Abolish the UK and German Monarchy

[DarloRich]

The thing that needs to be understood though, is if the country chooses to replace the monarchy with something else, if it does and it chooses a President for example, then you, I and everyone else will still be paying for it

The French pay in excess of £100m per annum for their President and another £5m plus for the former holders of the post, it's not all about kicking out the monarchy and saving the cash, unless you want to do it on a budget and make the Prime Minister the figurehead as well, that would give the country some choices ...........

i don't want to replace the monarchy for that reason. I just don't want to fund an entire family of freeloaders. They get a Sovereign Grant of £42.8m per annum plus the Duchy incomes.


Give me £1m a year with free board, lodgings and travel and I will do the job

 

[ainsworth74]

What do we get from the Crown Estate?

 

[DarloRich]

What do we get from the Crown Estate?

The treasury get the benefit of the incomes. One of the Georges ( III?) surrendered the benefit to the treasury so he didn't have to bear the costs of running the country - he got the Civil List payment in return. The property ownership of the estate is strange as iirc it is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.

All those proprieties on Regent Street and in St James must return a decent payment!

 

[ainsworth74]

The treasury get the benefit of the incomes.

So does that cover what we give the in the Sovereign Grant or not? Is there anything left over afterwards?

 

[DarloRich]

So does that cover what we give the in the Sovereign Grant or not? Is there anything left over afterwards?

it is a massive return - much more than the grant. However the Crown Estate doesn't technically belong to the monarch so we can get rid of them and keep the income

 

[Senex]

it is a massive return - much more than the grant. However the Crown Estate doesn't technically belong to the monarch so we can get rid of them and keep the income

A deal was done, so as you say, it technically doesn't belong to the monarch any more and the monarch isn't graciously granting the government a huge amount of money. Something the pro-monarchists who always go on about the kind benefit to the taxpayer from the Crown Estates need to understand rather more clearly.

 

[Blamethrower]

excellent responses all, really interesting reading your comments, thankyou

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

He hasn't quite learned the art of keeping his opinions to himself like the current Queen does. He has been asked before whether he will follow in the steps of his father or grandmother, he said his grandmother, yet he couldn't help but hint on his opinions on the EU referendum. Unless he can learn to realise we are a democracy and he will merely be the figurehead at the head of it then we may well head towards a republic in the future.

I'm not sure where you get that from. He made a speech in which he said “In an increasingly turbulent world, our ability to unite in common action with other nations is essential. It is the bedrock of our security and prosperity and is central to your work.

“Right now, the big questions with which you wrestle – in the UN, Nato, the Middle East and elsewhere – are predicated on your commitment to working in partnership with others.”

Now plenty were keen (on both remain and leave sides) to interpret that but Kensington Palace was quite unequivocal saying : “This speech was not about Europe,” and “He does not mention the word Europe once.”

Also, surely what he says is eminently sensible and actually is in line with the PM viz “What I am very clear about… is that this is not about the UK suddenly wanting to be inward looking. We will continue to be a bold, outward-looking country.”

Still, I'm sure this thread is full of people who can fly a helicopter or more...

PS I'm no monarchist but actually rather ambivalent. Will a move from a ceremonial monarchy to some republic will actually change anything... I somehow doubt it.

 

[Abpj17]

A republic still has a parliament??

The current system isn’t broken enough relative to the alternatives. The royal family are a great tourist attraction and net boost to the economy. The monarchy is a theoretical check on the excesses of extreme politics.

One distinct benefit of a monarchy is that, in theory, they are independently wealth and so immune to corruption/lobbying (not sure that applies any more to the mid to lower levels). Another is that they are born into public service and so can be better positioned to take a long term view of what the right thing to do is. This long-termism is frequently lost in the grind of short-term parliaments and election cycles.

J-2739. The ?UK had a republic - briefly, the Cromwell years and a civil war - it didn’t work out so it wasn’t flirted with again. It predated the French revolution by over a 100 years.

