To think there are higher priorities than Buckingham Palace.

[lazylab]

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-elizabeth-pay-rise-royal-public-funds-buckingham-palace-sovereign-grant-royal-family-crown-a7809716.html

Whether or not we agree with the monachy i don't think now is the time to throw millions of taxpayers money at one huge old palace. There are far far more important things that need our money. Anyone agree?

Thanks Orlantina that's interesting. Looking at Ireland, there is a political element to the election of the president (just been reading about party nominations) but the role does seem much more limited than eg the US. I wonder if our crop of UK politicians could step above partisan politics?

I think the role of the Head of State in a democracy like ours where we elect a Government and the Government decides who will lead it needs discussion.

Ceremonial role?
Acting as a representative when foreign dignitaries come here?
Acting to uphold and defend the Constitution should the Government decide to ignore it.

And the Armed Forces. They should also have to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Of course, we do need a written Constitution if we ever have a Head of State who is not their because their parents were also Head of State.

Ceremonial role?

the model you are essentially advocating is the one in Canada. The queen is the head of state there, but the de facto head is the GG. The GG is appointed, powerless and ceremonial. Frankly, I don't really see a need for that either, but even that is better and cheaper.

We can either have an elected political (Head of State), or an appointed apolitical one

Except that, where Charles is concerned, it seems we'll have the worst of both worlds: an unelected, appointed HofS who meddles incessantly in political issues but without any expectation that he should be held accountable for anything that follows

You do realise that this money boost actually goes towards raising the wages of those working within royal households? It's wages not money in the Queens pockets

The household staff are on notoriously low wages. Nat min for most of them.

You do realise that this money boost actually goes towards raising the wages of those working within royal households

I wonder how efficient this is? How much cost cutting have they had to endure - like the public sector has? Has the official toothbrush person had their job merged with the newspaper ironer*

*These might not be official titles.

But it does raise questions of efficiency and accountability.

The household staff are on notoriously low wages. Nat min for most of them.

But they live rent free, right? So it works out to much more than minimum wage.

--

And I have also lived abroad and believe that the royal family keeps people interested in the UK. They could be scaled down to something more akin to continental royals but getting rid of them is a financial mistake, I think.

The UK doesn't have lots of things people like about the rest of Europe. We don't have the weather, beaches, great cheap food and wine, a cool foreign language or attractive people (sorry!). It's overcrowded and expensive. If people didn't feel it was "classy" and love the idea of poshos and high tea, they'd go to the many many better, cheaper countries instead of paying eyewatering sums to stay in London.

This whole "getting rid of the royals" thing is slightly brexit-ish to me. Britain isn't that great. We need tourism. We can't afford to make ourselves even less attractive than we are going to be once Brexit kicks in. We need to the humility to understand we need the royal family gimmick and just slim the costs down if they're too high.

In practice the monarchy is an institution that is not fit for purpose. Shrouded in secrecy, having recently lobbied successfully to have itself removed entirely from the reaches of our Freedom of Information laws; it lobbies government ministers for improvements to its financial benefits and for its own private agenda; it is hugely costly -- an estimated £202 million a year, enough to pay for thousands of teachers, nurses or police officers at a time of sweeping public spending cuts. They're a grotesque relic of a less civilised time.

Most of the staff don't live on the premises.

This whole "getting rid of the royals" thing is slightly brexit-ish to me. Britain isn't that great. We need tourism

Don't you think that having the Palaces open to visitors all year round, having the Changing of the Guard etc will still draw tourists even if we didn't have a Monarchy?

Britain isn't that great. We need tourism. We can't afford to make ourselves even less attractive

Again we don't know if the royals do bring in the tourists. If that was the case France wouldn't be the most visited country in the world. As for us being attractive, what is attractive about having a head of state who is there purely through the accident of birth. We've all been brainwashed.

I say bring on Charles. I can't wait for him to deliver The King's Speech when he fundamentally disagrees with what's in it given his public pronouncements.

