To think this is a complete joke and want to abolish the monarchy

[portugalq]

The Royal Family cost taxpayers £102.4million last year.

As the nation struggled in the cost of living crisis, spending on the royals rose £15million – 17%.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/record-100m-taxpayer-payout-royal-27360820

I really can't see how an elected president would be better

The word 'elected' is a giveaway here.

Are you sure?
What options for you think we'd be likely to get?
Just look at the political has-beens who would likely be in the running...
No thanks!!

But you've fallen into the trap of reposting the myth of "RF contribution hugely outweighing the cost", without any evidence at all. You can't get that evidence, nobody can. Nobody knows how deep the trough is, because the RF don't get impartially or fully audited and throw sand in our faces with archaic language about royal privilege and Edward IV charters from 1399.

It's just silly to pretend, as so many posters keep doing, that we're living in a democracy or that a transparent, audited, elected and regulated presidential system would somehow be worse or more expensive than what is essentially a royal free- for-all, an unchecked bleeding-out of public money.

Equally silly to pretend the UK isn't capable of introducing a fairer system. 64 million gullible idiots are we?

Why do people think we have to have a politician as president? Ireland, Germany and Israel’s presidents are all non politicians. Many don’t seem to understand the difference between an executive presidency, such as France, the US have, and a non executive one as Ireland have, which would be my preferred option.

This is the balance sheet for Versailles 2020. I know the gardens must be very expensive to maintain etc but the bottom line is <€31,000,000 had to found to balance the books.

But without the royals money could be made from tourists visiting the palace etc

Agree @Aishah231

I've just lazily copied this from Republic (I have no connection with them) to illustrate the possibilities

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle can be fully opened up to tourists all year, funding their own upkeep through ticket sales and offering a unique glimpse into Britain’s past.
Buckingham Palace is thought to contain one of the largest and most valuable art collections in the world, including the largest collection of Van Gogh paintings - yet it’s all hidden away. The palace has the potential in a republic to become a world class museum and gallery open all year round.

Buckingham Palace is thought to contain one of the largest and most valuable art collections in the world, including the largest collection of Van Gogh paintings - yet it’s all hidden away.

This isn’t strictly true. Items from the Royal Collection are put on public display at the Palaces on a rotating basis, plus around 10% of it is on semi permanent loan to galleries and museums, and at any one time about 15% of the collection is estimated to be on tour around the world. It’s hidden away in the same sense as a significant proportion of what the National Gallery and British Museum owns is hidden away: it’s awaiting a relevant exhibition to be displayed at, or it’s being restored or archived or protected, or there just isn’t anywhere for it to go, or it’s in storage because it’s stuff that frankly most people aren’t that interested in seeing because once you’ve seen one delftware plate you’ve seen them all. The Queen isn’t personally hoarding half the world’s Van Goghs in her private sitting room - although many things, including the Royal Stamp Collection are owned by her personally, inherited or gifts, and I imagine she’d take them with her if she were sacked from the job of Queen.

I’m by no means a royalist, but the misconception that the Royal Collection just sits around doing nothing really bothers my friend who’s one of the archivists for it!

I thought the paintings part would be picked up!I did caveat and say it was lazily copied.

That's how most archives and museums operate, obviously. But, and back to the general point, there is revenue to be made from these properties, and potential.

Being protected for whose benefit, if as you say most people aren't interested in it?

They could stick it all on here while the obscene wealth of a single family waits to become "relevant"?

www.wired.com/2015/01/see-worlds-greatest-stolen-artworks-virtual-reality-museum/

They cost a lot more than £100 million. I think the Queen gets a Sovereign Grant of around 86 million per year and she pays people like Edward (£400k per year) out of that, staff costs and maintenance of buildings.George Osborne also gave the Queen the rights to the seabeds 12 miles off the coast, so the Queen has been quids in raking in royalties and fees from off shore wind turbine companies. Organising the Sovereign Grant rather than paying the Royals through the Civil List netted them a big increase.

That figure doesn't include all the monies that Charles is gifted each year by having the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster as his source of income from the "nation" - that totals around £40 million per year - he gives William about 3-4 million from that , William also has all his costs for appearances/events/staff etc paid for out of the SG. Charles gives Harry money out of the Duchy income.

The security costs for the RF are insane - 24/7 groups of protection officers for close family and officers when minor royals attend events, estimated costs at up to 100 million per year but the police won't reveal an actual figure (it was stated that when Beatrice and Eugenie's 24/7 security ended back in 2011 it was costing 500k a year) Andrew was extremely annoyed that he had to fork out for it going forward privately with money from the Queen.

They also get grants from the Government to help with refurbs etc. and pay "peppercorn rents" on "grace and favour" properties. For example, Andrew was able get a 75 year lease on 30 room Windsor Lodge (valued at £30 million) for £1 million. Despite "Edo" being a "property developer and interior designer" he and B seem pretty happy availing themselves of cheap digs in Kensington Palace.