William is 34. A clear majority of those between 18 and 34 voted to stay in the EU - any view expressed is pretty predictable given the demographic he falls into (young, educated, well-travelled, strong ties to London and Scotland). It would be surprising if he was a Brexiter/didn’t appreciate the wisdom of countries working together. He’s particularly interesting domestically as he’s got very strong ties to London, Wales (time living in Anglesey) and Scotland (university years and Balmoral).

 

[AlterEgo]

The royal family are a great tourist attraction

No, they aren't. People flocking to Buckingham Palace and Windsor don't ever see the Royal Family. They come to see the buildings, the pomp and circumstance of Changing the Guard, and for photo ops.

Remove the Royal Family and you'd have a *better* tourist attraction - palaces people can go into. The pomp and history would remain.

Versailles has nearly 8 million visitors per year.

and net boost to the economy.

How is this worked out?

The monarchy is a theoretical check on the excesses of extreme politics.

Theoretical and actual are two very different things!

One distinct benefit of a monarchy is that, in theory, they are independently wealth and so immune to corruption/lobbying

Ah ha ha ha ha ha! Brilliant! Pull the other one.

The Royal Family are the most lobbied people in the country. Charles is himself a lobbyist.

Just one example: The Royals seldom confer honours of their own accord, but are lobbied to confer them on people who donate to incumbent political parties, paedophiles, and war criminals.

Another is that they are born into public service and so can be better positioned to take a long term view of what the right thing to do is. This long-termism is frequently lost in the grind of short-term parliaments and election cycles.

This has some merit, but - they are born into public service but not into actually being anything like the public they serve. They are unfortunately and considerably detached from ordinary working people, despite good and well intentioned efforts to reverse this.

William is 34. A clear majority of those between 18 and 34 voted to stay in the EU - any view expressed is pretty predictable given the demographic he falls into (young, educated, well-travelled, strong ties to London and Scotland). It would be surprising if he was a Brexiter/didn’t appreciate the wisdom of countries working together. He’s particularly interesting domestically as he’s got very strong ties to London, Wales (time living in Anglesey) and Scotland (university years and Balmoral).

I think we can agree on this.

 

[Howardh]

No, they aren't. People flocking to Buckingham Palace and Windsor don't ever see the Royal Family. They come to see the buildings, the pomp and circumstance of Changing the Guard, and for photo ops.

Remove the Royal Family and you'd have a *better* tourist attraction - palaces people can go into. The pomp and history would remain.

.

Oh, come on! If the Queen stood on the balcony at 2pm every day to wave, you'd hardly be able to move in that part of London for the thousands of tourists armed with 4k cameras.

And if Kate turned up....

 

[Abpj17]

By the standards of the Royal Family, William hasn't been particularly detached. It might still be a world away from the poorest end of society but he's had a long history for mixing with the general population (particularly at university and the time they spent in Anglesey).

Having a living, active Royal Family does make a difference to the now defunct monarchies though. I was in New York the week Will + Kate got married and the level of interest was pretty insane (arguably higher than in the UK). You only need to take a look at the size of the crowds that turn out for overseas visits.

CBA to overly do the numbers. As I suspect you're aware, there are dozens of ways to work it to imply the figures say anything you want to say. By any moderate measure that includes part of the tourism take, costs are less than income. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...ribution-to-the-british-economy-10491277.html at least sets out three different versions of the truth (net benefit of 1bn, cost of 350mn, value of 56bn)

While honours are issued in the name of the crown, it's a matter of public record that almost all of them are drawn up by government and opposition not the royal family. Lobbying the royal family would be utterly pointless when it's not them making the list. You're entirely correct that politicians are lobbied for them tho. Charles being a lobbyist isn't the same as him being lobbied. His views (on the environment and architecture for example) are brilliant examples of stuff that is based on a long-term view of looking out for society and the world around us that a 5 year election cycle largely neglects. That's the system working - business/profit interests being balanced by a strong voice on the environment so the eventual outcome is a balanced compromise.

 

[AlterEgo]

Oh, come on! If the Queen stood on the balcony at 2pm every day to wave, you'd hardly be able to move in that part of London for the thousands of tourists armed with 4k cameras.

And if Kate turned up....

