Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think the royal family should end at the queen

329 replies

Letshaveablackcelebration · 14/05/2021 06:48

I have respect for the Queen’s sense of duty but I do genuinely believe that it’s time for a conversation about the royal family. Honestly, who cares about the coming King Charles- is that really right? People mostly respect the queen but not the rest of them.

I read this article and I was one of those who thought their interview showed up some horrible stuff- there are clearly issues with the royals

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/13/prince-harry-royal-family-like-being-in-the-truman-show

Apart from all of the drama, I don’t think that we should be funding a royal family with tax payers money when the country is in such a state & the queen is literally one of the richest women in the world. I know royals in other countries are funded differently. The fact that the tories are mooting the idea of spending millions of public money on a ne boat to remember Prince Philip is a classic example.

Aibu?

OP posts:
TwoAndAnOnion · 14/05/2021 10:26

@OvaHere

Buckingham Palace is open to tourists.

Is it? As in you can go inside and have a tour of state rooms and such like? Genuine question because I've only visited it once to have a look at the outside, I didn't think you could go in.

Its been open for years, principally to pay for the Windsor refurbishments after the fire. Great displays on, they did one of Dianas frocks a couple of years ago, and they sell great gin!

www.rct.uk/visit/buckingham-palace

21Flora · 14/05/2021 10:30

@UrAWizHarry It literally is. If she isn’t Queen she’ll take all the Crown Estate and go and live her life. The profits from the crown estates that go to the taxpayer will disappear. She’ll get 100% of the profits instead of 25%. So yes, the tax payer will be worse off.

@OvaHere The Queen doesn’t own Buckingham Palace, it’s owned by a charitable trust and tourists can visit it already.

OvaHere · 14/05/2021 10:32

Thanks @TwoAndAnOnion I had no idea it was already a thing. Guess they've kept up with modernisation more than I realised (probably more than a lot of people realise).

SlowlyThenQuickly · 14/05/2021 10:32

I went on a tourist visit of Buckingham Palace in 2018. The tickets had to be booked in advance. It was a fairly extensive tour. Saw a lot of the state rooms etc. - Mind you, I was surpised that they hadn't either covered over all of the carpets or made everyone wear those slipperette things that you have to wear if you visit a show house.

Packingsoapandwater · 14/05/2021 10:33

Constitutionally, moving to a Republic model would be a nightmare. The power of Parliament and legislation and all government institutions lies, theoretically within the corpus of the Monarch as a conduit from God.

You would have to unravel it all, and reorientate the locus of power, and deal with all legislation prior to that point, which would become void. It was too much to face back in the 17th century, which is why Cromwell was pretty much a replacement King and why, after his death, we ended up with the restoration.

What's interesting is that most Monarchies end through revolution, at a time when the fabric of the state is irretrievably broken. That's because it's one of the only sitiations by which such a shift can occur without a horrific mess - - at a point where you have a year zero, more or less.

Put it this way, constitutional experts stated that Scottish Independence would likely take ten to fifteen years to sort out because it would void the Act of Union, and a hellova lot of subsequent legislation depends on that Act.

By abolishing the Monarchy, you are essentially looking at removing the power foundation for every piece of British/English legislation.

Put it this way, if the entire British Royal Family was erradicated by aliens, and we had no Monarch, Parliament couldn't pass law, the Police and Armed Forces would have no jurisdiction etc. That's why the transfer of power is instantaneous on death to the next Monarch. If there is no new Monarch, everything stops.

And you have to be careful what you wish for. A translation mistake in the Great Reform Act led to female heads of household losing the right to vote, and that wasn't fixed for nearly seventy years.

And I'm not particularly a Royalist either, yet I'd still urge caution. Would the armed forces accept a transfer of sovereignty to an elected president? You would be changing the entire dynamic of those institutions by doing so. Ditto the civil service and the Police.

The Monarchy provides stability; in fact it provides so much stability, most of us take it for granted and think it's normal.

And to be honest, with how complicated the British state has become in the last 100 years, I would really question anyone who wanted to be president. Being Prime Minister is enough of a shitshow as it is.

UrAWizHarry · 14/05/2021 10:40

@21Flora

Nope. The crown estates are only owned by the reigning monarch by way of right of the crown. If the Windsors stepped down they would have no right to the crown estate or any of the revenue. They would keep their not insubstantial personal wealth but that £300 million figure you are quoting would not be lost to the treasury.

What we would save is ~£100 million a year in taxpayers money paying their heating bills and travel costs.

TheKeatingFive · 14/05/2021 10:43

@UrAWizHarry It literally is. If she isn’t Queen she’ll take all the Crown Estate and go and live her life.

No she wouldn’t

She has absolute no rights to them as a private individual.

TwoAndAnOnion · 14/05/2021 10:46

@OvaHere

Thanks *@TwoAndAnOnion* I had no idea it was already a thing. Guess they've kept up with modernisation more than I realised (probably more than a lot of people realise).
I honestly don't think the majority of people understand the role of the monarchy, or the parliamentary system, and appear to have scant regard for tradition. They certainly have no idea about the Sovereign Grant and witter on about the 'Civil List' which was abolished in 2012.

In short, the Queen gives ALL her private income to the state and they give her 25% back, from that 25% she must pay for the upkeep of the palaces (that she doesn't own), pay salaries to staff, and that will, of course, include pensions, maternity, holiday etc everything that goes with being an employer, and pay for state occasions for what ever tin pot dictator the Government decide shes hosting this week. On top of an 18 hour day, which has reduced over covid. By anyone's standards, she's got the shitty end of the stick.

