If 'commoners' can marry into the royal family - why have a 'royal' family -

[HacketteofHacks]

I totally respect the Queen and think she's been largely a force for good...
But at work we were talking about the tour that's on now.. my boss pointed out the the definition of a royal family was that its lineage is 'predetermined by God'.
Well that is archaic in itself - my boss (who is no royalist) the. pointed out that once members of a royal family marry commoners they lose this 'untouchable special-Ness'.
I think he had a good point...
He's from Jamaica so hence we were all having the conversation .

I want to know what “vast assets” we’d remove from the royal family if we abolished the monarchy. Because I honestly can’t think of any.

The sovereign grant, duchies, and all of the royal palaces (dont know how many there are off the top of my head, but they're quite numerous)

Not bad really

We already own all those things. The sovereign grant is 15% of the income from the Crown Estate, they get the income from the duchies and we allow them to live in the palaces. We can’t take away what we already own.

We already own all those things. The sovereign grant is 15% of the income from the Crown Estate, they get the income from the duchies and we allow them to live in the palaces. We can’t take away what we already own

We don't own it in any meaningful sense. They spend the duchies and the sovereign grant. We don't have access to the palaces or what's in them.

Ooh and let's claim back the 7 billion jewellery collection that the Queen may not technically 'own' but has full run of when no one else does.

@Blossomtoes

Precisely the point I was making *@TheKeatingFive*. I want to know what “vast assets” we’d remove from the royal family if we abolished the monarchy. Because I honestly can’t think of any.

Look back on the RF threads over the past 6 months and you'll find countless examples of royal financial skulduggery and literally dozens of convincing reasons to become a republic. It's not up to us to repost them and keep on with the same old links. It's up to you to read them. But you absolutely won't do that as it's easier to reside in monarchist fantasyland.

RF = Titanic in slow motion. Going down whether you believe it or not.

we allow them to live in the palaces.

Boris and the arsekissers do. The taxpayers are hostages to these cowardly political decisions.

Imagine if a group of us vipers rocked up to one of the palaces that we "own" and demanded to stay for a week full board and lodgings. Oh and while we are at it we could ask to wear the jewellery and view all the paintings and "ornaments" that we own also. Then bring all our families to the big house for a BBQ and use the contents of the cellar and the kitchens to entertain them.

Well we own it don't we?

The monarchy will pretty much go with the Queen. I’ve been at events that the Queen has been at and people were transfixed. Can’t see Wills having that effect!
Having said all that some of her privileges are as head of State. The French president for example lives like a king.

So, basically, still no answers. If we got rid of the monarchy in what way would we be better off? We still wouldn’t be able to stay in the palaces or wear the jewellery. The government would have a bit more money to waste.

I’m just waiting for someone to tell me.quite simply, how the country would be better off as a republic. And I’m told to scour God knows how many MN threads. Not looking good, guys.

The government would have a bit more money to waste.

Well if you're going to look at it like that, that's your lookout. Personally, I believe almost anything is better than letting one already obscenely wealthy family have exclusive access to it. Why would anyone advocate that?

The palaces can be turned into anything the country wants them to be. A significant proportion of the jewellery collection could be sold, the rest on permanent display. Better than sitting in darkened vaults, getting an outing once a decade when a grandchild deigns to marry or whatever.

@Blossomtoes

So, basically, still no answers. If we got rid of the monarchy in what way would we be better off? We still wouldn’t be able to stay in the palaces or wear the jewellery. The government would have a bit more money to waste.

I’m just waiting for someone to tell me.quite simply, how the country would be better off as a republic. And I’m told to scour God knows how many MN threads. Not looking good, guys.

Well if you'd read them at the time you were on those threads assiduously scrolling past all the detailed and comprehensive answers to your repetitive rhetorical questions, it'd be less of an arduous task to get the answers now, wouldn't it?

Plus the rest of the internet's free to anyone with a wifi connection, which you clearly have. Why do you want other people to do your research for you? Because it's just easier to keep typing god save the queen into the search bar?

Why do you want other people to do your research for you?

