The Queen vs The Republic

[halbpro]

Halbpro. Indeed, it only takes a few moments to look into the Crown Estates and realise that the Monarchy are VERY good value for money, despite what myself or other individuals may think about them. The tourist draw alone is significant.

Of course, whether they should legally own the Crown Estates anyway is another matter.

I for one think the Monarchy are fantastic for this country and cost absolutely nothing compared to all the other myriad things going wrong in this country. Jesus how much tax did we lose out on when HRMC 'did a deal' with Starbucks for some derisory amount. NOTHING in the public sector is particularly good value for money!

The issue of whether or not they should own the Crown Estates very quickly edges towards "All property is theft" territory, which I doubt many would be that happy with. I mean what give anyone to own the land under their house etc...

Absolutely agree on tourism, although it's trickier to put a concrete figure on and even harder to predict how things would pan out if the Royals were no longer a part of things. Judging by American interest though it does seem they love a lot of it, rather strangely when you look at history, and I'd imagine that their tourist contribution would decrease if the monarchy was done away with.

 

[biddles911]

On the cost of the Royal Family, my understanding was that we pay their expenses and they hand us the profits from the Crown Estates. The government says the royals were granted £42.8m for 2016-17, while the latest figures I can find for the Crown Estates is for 2014-15, which gave £285.1m to the Treasury, a figure that was up 6.7%. So that leaves a net gain to the Treasury of £242.3m, which surely means they are in fact supporting the Taxpayer?

I don't think that's correct. I believe they pay income and capital gains tax on profits from their estates but that's it. No idea what the net impact is though I suspect, given their attraction to tourists, the overall cost is pretty minimal.

Bear in mind that the taxpayer also pays hefty sums for security and other costs for Royal events/occasions so the total cost is pretty difficult to calculate anyway.

Don't think a cost argument stacks up one way or another and, clearly, a presidential style republic would also incur some of these costs too though it should be pretty clear that family and hangers on wouldn't be paid for too (I hope!).

We're a democracy in the 21st century and I just think we should move on.......

 

[dazzer6666]

God Bless her, she is our greatest icon

That. As well as utterly devoting her life to public service, I like to think she has slapped more than a few of our other so-called 'leaders' (of all parties) into line with her common sense, apolitical views. Got a few questions about some of the entourage though who have let her down over the years.

 

[halbpro]

I don't think that's correct. I believe they pay income and capital gains tax on profits from their estates but that's it. No idea what the net impact is though I suspect, given their attraction to tourists, the overall cost is pretty minimal.

Bear in mind that the taxpayer also pays hefty sums for security and other costs for Royal events/occasions so the total cost is pretty difficult to calculate anyway.

Don't think a cost argument stacks up one way or another and, clearly, a presidential style republic would also incur some of these costs too though it should be pretty clear that family and hangers on wouldn't be paid for too (I hope!).

We're a democracy in the 21st century and I just think we should move on.......

To quote from the Crown Estate's website:

This year we’ve gone beyond our targets and delivered £285.1 million revenue profit to the Treasury, up from £267.1 million in the previous year.

So that does seem to be the amount that's going to the Treasury?

The democracy argument is way more compelling than the cost one, and it's one that I'm much more torn on.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Wouldn't happen in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland

 

[Pinkie Brown]

Wouldn't happen in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland post 1918

Corrected for you.

As an aside: Mrs Saxe-Coburg und Gotha ancestry hails from the Thuringen Region of Germany. I like Thuringer bratwurst.

 

[Don Quixote]

I'd rather have democracy and have an elected head of state, but that view is quite unpopular here. I have nothing against the Queen, but I can't see much future for the monarchy after her.

 

[Seasidesage]

Hard to fault the Queen but the concept is ridiculous although had my ancestors been a bit more handy with a sword I might've had a different view...

A republic with the president voted for by a Krypton factor style game show. Oh and abolish the house of lords first please...

 

[glasfryn]

And this is the beauty of us having a Monarchy. Cost-wise it's it's not all that much in the grand scheme of things and if you add in the tangible and intangible benefits it's probably round about cost neutral. And one thing the excesses of Tony Blair's government showed us it's that if we did get a President then the costs of maintaining that would spiral and almost certainly be more than the current lot.

Constitutionally, the Queen doesn't affect legislation one iota so doesn't have any meaningful bearing on our lives politically and so that leaves us Monarchist lickspittles able to fawn over her and her family and all the Republicans can fill themselves with righteous indignation, they can virtue-signal, they can spend hours telling us how little they care and it even gives one or two the chance to indulge in a bit of sly racism by reminding us that the Queen's great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was German!