Don't you think that having the Palaces open to visitors all year round, having the Changing of the Guard etc will still draw tourists even if we didn't have a Monarchy?

No because the palaces are just big houses. Fuck it, who's even bothered to pay for the Buck House tour now? Most people aren't interested. They are large and grand but so are half the houses on the continent. People go because of the fantasy. They buy into the stories.

If you get rid of the stories, why the f would anyone want to go?

rolo how come they go to visit the palaces in France then.

(Household staff) live rent free, right?

Not any more - staff increasingly live off site these days, and those who do have accommodation in such areas as the Royal Mews have deductions made from their wages to pay for it

Some very senior members of staff, both current and retired, may well enjoy "grace and favour" properties, but these are a tiny minority

Again we don't know if the royals do bring in the tourists. If that was the case France wouldn't be the most visited country in the world. As for us being attractive, what is attractive about having a head of state who is there purely through the accident of birth. We've all been brainwashed.

Of course none of us know. But we can guess. And France is the worst possible argument you can make. Paris is the most over romanticised place in the world. It's ALL ABOUT THE IMAGE. Japanese tourists even have experienced symptoms of shock because it look so different to the fantasy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_syndrome

The fact is that people visit France because of the story. Britain' story is the royal family. It actually weakens your point. France also has better weather, better food, better wine, hotter men, it's prettier and it has a sexy language.

Britain can't compete.

If you get rid of the stories, why the f would anyone want to go

People visit Hampton Court and other old Royal Palace? Palaces in France.

The stories of the Royals will still be there. Just history. And people can wonder in astonishment how a democracy decided that their Head of State would be decided by birthright and what happened so the Monarchy was dissolved.

Britain' story is the royal family

A democracy deserves to have a Head of State to be elected. Not by birthright.

It is that simple for me.

People visit Hampton Court and other old Royal Palace? Palaces in France.

wow, these aren't even good arguments. Of course people visit other royal palaces in the UK. They lap up all the aristocracy stuff because it's tied into the royals. That's britain's image.

I think post Brexit we need to stop this myth that we are the best country in europe and everything will be fine because we are british. Britain is a crumbling empire that is sustained through past atrocities, international oppression and historical accident.

The image that we are "classy", "smart" and "intelligent" is one of the most powerful tools we have. Getting rid of it is economic suicide. We've already tried that with Brexit: maybe we could stay our hand at this one for a few years or so?

A democracy deserves to have a Head of State to be elected. Not by birthright. It is that simple for me.

Sure and Brexit is good because we're "not being ruled by Brussels" anymore.

Is the economy so strong that we can take yet another risk with it? I thought it was a chaotic mess. We're about to have another housing crash and probably on our way into another recession but yeah, let's abolish the monarchy.

Let's be clear: I think the monarchy should be shrunk to european levels. But abolishing it is crazy.

Orlantina can I ask if the appalling, toadying address in your post at 11.12 was taken from something recent?

It's just that under the British Nationality Act which arrived in 1983, I thought the use of "subject" ended for UK and commonwealth citizens - which begs the question of why it's still being used?

but abolishing it is crazy
But not as crazy as having it. They're an embarrassment.

You know the Beaches you love to visit, the free ones, oh yes the Crown Estate pays for that, and the mamanagement of the Sea bed.

Several Forests you see, oh yes the Crown Estates manage them, and makes companies pay to mine and other things, which gets paid in the profits to the Govenment, in then to us the public.

It claims land no one else wants and looks after it and donates parks and leasure areas to us..

It helps do lots of things no one else wants to do, that make a lose, but need sorting. Sometimes what the press report is headlines not the truth...

but abolishing it is crazy
But not as crazy as having it. They're an embarrassment.

Serious question: who isn't? Parliament is. The media are. The general population seem thick as fuck.

I've stopped being embarrassed by the royals now the entire country is a joke.