I don’t. I want republicans to justify their belief that the UK would be a better place without the monarchy. And you have so little evidence for your prejudice that you won’t even try. 🤷‍♀️

I cannot read Norman Baker's book (quoted about 165 times on here), for you. You will have to do it yourself (but you will not). All the evidence is summarised perfectly in that book. No scrolling, no logging in, no annoying republican mumsnetters, just page turning and digesting the info.

@Quincunx

I cannot read Norman Baker's book (quoted about 165 times on here), for you. You will have to do it yourself (but you will not). All the evidence is summarised perfectly in that book. No scrolling, no logging in, no annoying republican mumsnetters, just page turning and digesting the info.

You’re absolutely right, I won’t. You could summarise the highlights for me but you won’t.

I asked a very simple question: What’s lacking in Scandinavia, Belgium and The Netherlands that we’d miraculously have here if we became a republic?

You responded with a lot of abstract stuff about truth and transparency, tentacles into all sorts of areas which you can’t/won’t specify and “vast assets” that doesn’t bear the daylight of scrutiny.

In other words, no answers. Hopefully other republicans who are willing to have a rational discussion about this will be along at some point.

Yes you are absolutely right about absolutely everything, bt.

It's just outrageous how the rogue republicans like me refuse to summarise books that you cba to read and that have already been summarised 15 times by 15 other posters. Just shocking.

I shall self-flagellate with a rolled up Daily Mail and atone for my sins while chanting a few Hail Catherines and wondering which pedo relative they'll be naming sprog number 4 after.

Sure, everything is so much better when the people select leaders like Trump and Johnson.

@Boxowine

Sure, everything is so much better when the people select leaders like Trump and Johnson.

Both countries that have oh so democratic FPTP systems too. So rare nowadays and very few "normal"countries have it.

The "descended from God" aspect ended with William & Mary several hundred years ago!

Hopefully other republicans who are willing to have a rational discussion about this will be along at some point.

Why ? Many people justify support for the monarchy in irrational terms. The UK doesn't do evidence based anything. So why do republicans have to be the ones who are put to the test for rational discussions ?

@Blossomtoes loads of links to further reading in the thread .

I'm not seeing the link between what the Royal family has and what some people don't have.

I think if the idea to rid the country of the monarch was presented as a business plan, you wouldn't find a positive reception. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, the Crown Estate pulled in more than $700 million, with more than $475 million in profits.
It's national suicide, even from a financial point of view.

The Queen's assets are less than 6% of GDP, on the open market without the 'Crown', they'd immediately be devalued.

It's a fantasy argument from all angles, points of view.

In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, the Crown Estate pulled in more than $700 million, with more than $475 million in profits.

It's national suicide, even from a financial point of view.

You seem to be misunderstanding the legal status of the Crown Estates. The monarch has no claim or ownership of them at a personal level.

The Queen's assets

Can you clarify what you're including as 'assets'?

I think if the idea to rid the country of the monarch was presented as a business plan, you wouldn't find a positive reception

How do you feel about the value of the Sovereign Grant being protected from the Covid hit the Crown Estate took unlike so many other businesses who were left to suck it up? and the fact it's guaranteed never to reduce in value whatever the circumstances?

I reckon most businesses would snatch your hand off for either of those terms let alone both.

National suicide. We can't risk that just for a few hundred million. We need to act now. Do we think doubling the grant would be enough or should we provide a large enough endowment, the return on which might provide a cushion so we don't ever risk national suicide if adverse events happen in the future. I wonder if the Royal Household or UK plc have the Samaritans number to hand?

@Hrpuffnstuff1

I'm not seeing the link between what the Royal family has and what some people don't have.

I think if the idea to rid the country of the monarch was presented as a business plan, you wouldn't find a positive reception. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, the Crown Estate pulled in more than $700 million, with more than $475 million in profits.
It's national suicide, even from a financial point of view.

The Queen's assets are less than 6% of GDP, on the open market without the 'Crown', they'd immediately be devalued.

It's a fantasy argument from all angles, points of view.

The crown estates don't belong to them though. That's why we allow them 15% of the profits. If the royals went the whole lot would revert to us.