...to say the monarchy should be subscription based

[donquixotedelamancha]

There is a lot of talk that the BBC should scrap the licence fee and go to a subscription service because not everyone agrees with the BBC's political positions or find value in it's services.

I think there is even more merit in this argument when applied to the monarchy. Many people feel that monarchy is a moral wrong, or don't find it beneficial, yet are forced to support it's activity through taxation.

Instead there should be a volunatry levy to support the lifestyle of King Charles et al. Perhaps if you don't pay into the monarchy you have to pay a smaller amount to support a slimmed-down, elected head of state?

Far from being the end of a proud tradition, I think the Monarchy might make more money from this approach, with some canny marketing: allow foreigners to pay in to become subjects, stop letting commonwealth citizens be subjects for free or set up a premium subscription with benefits for paying more.

Whereas the rest of us would happily make do on the basic package: with elected King Martin Lewis doing royal visits using Ryanair, and the letter when we reach 100 coming second class.

That’s inspired! 😂

I think you are right. Let those who want it pay for it. All royal events to be pay to view.

The argument for funding the monarchy (beyond patriotism and tradition) is I believe that they bring in more revenue than they take out.

What about all the money they generate? Does that only go back to the subscribers?

Love this idea!

I'm far from a die hard royalist, but realistically if we were to be given a vote, the people will want to keep the monarchy as it is. Half the world watched the funeral, most of the UK watched it, that's very telling of how popular they are.

I like this a lot 👏👏👏

Perhaps we could also consider a brand sponsorship model - the coronation of KCIII brought to you by Tesco. Whistles paying £50k to get a dress on Princess Eugenie. That sort of thing.

Given 5 billion people all over the world watched the funeral, it's very possible that the (completely unknown and impossible to value) revenue and interest they create for the country far outweighs their cost.

I very much doubt those figures. Highly implausible.

Disneyland attracts lots of people with its princesses etc. Could the monarchy be made to work the same way?

And half the draw of Versailles is in the lack of royal figures there. People visit Buckingham Palace because it’s a big interesting historically/culturally relevant building. Not because Prince Louis is outside dressed as a newsboy shouting ‘roll up roll up, creating revenue for tourism over heeere.’

Half the world watched the funeral, most of the UK watched it, that's very telling of how popular they are.

Not everyone will have watched because they support the monarchy. It was a spectacle.

That is a spurious argument though, as the revenue generated is to do with history and estates, not with the actual people. Versailles is doing very well without a monarch in residence. Arguably better than it would if the French monarchs still lived there.

I watched the funeral and maintain an interest in what they’re up to because it’s part of our cultural landscape. But in a referendum I would vote to end the monarchy.

I want to know what Liz Truss is up to as well even though if it were up to me we’d have a Labour government.

All royal events to be pay to view.

I think they'd still operate a fremium model. They don't want to erode brand penetration.

Product placement alone could probably pull in the few hundred million a year they already cost (excluding capital upkeep and costs to places they visit).
Imagine Kate and Wills pausing in front of their private jet (sponsored by dulux) in the middle of telling us about the dangers of climate change to take a drink (of cool, refreshing Pepsi) and put on their (Armani) shades.

We are always hearing about how much they love this country, perhaps they could even share some of the profits with the UK exchequer?

Or they could donate to charity. The RF is quite unusual amongst billionaires in not giving to charity, perhaps they would feel freer to do so if their subscription service does well?

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your p.o.v, we don't have a system whereby you only pay for what you use or what you morally support.

There are loads of things I don't want to pay for but have no choice over the specifics of how my taxes are spent bar the opportunity to vote in a general election or to a lesser extent council election. The council around these parts wastes so much money on utter bollocks I'd prefer more local referenda first and foremost.

Martin Lewis as head of state flying Ryan Air and dispensing pearls of wisdom I would support.

I believe paying for a meeting with the Royal Family is generally seen as corruption.

I would love to see a breakdown of how much an elected HoS vs monarchy would cost with respect to security etc.

Apparently the monarchy cost just over 100million last year, including the structural work for Buckingham Palace. The popular is around 67million. £1.50 each. Less than a bus ticket.

I'm far from a die hard royalist, but realistically if we were to be given a vote, the people will want to keep the monarchy as it is. Half the world watched the funeral, most of the UK watched it, that's very telling of how popular they are.

I agree completely. Which is why I think people should be allowed to opt out. Let those dirty hippies save their money and have their elected head of state while the true patriots bask in the satisfaction of knowing they are paying for all that glorious tradition.

Plus we would finally get Johny foreigner to pay his way instead of freeloading off our royal family.

So how would it work with a subscription, given that there would also have to be some officially funded head of state? or would this be the Prime Minister (please no)?

Would you get a discount on a president if you subscribed to the monarchy?

King Martin Lewis!!

(On a serious note though, Buckingham Palace would never pull in as many tourists as versailles! A choice between Buckingham Palace and versailles, both uninhabited, most would visit versailles every time. Its about rhe beauty of it and also the intrigue for a bygone era of opulence- and scandal and violence- which Buckingham Palace doesn't quite evoke. The Tower of London is a better comparison to the draw of Versailles...)

I believe paying for a meeting with the Royal Family is generally seen as corruption.

I know, that's terrible. Poor Charles having to handle suitcases of cash like some sort of dodgy arms dealer.

With an open pricing system everything can be done electronically. From £20 per year just to be a suject of his majesty all they way up to £5 million for a knighthood.

It would be a more modern and transparent version of the system we have now and would save the country money at a difficult time.

You are being ridiculous and utterly unreasonable. David Attenborough would walk it as elected king!

That is a fiction. fullfact.org/news/Queen-funeral-viewing-figures/

There are no such figures, and fact checking the claim that over half the UK population watched the funeral appears to be based on people who watched at least three minutes of the funeral. I am almost certain I will have clocked up three minutes, and I can tell you for a fact that I did NOT watch the funeral! It was nigh on impossible to turn on the radio / TV / phone or computer and not have to watch 3 minutes of it.

Just because people watch something doesn't denote support for it. I didn't watch it because I had better things to do, but I know people implacably opposed to the monarchy who watched parts of the day. I watched the moon landing but nobody asked for my support either way on whether we should land on the moon or explore space.

How would be an election if you have already decided which person would be elected king?

I sense a flaw in the plan 😂

This has been debunked. The 5 billion statistic came from a dummy Twitter account. It was mentioned on yesterday's More or Less on R4