If we didn’t have the royal family...?

[Emma8899]

How would it work? Inspired by another thread. A few people saying that it should be dismantled when the Queen dies.

In reality, how would that work? What would become of the royal family if we decided we just wouldn’t have a monarchy anymore? Obviously they would be normal aristocrats in theory but without the tourism and tax payer money, would they have to get normal jobs?

I’ve never really thought about it before but I can’t really see how we would ever be without the monarchy?

Aroundtheroom

Lending your name to lots of things isn't a job, nor is representing the Queen abroad (which would be unnecessary if we had no monarch anyway), - it gets you invites to performances etc, but in no way is it a job. These patronage's are dished out, unearned privileges and require little effort, but great taxpayer expense. Edward has never had a job, and is famous for twice failing to make his own way at earning his living.

I think it's fair to say he does nothing and lives in stunning splendour on the back of it.

Lending your name to lots of things isn't a job, nor is representing the Queen abroad (which would be unnecessary if we had no monarch anyway), - it gets you invites to performances etc, but in no way is it a job.

Do you seriously believe that it’s just “lending your name”? In fact it is regularly attending performances, award ceremonies, strategy meetings, writing letters of commendation, staying abreast of developments and the associated travel. Easy enough with one charity, gruelling with 30 or 40.

Your comment is akin to dismissing teaching as playing with children, and suggesting they do nothing.

@StormyInTheNorth

I like your post

Do you seriously believe that it’s just “lending your name”? In fact it is regularly attending performances, award ceremonies, strategy meetings, writing letters of commendation, staying abreast of developments and the associated travel. Easy enough with one charity, gruelling with 30 or 40

Do you seriously believe that is a job? Are you Sophie or Edward?

They have a team of secretaries that do the donkey work of writing letters etc. Attending performances in the best seats, chauffeured in and out - free - is not a job! None of what you mention is a job - it's a privilege. Do you really believe he is the driver of the developments in these patronage's? Seriously?
I've a family member who was closely involved in another royal personages 'interest' in their field. For all the publicity/photo ops that came, the cost of security, 'painting up' areas 'just in case', staffing the whole jamboree was a serious PITA as their pretence at real interest and worse, pretence of knowledge in that field was cringeworthy.
The drain on the public purse was frankly scandalous.

Tourism will increase because people could tour much more of BP and WC.
France - no longer a monarchy - have far more tourists than we do.

Well, France has more tourists because they simply have more. Skying resorts, different architecture, lovely countryside, beaches AND weather that you can actually enjoy it all.
If you ask someone on mainland whether they would rather ho to, let's say, Bournemouth or Nice, I can bet you the latter wins and the former gets some "To where?"

Nothing to do with Monarchy or republic.

You are forgetting one important issue.
You can't rename to US (United states) from UK (United Kingdom)😁

It's also not just about UK. Queen is a head in number of countries. It would be a massive undertaking in all of them

If we didn’t have a royal head of state then we’d have an elected one.

I, for one, prefer a moderately bland figurehead like the Queen, to an elected president who will be disliked by 49% of the population and probably just as expensive.

You’re happy they are chosen by birthright @peakotter? We have plenty of bland people in the country who could be just as innocuous and picked by vote.

It isn’t the cost for me. It’s the total lack of democracy.

No idea really - my only concern is that the need for Iconic Worship might be replaced by some sort of Celeb-based worship instead.

Rather than Maz next door but 2 gettin recognition for much more important work than QE2, like being a paid Carer on NMW.

it could be a that failed quarter-finalist's performance on Strictly is given much more thought?

There's always an argument that we'd have to have an elected head of state, but why? We could use a store dummy or a poodle. They didn't actually do any work before that needed doing.

If we really wanted someone to eat really big dinners and shake hands I'm sure we could find someone and just not give them any authority at all.

One method could be like Jury Duty. You get to be the head handshaker and dinner eater for a day or a week.

As for confiscating the crown estates that would be reasonable since they essentially stole them from the people back in the day. They could be left with enough wealth that they never needed to work.

Most first world countries don’t have monarchies. It’s very weird that we do

I’m not a monarchist by any stretch, but among wealthier countries, it’s almost the other way around.

Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, Luxembourg, Denmark, Japan, the UK, and then Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Read the Queen and I by Sue Townsend it’s very funny and basically the royal family are cast off to live in a council estate.

Most first world countries don’t have monarchies. It’s very weird that we do

Out of interest, i just checked this. Here is the list of the 12 European countries with monarchies. 10 of these are hereditary monarchies like ours. :

The current monarchs in Europe are:

Prince Macron of Andorra
King Philippe of Belgium
Queen Margrethe II of Denmark
Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg
Prince Albert II of Monaco
King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands
King Harald V of Norway
King Felipe VI of Spain
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden
Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Pope Francis of Vatican City

There are 29 countries with monarchies in total.

So we aren't exactly unusual for retaining a monarchy. And personally, I think they are pretty good value and most of them do a decent job (though the less said about Andrew the better). I do think they are a big tourist attraction (certainly Visit Britain thinks so) and bring in considerably more money than they cost. As for doing nothing - I think some of them - particularly William and Kate - have been extremely visible over lockdown, in a positive way. I certainly prefer the current set up to an elected 'President'/Head of State.