Local councils ( and therefore us peasants)also have to pick up the tab when they visit anywhere.

They are parasites. It's the 21st century we should no longer be doffing the cap or rewarding people just because they had the great good fortune to be born into extraordinary wealth and privilege. The Queen certainly doesn't have to spend days on a trolley in an A&E corridor or wait for many hours lying cold and in pain for an ambulance to arrive like many of our elderly population. A "skeleton"(volunteer) staff of 22 was needed to look after her during lockdown.No wonder she looks good at 96!

Tourists will come to the UK whether we have a RF or not. We could open up more of the Palaces if they weren't around (Like France).

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/royal-finances

It's just silly to pretend, as so many posters keep doing, that we're living in a democracy or that a transparent, audited, elected and regulated presidential system would somehow be worse or more expensive than what is essentially a royal free- for-all, an unchecked bleeding-out of public money.

But we DO live in a democracy. The government of the country is carried out by Parliament, which is elected, audited and regulated (though the current lot seem to get away with murder).

One problem with a purely elected Parliament is that the members tend to have a shorter term view, a maximum of 5 years until the next election so they look for populist things to do rather than considering the long term needs of the country.

They are a relic of a byegone age. They play no part in modern political life.

When the Queen dies, it’s time to move on

But we DO live in a democracy. The government of the country is carried out by Parliament, which is elected, audited and regulated (though the current lot seem to get away with murder).

We do , but I think the pp was meaning (correct me if I'm wrong) that there's a lot of room for improvement. Electoral reform and hereditary, unelected head of state being a couple issues.

Queen / crown etc pays 100s of millions in tax.
Queen / crown etc gets a percentage of the tax they've paid back as the sovereign grant.

The money they get back is a percentage of the money they paid anyway..

The only costs that come from general tax is toward is police and security.

It's all available for anyone to see on their own Royal Finances website or with a simple Google search. But the headlines whip up froth and people buy into it without checking.

If we had a referendum on whether to abolish the monarchy, retaining the monarchy would win. People don't want a politician as head of state, even in Ireland etc, when the head of state isn't a politician, it's someone selected by politicians.

You mean, you would like to live in a democracy. You (we) have been told we live in one, ergo, we must live in one.

We don't live in a democracy when half the electorate's votes count for absolutely nothing. Fact, see Make votes matter. Also, large parts of the "democratic process" are deliberately obscured from public view and based on medieval power structures like the Privy Council.

The Supreme Court ruling on the proroguing pantomime just shows what an absolute mess the whole system is in; the resulting chaos is fertile ground for opportunists such as Boris to do basically whatever he wants, and he's having a field day. The Labour party is a farce, but again, people need something to believe in so they'll keep hoping Starmer wakes up and googles workers' rights and the definition of a woman.

FPTP, the Tories' interest in preserving it, and voters stubbornly clinging to the political wreckage will keep us here for a while. It's not a fascist dictatorship but please don't tell me it's a functioning democracy.

And in what way would replacing the Monarchy with a President change that in any way? I feel you are conflating two subjects here - Monarchy vs President, and the current electoral system & how Government works.

Whether we have a Monarch or a President, that won't make any difference to the current electoral system. The main difference would be that someone who was brought up to take a longer view would be replaced by a power hungry short-termist like Donald Trump.

“And in what way would replacing the Monarchy with a President change that in any way? I feel you are conflating two subjects here - Monarchy vs President, and the current electoral system & how Government works.

Whether we have a Monarch or a President, that won't make any difference to the current electoral system. The main difference would be that someone who was brought up to take a longer view would be replaced by a power hungry short-termist like Donald Trump.“

I don’t think anyone is conflating anything. When we speak of democracy electoral form is high up on the list (I won’t list the shortcomings of FPTP), along with non elected, hereditary head of state, and so on.

Allergictoironing It's all linked together. You can't separate them. The Government "works" partly through Orders in Council and all the secrecy/ostrich-feather bollocks. The Privy Council pantomime is like the Vatican, an embarrassing remnant of an absolute monarchy. Queen = not independent or impartial or elected or chosen on merit, rubber stamping things she knows f all about, supposedly. President = independent referee, elected, knows about politics and removable if not up to job.

Why do you want to be run by pantomime clowns?

It's all available for anyone to see on their own Royal Finances website or with a simple Google search. But the headlines whip up froth and people buy into it without checking.

Writes someone who thinks the royal family's website is an impartial source 😂🙄

Agree they do damage by reinforcing nonsense about class structures and who is a better class of person.

Best and loudest LOL of all reserved for "America seems to manage fine".

No, it really doesn't... Did you miss the storming of the capitol, numerous massacres, constant severe racial divisions, various other areas of craziness... Not saying a monarchy would fix that, but they're not a great example of why we should get rid of ours.

Not true