But she doesn't, so claiming the Queen is a tourist attraction and using it as an argument for the monarch's retention is not correct.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By the standards of the Royal Family, William hasn't been particularly detached. It might still be a world away from the poorest end of society but he's had a long history for mixing with the general population (particularly at university and the time they spent in Anglesey).

That may be true, but he also has none of the pressures of being the public. He is not the public. He has much different pressures from "ordinary people".

Having a living, active Royal Family does make a difference to the now defunct monarchies though. I was in New York the week Will + Kate got married and the level of interest was pretty insane (arguably higher than in the UK). You only need to take a look at the size of the crowds that turn out for overseas visits.

Agreed, but they are not a tourist attraction in Britain. People do not come to London and expect to see the Queen.

While honours are issued in the name of the crown, it's a matter of public record that almost all of them are drawn up by government and opposition not the royal family. Lobbying the royal family would be utterly pointless when it's not them making the list. You're entirely correct that politicians are lobbied for them tho. Charles being a lobbyist isn't the same as him being lobbied. His views (on the environment and architecture for example) are brilliant examples of stuff that is based on a long-term view of looking out for society and the world around us that a 5 year election cycle largely neglects. That's the system working - business/profit interests being balanced by a strong voice on the environment so the eventual outcome is a balanced compromise.

The Royal Family are passive participants in the honours farce. Just because they don't draw up the list doesn't mean they aren't corrupt. They participate in handing them out.

I really don't agree that Charles is a "brilliant example of stuff based on a long term view". We have a great many professional people who do not hold any policy-making or electoral office who are qualified to make the judgments Charles does - except they're bona fide experts in their fields. Charles is a well-meaning and sincere man but his views or architecture or homoepathy are not required or relevant. He can hold these views as an ordinary member of the public.

What if Charles was a pro-car, pro-polluting sort of person? We've had very bad Royals before, including Nazi sympathisers. Is that also the "system" working?

 

[northwichcat]

But she doesn't, so claiming the Queen is a tourist attraction and using it as an argument for the monarch's retention is not correct.

The changing of the guard is a tourist attraction. However, it doesn't involve the Queen and it costs a lot to police the event, with the tourists not having to buy a ticket to help fund the policing.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm not sure where you get that from. He made a speech in which he said “In an increasingly turbulent world, our ability to unite in common action with other nations is essential. It is the bedrock of our security and prosperity and is central to your work.

“Right now, the big questions with which you wrestle – in the UN, Nato, the Middle East and elsewhere – are predicated on your commitment to working in partnership with others.”

Now plenty were keen (on both remain and leave sides) to interpret that but Kensington Palace was quite unequivocal saying : “This speech was not about Europe,” and “He does not mention the word Europe once.”

Also, surely what he says is eminently sensible and actually is in line with the PM viz “What I am very clear about… is that this is not about the UK suddenly wanting to be inward looking. We will continue to be a bold, outward-looking country.”

Still, I'm sure this thread is full of people who can fly a helicopter or more...

PS I'm no monarchist but actually rather ambivalent. Will a move from a ceremonial monarchy to some republic will actually change anything... I somehow doubt it.

No one has been able to tell me the date he attended OASC at Cranwell to be selected for helicopter training. Surely he must have gone through selection like everyone else has to and not been put straight through simply because he is a Royal (of course we all know he never went through selection and was never going to fail his training because that would have been a PR disaster)

 

[PermitToTravel]

We'd have a whole load of buildings that tourists come to see. What can we do with them? Buckingham Palace is easy, make it the world's biggest Youth Hostel.

Nope, that one is the HS2 terminus!

 

[AlterEgo]

The changing of the guard is a tourist attraction. However, it doesn't involve the Queen and it costs a lot to police the event, with the tourists not having to buy a ticket to help fund the policing.

The Changing of the Guard would occur even if the Palace was used as a President's residence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Agreed, but they are not a tourist attraction in Britain. People do not come to London and expect to see the Queen.