France - no longer a monarchy - have far more tourists than we do

France has better weather, better food and better wine. France is easily accessible to millions of people who can just drive across the border, no need to get a plane or ferry. France is a huge country with miles of beautiful countryside where you can get away from the crowds.

It is ludicrous to suggest that the UK could rival France as a tourist destination simply by abolishing the monarchy.

@Emma8899

I perhaps naively didn’t realise that they’d still have all their own wealth and that the property was their own - the way people talk about the royals so scathingly you’d think that tax payers fund every aspect of their lives, hence why I thought they’d be in a predicament if that was taken away!

The sovereign grant only covers the cost of their public stuff. Buckingham Palace will still need repairing at public expense whether it is occupied by the Queen or not. Ditto Windsor Castle and St James's Palace.

Sandringham and Balmoral are privately owned by the Queen, there have been investment portfolios to provide a private income since the 14th century.

If you look at one of the European monarchies which exiled their former monarchs rather than executing them outright (the latter being something that even the most rabid republican surely isn't contemplating in the 21st century), the deposed royals certainly wouldn't end up living in a two-up, two-down terraced house in Bolton.

Anyway, if the frothers on here did find a way of skirting around the Right to Property (enshrined in the Human Rights Act, the UDHR etc.) and all of our other laws on property rights so that they could mount a confiscation of assets, there's still plenty of money to be made on the after dinner speaking circuit. Tony Blair allegedly charges £330k for a speech. Never mind how much the Sussexes charge for their double act.

If it is title and duty only, why do people get so het up about us ‘funding’ their lives?
Because the Internet is a place where people rant about half-truths and so on.

@StormyInTheNorth

Just think if their inhertied wealth was redistributed to those most in need, such as the children in Burnley who were ripping open packets of food out of sheer hunger.

They don't even pay inhertiance tax, unlike the average person who saves all their life to pass a meagre amount of money to their family accepting of the fact it will be taxed. That is if they have not paid for their end of life care.

I happily pay tax. I would also, happily see the royals stripped of their inherited assets and see that money redistributed.

Sadly it'll never happen. So we could take their wealth and have them work for their living. Have them opening things seven days a week with 20 days holiday. They can claim expenses or be salaried. Oo, or have them on zero hours so they only get paid for when there is work for them. That way they'd bring in money for tourism and the government whilst not being a drain.

The average person doesn't pay inheritance tax. The average person's worth is considerably lower than the threshold for the top of the nil-rate band.

I don't have any issue with most of them as human beings, but it is such an embarrassment that the concept of a monarchy still exists in this day and age.

@Wiredforsound

Most first world countries don’t have monarchies. It’s very weird that we do. As one of the wealthiest families in the world they wouldn’t need to get jobs if they didn’t want to, and we’d always have the historical stuff for all the history buffs. I just don’t think they’re that relevant anymore. If we didn’t have the Queen nothing would happen. Laws wouldn’t change, priorities wouldn’t change, all that would change is that we wouldn’t have an old lady in a gold hat telling us that times were hard, or reading out a speech that Boris Johnson’s SPAD wrote for her.

There are quite a few countries with constitutional monarchies. Japan, Canada, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, among others.

Surely their wealth only comes from the fact that they are the royal family? Not from having actually done anything?

Kind of like Paris Hilton's wealth comes from being Paris Hilton - that is, an heiress to a fortune who can pretty much decide to do whatever she wants and also pass that wealth on to her own children one day.

The assets of the queen and other members of the family come from the actions of their ancestors, which may be the same things that made them members of the aristocratic land-owning class. Today the wealthy and powerful are not typically big land-owners, they own corporations, but it's pretty much the same idea.

Most members of the royal family are not particularly paid for their role, they have jobs or businesses and private family wealth. A few members are, but that isn't the main part of their wealth.

If the monarchy was in some way dissolved, they would lose some things, but arguably they might be able to take some of the Crown estates with them, as they were not originally state property - although they might not want to bother. But in any case, they would then be free to do whatever they wanted, work, make reality tv shows, put their money in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes, and not bother with things like charity work, or reading everything that comes out of Parliament. They could even go into politics or pontificate about them on tv, and donate money to political lobby groups to benefit their interests.

Princess Madelaine's (Sweden) husband declined a royal title so he could follow a career, Prince and Princess Constantin and Laurentian in The Netherlands work, Princess Cristina of Spain works, Martha Louise of Norway works - though she has been accused of using her title to gain favours - just as Prince Edward's wife Sophie did and Prince Andrew's wife Fergie did.

Edward has never had a job, and is famous for twice failing to make his own way at earning his living. I think it's fair to say he does nothing and lives in stunning splendour on the back of it.

He did over 300 public engagements last year, second highest number after Princess Anne. That doesn’t sound like nothing to me.

@PurpleDaisies

I think the abolitionists who wanted to confiscate everything would find a way.

I don’t think that’s where the majority of republicans are. We just want rid of an outdated and undemocratic institution.

Come on, admit it, purpledaisies, you’d secretly love the idea of lining them up in a cellar Romanov style......

No, I really wouldn’t @Andante57.

I don’t think that’s funny.

I love the whole lot of them - they do a brilliant job

I’m always curious about comments like this one. What is this supposedly “brilliant job” these people are doing? Smiling, waving, shaking hands, making small talk, doing exactly what their handlers tell them to do, giving speeches probably written by someone else, doing a Zoom call now and then? Is this really considered impressive or hard work?