There have been a phenomenal amount of documentaries surrounding the royals since Philip passed away. You're either interested in them or you aren't. I watch them, but I would watch a documentary on the workings of eg The Foreign Office. I don't think people actually realise their value

www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

The Sovereign Grant for 2020-21 is £85.9 million which is 25% of £343.5 million. Section 2 explains how this is calculated

I have no objection to paying 69 million out of the 75% of 343.5million she's already given the state.

Letshaveablackcelebration · 14/05/2021 10:52

@Packingsoapandwater
What's interesting is that most Monarchies end through revolution, at a time when the fabric of the state is irretrievably broken

We are probably not far from that in some ways given the mess the country is in thanks to the tories- ending sure start, youth clubs etc etc - some parts of the UK are incredibly deprived - parts of South Wales have never recovered from the thatcher era destroying the mining industry etc.

OP posts:
Giantrooster · 14/05/2021 10:52

On a different note, have you noticed that monarchies don't just wither and die? Apparently if you want to take away that much privilege, it has never been in a peaceful way (I'm ready to be corrected).

So unless the royals have had enough, I think we are stuck with them, every possible voting opportunity on the monarchy (and major event with the royals) brings out the 'closet' supporters.

(I'm from a different monarchy with much the same problems).

TwoAndAnOnion · 14/05/2021 10:53

[quote TheKeatingFive]**@UrAWizHarry It literally is. If she isn’t Queen she’ll take all the Crown Estate and go and live her life.

No she wouldn’t

She has absolute no rights to them as a private individual.[/quote]
But she would take her private assets, which generate 343.5 million revenue for the state, put them through holding companies offshore, and not pay bean in the UK. She'd also take all her art works. And think of all those redundancies and people unemployed, Buckingham Palace alone has 1,200 staff, many of them ex-military

Giantrooster · 14/05/2021 10:53

Arh sorry x-post Smile.

AlmostSummer21 · 14/05/2021 10:54

[quote 21Flora]@UrAWizHarry that’s not what I said though is it? There are thousands and thousands of billionaires in the world, of which the Queen isn’t one.

You have entirely ignored my point that the taxpayers of this country would be worse off without the Queen by something like £300 million a year. No tax payer of this country gives money to the Queen, it’s a myth. The Queen gives money to the taxpayer.[/quote]
People don't want to accept the actual facts!

Just to rant about the cost, like idiots🙄🙄

TheKeatingFive · 14/05/2021 10:55

In short, the Queen gives ALL her private income to the state and they give her 25% back

No she doesn’t, this is horseshit

How embarrassing that you’re lecturing everyone else on what they don’t know. Blush

From the CE website

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

UrAWizHarry · 14/05/2021 10:56

"In short, the Queen gives ALL her private income to the state"

No, she doesn't. The Crown Estate gives it's revenue to the treasury. This revenue would still exist without the Queen.

TheKeatingFive · 14/05/2021 10:57

But she would take her private assets

Yes she would take her private assets.

She wouldn’t take the crown estates because they don’t belong to her as a private individual.

UrAWizHarry · 14/05/2021 10:57

@AlmostSummer21

Funny that I and others are the ones stating the actual facts, though.

The revenue generated by the Crown Estates is not the Queen's money. It would come into the Treasury regardless.

NoMLMbots · 14/05/2021 11:00

YABU

Who would want a president instead!

HowToBringABlushToTheSnow · 14/05/2021 11:01

@FangsForTheMemory

There is a whole Royal Family board for stuff like this. YABU to post it here.
Oh get a grip ffs Hmm
TheKeatingFive · 14/05/2021 11:02

Who would want a president instead!

What, someone you actually choose? Who indeed? I can’t think why that would be preferable to the person who just came out of the appointed womb. 🤔

UrAWizHarry · 14/05/2021 11:03

@NoMLMbots

YABU

Who would want a president instead!

Oh, I dunno, people who believe in democracy?
TwoAndAnOnion · 14/05/2021 11:03

I'll tell you what the 'problem' with the monarchy is, and you're going to look at me in horror but I am objectively looking at it.

To remain relevant the monarchy must be relatable, we must feel aligned with them, that is how it works today. But in doing so they become like us, and if they are like us, what's the point of them?

The horror bit comes over eligible marriage material. Who wants a middle-class monarchy? I want mystique, history, pageantry, and 1,000 year lineage.

dons flame retardant suit

TwoAndAnOnion · 14/05/2021 11:04

@TheKeatingFive

In short, the Queen gives ALL her private income to the state and they give her 25% back

No she doesn’t, this is horseshit

How embarrassing that you’re lecturing everyone else on what they don’t know. Blush

From the CE website

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

Crown Estates and Private income are two different things. No need to get so abusive
21Flora · 14/05/2021 11:06

The government does not own the crown estate and isn’t entitled to its revenue.

TheKeatingFive · 14/05/2021 11:07

To remain relevant the monarchy must be relatable, we must feel aligned with them, that is how it works today. But in doing so they become like us, and if they are like us, what's the point of them?

I agree this is the modern paradox.

More generally, by what rights do they rule over people? Divine? Does anyone believe that nowadays? Blood? Do we still live in a world where we care about bloodlines?

There are plenty of more talented, clever, charismatic, engaging people out there. And we end up with Charles.