I think that's a little disingenuous. Sure, people don't expect to see the Queen when they visit Buckingham Palace, but that doesn't change that, for many of those tourists, the fact that the Queen lives there is going to be part of the attraction of wanting to see the place. The fact that it's (one of) the Queen's residences is part of what makes the place special to many people. If there was no Royal Family, then yes you would get some people wanting to see the place because of its historical significance, but it's unlikely that it would be as many as today. There's no doubt that, for whatever reason, the Royal Family do have a celebrity status in much of the World - which is directly linked to who they are and the role that they serve.

The Royal Family are passive participants in the honours farce. Just because they don't draw up the list doesn't mean they aren't corrupt. They participate in handing them out.

Oh come on! Playing a ceremonial role in something that you don't have any say in does not make you corrupt. There are legitimate questions about the choice of people to whom honours are given, but you can't blame the royal family for that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Changing of the Guard would occur even if the Palace was used as a President's residence.

In all likelihood, it wouldn't have the same authenticity though.

 

[AlterEgo]

If there was no Royal Family, then yes you would get some people wanting to see the place because of its historical significance, but it's unlikely that it would be as many as today.

I'd refer you back to Versailles. No royals have been there for hundreds of years.

Same goes for Beijing's Forbidden City, and numerous other tourist attractions.

Let's discount the idea that the monarchy is a tourist attraction. It isn't, and to claim Britain needs to royals to encourage people to visit is doing a great disservice to our country.

Oh come on! Playing a ceremonial role in something that you don't have any say in does not make you corrupt. There are legitimate questions about the choice of people to whom honours are given, but you can't blame the royal family for that.

Watch me sign something dodgy off at work that I felt pressured to do, and then see if people think I'm corrupt.

So you at least agree that the royals facilitate the perverse awarding of some honours, not because of their individual actions, but because they are unable to speak out about the wrongness of some awards. This is the crux of the matter - the problem with the royals is not what power they have, but the powers others exercise in their name without accountability. Brexit is going through by Royal Prerogative, executed by the prime minister.

This is not how modern western democracies work, and it shouldn't be how ours works either.

Bin the royals when Liz goes. Toodle pip, time to shake Britain and its silly social system up a treat.

 

[ExRes]

The Changing of the Guard would occur even if the Palace was used as a President's residence.

Would it?

The reason for the Guard is to protect the Sovereign and the Royal Palaces, the President would not be a Sovereign as indeed the Palaces would no longer be Royal

 

[AlterEgo]

Would it?

The reason for the Guard is to protect the Sovereign and the Royal Palaces, the President would not be a Sovereign as indeed the Palaces would no longer be Royal

Yes, you just change the remit of the regiment.

There are countless places where there are presidential guard regiments.

 

[ExRes]

Let's discount the idea that the monarchy is a tourist attraction. It isn't, and to claim Britain needs to royals to encourage people to visit is doing a great disservice to our country.

Total tosh, you ought to talk to some of the overseas visitors to London, many of them are quite clear that the monarchy is a major reason for visiting the UK

Of course there are many other reasons for visiting the UK but the plain reality is that the monarchy plays a great part and, in doing so, brings in a lot of money, not just to London but to all the areas associated with it
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are countless places where there are presidential guard regiments.

Indeed, at what cost though? or perhaps Presidential guards are free of charge

 

[Spamcan81]

No one has been able to tell me the date he attended OASC at Cranwell to be selected for helicopter training. Surely he must have gone through selection like everyone else has to and not been put straight through simply because he is a Royal (of course we all know he never went through selection and was never going to fail his training because that would have been a PR disaster)

He was commissioned in the Army first, the Blues and Royals and in 2008 he undertook a course at RAFC Cranwell. In 2009 he transferred his commission to the RAF and undertook helicopter training at Shawbury and once qualified he moved on to SAR training at Valley in 2010, graduating in the September of that year.

 

[AlterEgo]

Total tosh, you ought to talk to some of the overseas visitors to London, many of them are quite clear that the monarchy is a major reason for visiting the UK

Of course there are many other reasons for visiting the UK but the plain reality is that the monarchy plays a great part and, in doing so, brings in a lot of money, not just to London but to all the areas associated with it

Hogwash. Please evidence your assertion that "many" tourists visit London for the monarchy.

Nobody comes to see the monarchy! They aren't in London a lot of the time!

