Abolishing the Monarcy.

[Helendee]

Good or bad idea and reasons for your opinion?
I don’t feel strongly either way but I am curious about what aspects of becoming a Republic are more beneficial than the UK’s stable current system.

Keep them. Don't keep them. Actually genuinely don't care any more and feel massively sorry for the children involved.

@anniegun
The queen is getting huge profits from selling the rights to build windfarms on the seabed. Because she "owns it" - not the country ! How is this right?www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights

You didn’t understand the article. The Crown Estate is selling the rights, not the queen. All the profits go first to the U.K. Treasury.

The Queen by law then gets an allowance which is currently 25% of the profits earned by the Crown Estate. The windfarm would boost her allowance £ amount by increasing the Crown Estate profits. UNLESS her % were adjusted again, which it probably will be. It was 15% when profits were higher before it was raised to 25%. They’ll probably reduce it back to 15%. So the estimated £879m/yr the windfarm will bring in, 75% to 85% of that money will go to the U.K. Treasury...to the U.K. Government to spend as it does everyone else’s tax money.

The highest income tax bracket on private citizens in U.K. is what? 45% on income over the first £150k? And we know the richest people hide their wealth in tax free shelters like Singapore or Cayman Islands...dodging taxes however they can. The income (profit) tax on corporations like Amazon and Google is a paltry 19%.

But the Queen essentially pays an income tax of 75-85% on her income from the Crown Estates (which is owned by whoever is monarch, it’s not her personal property). How is this so wrong and unfair to in her favour? It’s the complete opposite.

@KeflavikAirport

Fucksake the state of some of your arguments. Bill Gates isn't living it large at taxpayers' expense, is he?

Neither is the U.K. Royal Family. They are self-sustaining through the Crown Estates. In fact, they are a net contributor to the U.K. Treasury by a few hundred million £ a year, every year.

That, as been pointed out about a million times already, very much depends whose figures you look at.

[quote AnitaB888]@IrisAnon
"Abolish the monarchy as a starting point and then start looking into how so few people own swathes of the UK’s land. Abolish aristocracy and indeed anyone’s right to bank so many acres and acres of land - redistribute it in some other way."

How do you propose to do this?

Guillotine all the 'aristocrats' like they did in the French Revolution?[/quote]
Yes, of course I mean to use the guillotine on aristocrats for goodness sake

Or the legal, academic and political system. In the same way feudalism was abolished. Or perhaps one could read into the Enclosure Acts and the resulting change for tenant farmers.
Aristocrats still hold approximately 30% of UK land and their titles mean very little without a monarchy. Unless, of course, you ‘lucked out’ and enjoy your title because it makes you different and in some way perceive yourself as superior to fellow humans - what is the actual need for a title?
You simply end the usage of hereditary titles.

[quote PersimmonTree]@VinylDetective "And yet other sources inevitably return different figures.

yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/18/who-are-monarchists"

Proving my point, as your survey is 2 years older, that opinions are changing.[/quote]
Proving that a different sample was used. The one on the survey you quoted was pitifully small.

@PlanDeRaccordement. If you want to believe what you want to believe, that's fine. But you need accurate data for this.

Where is your source confirming the RF as a whole is a net contributor? Genuinely interested to know.

@IrisAnon,

56% of the land in UK is used for food production
34% natural
25% green urban
5.9% built on.

Food production relies on Economies of Scale, hence the need for large areas of land owned by a person or company.

I fail to see how breaking it down into smaller units and re-distributing it among more people, will help feed the ever growing population of UK or have any other economic benefit.

Now doubt you will enlighten me?

And we know the richest people hide their wealth in tax free shelters like Singapore or Cayman Islands...dodging taxes however they can.

And her maj didn't miss that boat either. See Paradise Papers.

But the Queen essentially pays an income tax of 75-85% on her income from the Crown Estates (which is owned by whoever is monarch, it’s not her personal property). How is this so wrong and unfair to in her favour? It’s the complete opposite.

You think depriving the government of the opportunity to spend that 25% for the benefit of the country by diverting it into the pocket of a single already unimaginably wealthy woman isn't wrong?

They are self-sustaining through the Crown Estates.

The Crown Estates which fell into their hands through a series of wars and land grabs.

Poor old Vinyl. Still smarting because we won’t accept that the visit by Princess Anne organised by Vinyl, in case anybody missed that bit is irrefutable proof that everyone still loves the royal family.

If a new building occupied by my employer were being opened by a dignitary or celebrity of some kind, I’d go an watch it, for one or all of three reasons:

1. I might be proud of the new building, particularly if it were a new hospital wing and I had worked towards making it happen.

1. It would be an hour off work.

1. Curiosity.

I wouldn’t care who opened it unless I had reason to want the event to be covered in the local paper (the consultants and other clinicians) or I wanted to boast about ‘the royal visit I led on’ (Vinyl).

To argue that the first group are royalists by default because they clapped for Princess Anne is rather fanciful. Can you see that they might have had other reasons?

[quote AnitaB888]@IrisAnon,

56% of the land in UK is used for food production
34% natural
25% green urban
5.9% built on.

Food production relies on Economies of Scale, hence the need for large areas of land owned by a person or company.

I fail to see how breaking it down into smaller units and re-distributing it among more people, will help feed the ever growing population of UK or have any other economic benefit.

Now doubt you will enlighten me?[/quote]
No, I won’t ‘enlighten’ you - frankly it’s not the correct forum for a detailed academic response - but I will chuckle at your overly aggressive dialogue from behind your keyboard.
Your stats don’t take anything away from my point relating to land ownership - you are framing land ‘usage’. Totally different thing. Ta ta!

