Royal Family

I would go for this - heir and spare's family only for public duties - the rest can do charity work privately if they wish on their own dime.

Increased financial transparency.

And historical assets ring-fenced and protected by an independent bipartisan body - including money made from them to make sure funds aren't misappropriated by any particular government in office.

Third option. Very slimmed down RF, most doing proper jobs, lots of current property and revenue going to the Exchequer.

And I am in no way saying a monarchy is what makes them more equal - just that it's not big influence on income equality that you are saying.

Except the countries that usually top income equality charts are the Scandinavian countries which nearly all have a monarchy.

In fact the top six countries in this chart - the only one which is a republic is Finalnd

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/rankings/income-equality

And you think that would be any different without a monarchy? It’s the same everywhere in the world.

There is some degree of inequality in every country - however not every country has a monarchy which expressly underpins unearned privilege, unfair advantage to the few, and entrenches it in the system.

Nobody is claiming that abolishing the monarchy will resolve social problems by itself, or that monarchy is the only social concern. But monarchy is incompatible with democratic/meritocratic values. If we are really serious about levelling the social playing field and ensuring that social issues improve instead of progressively getting worse, then sooner or later monarchy will have to go.

@BIossomtoes "What harm? More than homelessness? Child poverty? Zero hours contracts? Inability to get dental care? How about we sort those things out before we start worrying about “deference to people who don’t deserve it”,"

Happy to join you on a thread about anything of those things. This one is about the royal family.

Although I live in the USA now - a supposedly classless society on paper - it doesn't matter how much they say things like 'anyone can be President' etc. Everyone is still living with the tribal mentality of a class system. There's still 'old money' prejudices and boys club networking. It doesn't feel that much different to me from the UK in terms of the haves and the have nots.

Both Downing St and Bute House seem to have revolving doors 🚪. Don't both unpacking the boxes!

Buckingham Palace seems to be reasonably stable, even if Charles is ill, we know who's next and who'll step in should Charles be unfit to meet other dignitaries.

As for harms - it is not just that some people get unfair advantages in the current class system we have. It is that other people are actively excluded. So there are job opportunities, networking chances, all kinds of life changing things which no one who is not 'people like us' will get.

That was such an interesting read. And fascinating that it sounded so critical in the DM!

Not convinced by the consultant document linked upthread - I dont buy the level of financial benefit they provide to the authority claimed.

The older working royals would just be like other old retired rich people - they all have their own money and either second homes in the country or could easily buy something if the Crown Estate apartments went away.

Charles has a big private income although would have to downsize a little on some staff costs I imagine.

William presumably has an investment portfolio and interest from that along with interest from the money he’s inherited from Diana and other relatives would be plenty to fund his family. They’d have to leave the Windsor house but Anmer is privately owned by the King so they could go and live there.

Edward and Sophie would have to downsize but also presumably have made some provisions for retirement age.

Anne already owns her own huge estate which makes money.

Andrew will have to beg Fergie to let him stay in that house she bought in London - made his son in law will help keep him?

If they wanted to I think Kate and William would seriously be able to cash in on their names and celebrity for a long time - in the way that Harry and Meghan have tried to do. They’d be able to accept all sorts of commercial deals etc

Charles also privately inherited a lot of assets from his mother - art, jewels, etc

He could have the mother of all car boot sales if things got tough.

I wonder what would happen to them if they were abolished. People would still be really interested in them, they’d still be celebrities and followed around and photographed. Presumably, they’d live in private homes and have to fund their lifestyles somehow.

They are never going away, lots of people are obsessed by them.

“deference to people who don’t deserve it”, which probably includes a fair proportion of employers.

There are definitely a disproportionate number of people in powerful jobs in this country who have got there through inherited privilege, money and connections, which the royal family embodies. So if that’s something you’re worried about, getting rid of the royal family would be a good start.

I don’t understand why on earth dealing with homelessness, child poverty and the other things you list (which btw this government does not particularly seem to be doing) means that there isn’t also capacity to abolish the monarchy. People only ever make this argument when it’s something they don’t want done anyway, e.g. there was a lot of huffing and puffing in certain quarters about how ministers shouldn’t be ‘wasting time’ on something frivolous like establishing equal marriage rights for a sub-set of tax paying citizens aka gay people. You can bet a lot of those same people had no problem with massive amounts of time and human resources being devoted over multiple years to Brexit, which then left the country worse off.

What harm? More than homelessness? Child poverty? Zero hours contracts? Inability to get dental care? How about we sort those things out before we start worrying about “deference to people who don’t deserve it”, which probably includes a fair proportion of employers.

@BIossomtoes "
What harm do you think it does? And to whom?"

Deference to people who don't deserve it does harm to society.

Get rid, keep the houses and land. It'd be great for the country. Imagine what we could do with all the rent they get paid and the money that goes to the duchies from people with no will etc. I'm willing for the country to provide a small allowance, although not for the third child of course: as per child benefit that one should not count.

This is a good point. And I seem to remember a mumsnet thread last year asking if you would want to be part of the RF.
The overwhelming majority said NO.

It harms them, for starters. See Princess Margaret, Diana, Harry’s lives in particular.

I don't think monarchy is harmless at all

What harm do you think it does? And to whom?

I do not claim Republic.org is objective, just that they set out the anti-monarchist perspective as part of a balanced view.

I don't think monarchy is harmless at all. I also think our constitutional system overall is crying out for reform, this has been the case for a long time and will continue to be the case. Even if it really does entail as much cost & difficulty as is claimed it is still necessary imo.

But, regardless of who owns what, I still fail to see why a few working royals need so many huge homes

The only really huge ones are Crown Estates property, not the Royal Family's personal homes. They are maintained for the State, as befits historic houses. Buckingham Palace is very much a working environment, used for state visits etc & the King can't just decide he wants it all painted in Dulux or hang B&Q paper on the walls, the only areas they can call their own is their apartments within the building. Same with Windsor Castle, Kensington Palace etc.

Kensington Palace for example homes the Prince & Princess of Wales, their working offices, 3 other senior Royal couples, the historic court clothing collection, and has sections open to the public (including the clothing collections). It also has a number of apartments that are rented for market value or discounted to vetted people. St James's Palace is used as offices for various bodies and hosts many receptions mainly for charities. Same for Windsor Castle, loads of official functions take place there including receptions & investitures for people receiving honours.

So basically the Crown Estates properties are mainly used for Public functions, with the various Royals living in apartments tucked away from the public areas. The late Queen is said to have occupied between 6 & 9 rooms as her private apartment in Buckingham Palace, so around 1% of the 750-odd rooms there.

No it’s a really good point and should be part of any discussion about the future of the monarchy - I’m all for more financial transparency and yearly assessments on what there is and how it should be managed.

Fair enough - my research was very cursory and I did 'fess up to being totally naive and idealistic!
But, regardless of who owns what, I still fail to see why a few working royals need so many huge homes 🤷‍♀️

Anmer Hall is part of the Sandringham Estate and so private.

High Grove is part of the Duchy of Cornwall so a grey area - technically not part of the Crown Estates but probably would revert to the country/government if we went republic.

Most of the main places in the Crown Estates they stay would not become public housing under a republic because they are historical assets and tourist attractions and would cost the taxpayers the same under a republic.

The claim current royal family members would still all have lots of private places to stay and lots of assets like the other non royal rich people in the UK even if they weren’t ’on duty’ anymore. The Yorks might struggle a bit and Edward and Sophie would certainly have to downsize.

Kensington Palace could be mainly rented out though.

They already do rent out apartments in St James’ palace to private citizens - I think Catherine Zita Jones has one.