Visitlondon.com doesn't even list Buckingham Palace or the Queen as even being in the top ten things to see or do in London, and that's the official London tourist office speaking...

http://www.visitlondon.com/things-t...ction/top-ten-attractions#O7M3C14cgu2xsKMJ.97

You'll note that the Tower of London does make the list, a fine example of a historical Royal property that has no more royals living in it, and no prospect of seeing any royals. But it does showcase British history very well indeed. Perfect!

Indeed, at what cost though? or perhaps Presidential guards are free of charge

The same cost as the current arrangement. There's no reason you'd even need to disband the current Household Division, simply rename it.


Why do people think if we got rid of the monarchy that Britain would somehow suffer to attract tourists? Don't put the place down like that.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

He was commissioned in the Army first, the Blues and Royals and in 2008 he undertook a course at RAFC Cranwell. In 2009 he transferred his commission to the RAF and undertook helicopter training at Shawbury and once qualified he moved on to SAR training at Valley in 2010, graduating in the September of that year.

...at no time passing any of the same selection tests any other OASC candidate would to become a pilot.

 

[ExRes]

Hogwash. Please evidence your assertion that "many" tourists visit London for the monarchy.

Nobody comes to see the monarchy! They aren't in London a lot of the time!

Why do people think if we got rid of the monarchy that Britain would somehow suffer to attract tourists? Don't put the place down like that.

I'll happily answer your points

1) 40+ years of living within 25 miles of London and visiting it on countless occasions, 15 years of working in London, travelling through mainline stations, travelling through Gatwick Airport, spending time at the various places that overseas tourists tend to visit and talking to them

2) A totally stupid comment, why don't you evidence your assertion that nobody comes to see the monarchy. Tourists will visit Buckingham Palace, for example, because it is associated with the monarchy, whether the Queen is in residence or not makes not one iota of difference to the fact that it is a Royal residence

3) Because people believe that visitor numbers would fall, why should they be wrong and you be right? It does not 'put the place down' at all, it shows some realism

 

[AlterEgo]

I'll happily answer your points

1) 40+ years of living within 25 miles of London and visiting it on countless occasions, 15 years of working in London, travelling through mainline stations, travelling through Gatwick Airport, spending time at the various places that overseas tourists tend to visit and talking to them

2) A totally stupid comment, why don't you evidence your assertion that nobody comes to see the monarchy. Tourists will visit Buckingham Palace, for example, because it is associated with the monarchy, whether the Queen is in residence or not makes not one iota of difference to the fact that it is a Royal residence

3) Because people believe that visitor numbers would fall, why should they be wrong and you be right? It does not 'put the place down' at all, it shows some realism

You have not provided a scrap of evidence other than an unreferenced assertion that "most of the tourists I speak to come to London for the monarchy". Well, that settles things (!) (it is also frankly not believable I'm afraid to say)

I on the other hand have shown that London's official tourist office - the public agency whose sole remit is to get people to visit - doesn't make mention of the monarchy being a reason to visit. Yet of course to you it's a "totally stupid comment". Referenced evidence.

With your third point that "people believe visitor numbers will fall" - which people? How many? Are there people out there who think there will be no change? What is the prevailing public opinion? Is there any reason to think belief equals fact and truth?

Could you please show some evidence to back up your points? I respect that you may have gut feeling but that is no substitute for evidence.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd refer you back to Versailles. No royals have been there for hundreds of years.

Same goes for Beijing's Forbidden City, and numerous other tourist attractions.

This looks like you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that no one would come to see Buckingham Palace if we didn't have the monarchy. I'm saying that fewer people would do so.

Roughly speaking, at present, there are two main reasons why people might want to visit Buckingham Palace and other tourist attractions associated with the Royal Family:

1. The historical interest (or interest in the building/architecture/etc. itself). Presumably the main reason people visit the places you've cited.
2. The emotional pull of the Royal Family that many people feel. If you like, their celebrity status.