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@anniegun
The queen is getting huge profits from selling the rights to build windfarms on the seabed. Because she "owns it" - not the country ! How is this right?www.theguardian.com/business/2021/feb/08/queens-treasury-windfarm-bp-offshore-seabed-rights

You didn’t understand the article. The Crown Estate is selling the rights, not the queen. All the profits go first to the U.K. Treasury.

The Queen by law then gets an allowance which is currently 25% of the profits earned by the Crown Estate. The windfarm would boost her allowance £ amount by increasing the Crown Estate profits. UNLESS her % were adjusted again, which it probably will be. It was 15% when profits were higher before it was raised to 25%. They’ll probably reduce it back to 15%. So the estimated £879m/yr the windfarm will bring in, 75% to 85% of that money will go to the U.K. Treasury...to the U.K. Government to spend as it does everyone else’s tax money.

The highest income tax bracket on private citizens in U.K. is what? 45% on income over the first £150k? And we know the richest people hide their wealth in tax free shelters like Singapore or Cayman Islands...dodging taxes however they can. The income (profit) tax on corporations like Amazon and Google is a paltry 19%.

But the Queen essentially pays an income tax of 75-85% on her income from the Crown Estates (which is owned by whoever is monarch, it’s not her personal property). How is this so wrong and unfair to in her favour? It’s the complete opposite.[/quote]
Yes, of course this is wrong. Why should she have any benefit from it? That is an extra £220m a year currently, handed straight to the Queen. For what exact reason?

To be fair, Princess Anne is the best thing about the Royal Family. I'd be a total royalist if she was to become Queen. She does her charity work, then spends the rest of her time riding horses, not titling her kids and pissing off Princess Michael. What's not to like?

Abolish. Total waste of our time and money. Stability in itself is not necessarily a 'good' thing. North Korea is a very stable society.

I’m not British but I think it’s quite sad that in a century where most people were able to break through the social and class constraints and, to some extent, choose their destiny, that Elizabeth had to live such a constrained life just because of an accident of birth.
Other people were able to step away from the expectations of following in the family tradition. Wealth, status and celebrity are imo a very poor substitute for freedom, the power of choice and self determination.
I think it’s awful to continue to imprison people with these expectations. I genuinely struggle to understand why Kate would have knowingly chosen this for her children because I would have run a mile.

“ Can you imagine Boris Johnson as President?”

I’d much rather have him as a nominal figurehead than the person who is actually leading the country politically ( if we must have him at all). And I have a sneaking suspicion he’d prefer it too.

I know too many- otherwise sensible people- who like Bojo because he has funny hair and makes them laugh. These seem like much better qualifications for President than Prime Minister to me.

I am indifferent but open minded and curious.

Is this the new royxit democratic debate? Are common subjects permitted to indulge in self uncensorship?

Factually they do seemingly appear dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. Landed gentry empire as a concept is a touch out of date these days as fairness and equality let alone privilege becomes more of a legal obligation (for those within not above the law) and gained through own merit than for granted paid for by subjects. What will happen to rule Brextania and all those cherished British Empire awards who make the cut annually?

What would an off with their heads revolution lead to? What's the pragmatic alternative that can allow some of the positive staged spin the monarch seemingly provides? Fairy dust is a finite resource as only a few can magic this up!

Who or what is the replacement or should there be a replacement ruler/owner/god?

Decisions decisions....

Another winner for the left. Right up there with the Jeremy Corbyn - Diane Abbott show.

@thelegohooverer

I’m not British but I think it’s quite sad that in a century where most people were able to break through the social and class constraints and, to some extent, choose their destiny, that Elizabeth had to live such a constrained life just because of an accident of birth. Other people were able to step away from the expectations of following in the family tradition. Wealth, status and celebrity are imo a very poor substitute for freedom, the power of choice and self determination. I think it’s awful to continue to imprison people with these expectations. I genuinely struggle to understand why Kate would have knowingly chosen this for her children because I would have run a mile.

They are all free to walk away any time they choose.

Don't you think it's telling so few do?

My vote is to get rid of them. It is outdated and no longer necessary to have them, plus they are useless.

@TheSandman

Abolish. Total waste of our time and money. Stability in itself is not necessarily a 'good' thing. North Korea is a very stable society.

This

Totally outdated and a ridiculous concept when you consider how many people in the UK are starving and in poverty.
How dare they live such a lifestyle and put it down as public service.

Foreign and domestic Tourists flood into The Lake District the scenery and Beatrix Potter still drawing them in - regardless of the weather and absence of royalty. Likewise Scotland - the Borders, the Highlands, the islands, the castles and Edinburgh to name a few of the highest attractions - weather (and royalty) irrelevant. The Cotswolds are a big draw for tourists also all year round - a few royals like there but people are t coming to see them.

Abolish.

@thelegohooverer. That's all we need. People feeling sorry for them.

Queen's had 4 kids, one is a total embarrassment who treated his wife abysmally and owns half of Cornwall for no good reason at all, one is OK but never has to work for a living, one is a dysfunctional paedo with very nasty friends and habits funded by us, one is totally forgettable and makes no contribution whatsoever to anything, and is also bankrolled by us.

The offspring of the queen's children do FUCK ALL except reproduce at our expense, and we not only pay for it but smile and wave at them and devote our precious police forces to protecting their useless backsides and sending them on world trips. Of course Kate chose that life consciously!! Just because she's extremely beautiful, stylish and educated doesn't mean she isn't also a scrounging freeloader and a dreadful role model for anyone who wants to give their children a work ethic.

For all the posters worrying about losing our identity, have you ever wondered how other countries see the UK? Ever thought that maybe our identity needs a radical overhaul?

The Privy Council, the Lords Spiritual, Royal Family, no written constitution... We are basically still medieval.