

@@JM-to9dk "he couldn't believe she was allowed to do such a thing". That's the point my man.

[@lorddrayvon1426]

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.

[@ASaaaxxx]

Oh look they are set to get a 45% increase … while the rest of us this winter will decide to either Heat or Eat !!!!

[@Liberty-Jamie]

Assets are you saying we should sell of our kingdom property? the arguments to be a republic like America are so bad. This also doesn't account for tourism. It doesn't account for the role as ambassadors they play on world stage. Influence you can't buy. They work, they do ambassador duties. Are the only thing liked about the UK atm. Nobody like our MP's and are clossing down embassies in Russia. since they are Americas pawns.

[@siddheshkadav7234]

And the British people are worried about inflation. NHS staff is on strike for non payment of salary. 😂

[@ElusiveTy]

Because that's a real issue.

[@Kuricang31]

​@@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

[@Slimshady-nf9qx]

Oh wouldn’t it be nice to just get 40million and live a lifestyle people could only dream of all just because you exist

[@neilknightley4703]

Why is the public funding these when they are so rich ? Why even have royalty in 21st century ? So arcane

[@jaden_ong]

because the public isn't funding them. They're private income is self-funded and their public income comes from investments in real-estate.

[@susansmith6737]

@@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.

[@johnmccormick3608]

@@susansmith6737 Wasting your time trying to explain anything to a monarchist, these people are enthralled by the notion that other human beings are somehow superior to themselves and therefore are worthy of worship and a free run at money that could be spent to benefit us all.

[@susansmith6737]

@@johnmccormick3608 Many are completely brainwashed which in this day and age, and with more and more information available, astounds me. I can only think that it is older people who cannot navigate the internet and don't know what's going on.

[@lofi-kaveh]

I know, it's quite magical

[@Evermoregreen23451]

They can give back to the community by putting up some homeless indigenous folk

[@akagainesy]

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.

[@Truthseeker371]

People don't want royal charities or charities of any kind. They want decent living and jobs.

[@Lpreilly72]

I love Britain. I’ve been canal boating, drank in old pubs, toured castles, Wells Cathedral, toured everywhere, been there a dozen times. Never, not once, did I care to see an overpaid guy lord it over me. I did like Yorkshire, Somerset, the Lake District, the older historic, pubs in London and the WWII museum in London which showed where Churchill fought the war. But Royals? No. Not really. Not when there’s so much else to see.

[@kd8691]

There'd still be tourism regardless of whether those benefit scroungers are in the palace or not

[@quidproquo3933]

Pales in comparison to what elected representatives in america get from its people

[@LambsyLamb]

They need to be abolished

[@animaljustice7774]

If true it’s so unfair

[@spacecoastaesthetics6990]

What exactly do the Royals do?

[@Neno-zb1ci]

sip on the taxpayers money for being born

[@johnmccormick3608]

Hoover up huge amounts of public money.

[@Neno-zb1ci]

@@johnmccormick3608 real

[@carlpierce2486]

The figure ive heard is vastly more....

[@basicallyamy]

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.

[@crcoggin]

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.

[@basicallyamy]

@@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.

[@familyseed1555]

I can't think of anything in this country that has improved because of the democracy.

[@myamdane6895]

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

[@Fordnan]

@@crcoggin That was a comment devoid of substance. Why did you bother?

[@shobhapai8927]

They want so much wealth so they don't need poor taxpayers money. Stop it immediately. 😊

[@jaden_ong]

They never got taxpayer money. The monarchy is funded by 25% of the profits from the Crown Estate. The remaining 75% goes to the government. No tax dollars ever go to the monarchy so you have nothing to complain about there.

[@golden-63]

The royal family is funded by the Crown Estate, not the taxpayers.

[@mahatmaghandi4288]

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.

[@ieajackson5518]

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.

[@Britishdarnlib]

​@@ieajackson5518so what you're saying is "change is too hard, let's just not"

[@peak_911]

"my" country? dude your name is gandhi🫨

[@mahatmaghandi4288]

@@peak_911 It's a random generated name my dude.

[@josel6360]

​@@peak_911 😂😂😂 what is ur pRime minister last name again ?

[@mickhegartyhegarty]

Better of we ronnie reggie

[@becmkh]

"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

[@musicfuhrer]

It's incredible that anybody thinks foreigners are interested in the Windsors. They are not. Luckily I escaped the British Brexit hellhole and now live abroad. The U.k sometimes makes the news. It's rarely about the Windsors.

[@suzieque4438]

A family of billionaires? In 2024? And to add insult to injury, a king and queen consort that are a disgrace.