Abolish the monarchy, and the first reason remains, but the second reason has gone. People whose visits are primarily motivated by (1) will continue to visit. Those whose visits are more motivated by (2) are unlikely to continue to do so. Therefore fewer visitors and less tourism to the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

This looks like you've misunderstood my point. I'm not saying that no one would come to see Buckingham Palace if we didn't have the monarchy. I'm saying that fewer people would do so.

Roughly speaking, at present, there are two main reasons why people might want to visit Buckingham Palace and other tourist attractions associated with the Royal Family:

1. The historical interest (or interest in the building/architecture/etc. itself). Presumably the main reason people visit the places you've cited.
2. The emotional pull of the Royal Family that many people feel. If you like, their celebrity status.

Abolish the monarchy, and the first reason remains, but the second reason has gone. People whose visits are primarily motivated by (1) will continue to visit. Those whose visits are more motivated by (2) are unlikely to continue to do so. Therefore fewer visitors and less tourism to the UK.

Which tourist attraction brings more money in? A palace charging entry at £10-20 a time, or a mostly empty private house where people stand in the street for free?

Do you really think there would be a net loss of income to Britain - as in, people, large scale, deciding not to come here, if the royals were shuffled away?

I think the numbers of people for whom the monarchy is a *deciding factor* in their visit are pretty small in the scheme of things.

 

[ExRes]

You have not provided a scrap of evidence other than an unreferenced assertion that "most of the tourists I speak to come to London for the monarchy". Well, that settles things (!) (it is also frankly not believable I'm afraid to say)

I on the other hand have shown that London's official tourist office - the public agency whose sole remit is to get people to visit - doesn't make mention of the monarchy being a reason to visit. Yet of course to you it's a "totally stupid comment". Referenced evidence.

With your third point that "people believe visitor numbers will fall" - which people? How many? Are there people out there who think there will be no change? What is the prevailing public opinion? Is there any reason to think belief equals fact and truth?

Could you please show some evidence to back up your points? I respect that you may have gut feeling but that is no substitute for evidence.

Why don't you grow up, I do not have to provide evidence for a damned thing as you well know, and how exactly do you suggest I provide evidence of conversations with people, If you wish to call me a liar then have the guts to do it

By the way, you forgot to come back on my request for your evidence on your claim that nobody comes to see the monarchy, if you expect others to provide this ludicrous evidence you seek then try practising what you preach

 

[AlterEgo]

Why don't you grow up, I do not have to provide evidence for a damned thing as you well know, and how exactly do you suggest I provide evidence of conversations with people, If you wish to call me a liar then have the guts to do it

By the way, you forgot to come back on my request for your evidence on your claim that nobody comes to see the monarchy, if you expect others to provide this ludicrous evidence you seek then try practising what you preach

If you can't see why, when having a discussion, that providing evidence to support your position is important, maybe it is time to stop digging?

I have no quarrel with discussing things with people of diametrically opposing viewpoints, but if you want to try to change people's minds, "I spoke with loads of people who all agree with me" is not going to cut it.

I have never claimed that *nobody* came to see the monarchy. My point is that very few people come specifically to see the royal family. I have already shown you that London's own tourism agency doesn't list Buck House as even in the top ten attractions. In fact, the agency supports my assertion that a publically accessible palace in the Tower is a world class tourist attraction. Visit London don't make things up off the top of their head. They're a very well funded, renowned tourist office. They'll have commissioned market research to find out what people like to do in London, and tailored the attractions listed in the top ten to their audience. That's how marketing works.

So, your gut feeling and conversations with tourists, which cannot be substantiated, versus London's own tourism office - which is more credible as evidence?

I simply can't believe that there are hordes of people for whom *the monarchy* (not the history of, but the actual people alive today) is the primary reason they visit London. They're a secondary or even tertiary attraction for most.

The most visited attractions in Britain are here: https://www.visitbritain.org/annual-survey-visits-visitor-attractions

None of them even come close to touching Versailles, at 6 million tourists annually.

So, in summary, your contribution is "I am right, I am telling you I am, I spoke to loads of tourists and they mostly or all support my viewpoint". You are welcome to that, it is a gut feeling, and I cannot tell you your own experiences are wrong. However, I, and many others, would find them unpersuasive.