Trebles all round and no surrender!

now I'm no fan of Blair, but had he not begged the queen and her family to come out of the palace and stand in silence for Diana there could well have been an even bigger upsurge against the monarchy,so maybe you should be thankful that he made that phonecall.....the one thing that in your eyes he done right
I wish he had kept his mouth shut

 

[FatSuperman]

I don't understand the negative sentiment based on it being an archaic model. She wields little real power and if she were to change that, things would very quickly turn against the monarchy. Unless I suppose she was on the side of public sentiment in whatever it was.

Frankly there is a lot of stupid stuff we (and every other nation / government) does that is in the name of tradition that adds nothing. I don't believe we should ditch things just because they aren't modern or the most 100% efficient use of the money. There must be many intangible benefits.

 

[SUIYHP]

The queen isn't just our head of state, but also of fourteen other countries. Eventually the monarchy will be, and should be abolished but it would have to be something that takes all these other countries into consideration. So I can't see it happening in my lifetime, that is, unless Charles royally f***s up

 

[Pavilionaire]

I think the OP's original question is flawed - it should have been either:

Queen vs President, or
Royal Family vs Republic.

The fact of the matter is the Queen has actually broadened the scope of her role and delegated the new stuff to the rest of her family. In this way the House of Windsor can simultaneously perform its constitutional domestic role, do the charity stuff, do the media relations stuff AND do the world tour stuff all at the same time.

In effect, the UK has a permanent PR firm working on their behalf and - leaving aside the views of Brits - the rest of the world seems extremely receptive to our Royal Family and gives us an edge on the global stage. Like them or not, Kate and Harry in particular seem to have star quality.

 

[Seagull]

Some of us may like the Queen or other individual royals (as presented by the media as our main source of information) and there is no doubt that the Queen has performed an exceptional service to the nation since 1952, at the expense of her own life choices, provides a great tourist attraction and is widely respected as a person.

That does not justify a continuation of an outdated system of governance for our country. A constitutional monarchy is a complete anachronism that no one would select now. The Royal family's wealth and property come from the inequities of the past and the spilled blood of the nameless masses, the ancestors of the members of NSC! We now live in a world where, at least in theory, we believe in equal opportunities and the equal value of every citizen. The continued privilege afforded to the Royal Family is an insult to that idea.

Like many of you, the dreadful spectre of President Blair or similar has no appeal. That does not mean we should shy away from having a sensible conversation about how the UK should be in the future, a future without inherited wealth and privilege at its apex.

Cromwell did it right in 1649. Off with their heads!

 

[Eeyore]

Murdoch's press media. It's well known that he's a republican.

William works 20 hours a week with the air ambulance, with his wages going to charity. He undertakes royal duties when asked.
The Queen took over the throne when she was only 26, so spent a long time away from her children touring the Commonwealth, and performing royal duties, so she wants William to enjoy family time whilst his children are small. When she dies, he will become Prince of Wales and will have a lot more to do.

I'm now a monarchist after that.

 

[French Seagull]

The nearly 90 year old Queen has been on the throne for 64 years. What is your view on the UK's hereditary unelected Head of State?

is it better in the states?

 

[beorhthelm]

Cromwell did it right in 1649. Off with their heads!

that worked so well they brought back the monarchy.

you highlight the issues of their wealth, inequality and privilege, none of which would change under a republic. so are you opposed from a position of principle or just jealousy?

 

[BensGrandad]

On the One Show Katherine Jenkins finished with signing the National Anthem but did she sing God Save THE Queen not OUR Queen?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Well put.They be known as The Firm,but it,s trade wise a bloody good firm.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

I think the OP's original question is flawed - it should have been either:

Queen vs President, or
Royal Family vs Republic.

The fact of the matter is the Queen has actually broadened the scope of her role and delegated the new stuff to the rest of her family. In this way the House of Windsor can simultaneously perform its constitutional domestic role, do the charity stuff, do the media relations stuff AND do the world tour stuff all at the same time.

In effect, the UK has a permanent PR firm working on their behalf and - leaving aside the views of Brits - the rest of the world seems extremely receptive to our Royal Family and gives us an edge on the global stage. Like them or not, Kate and Harry in particular seem to have star quality.

Bang-on.

 

[1066familyman]

They lit the beacon up on our East Hill here. I can see it from my window.

I can't help thinking how many times it could be lit for all the other old Doris' up and down the land that have reached 90 years old and had a lifetime of proper hard work and next to bugger all to show for it.