My feed
Premium

Please
or
to access all these features

AIBU?

...to say the monarchy should be subscription based

120 replies

donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 11:21

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.

OP posts:
Report

Am I being unreasonable?

232 votes. Final results.

POLL
You are being unreasonable
48%
You are NOT being unreasonable
52%
KimberleyClark · 22/09/2022 12:26

stripeyzeb · 22/09/2022 12:06

The royal family costs the average UK taxpayer £1.29 per year. The BBC costs £159 per year.

The BBC at its best is educational and entertaining.

Report
donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 12:28

Without all the pomp and ceremony, tourists (from overseas especially) will likely not be attracted to the UK the way they are now. We’ll be comparable with, say, Luxembourg. Wonderful place, I’m sure. But tourist appeal? Nah.

Lucembourg gets almost 4 times as many tourists per capita as us. We are under half the European average. As many PP's have said, most Royal Palaces aren't open to the public for tourism.

www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Tourist-arrivals/Per-capita#country

OP posts:
Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 12:28

donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 12:24

And how would you deal with the problem of free loaders? Under this system, you’d have to force everyone to buy one subscription or the other.

That's fine, it's how it works now. Don't forget that most people want to pay for the experience of being subjects, not merely citizens and it really doesn't cost that much compared to, say, a sky subscription.

The elected HoS would be the lowest cost option providing only basic ceremonial duties. Unless the RF decide to cut costs.

No it doesn’t. You don’t have to have a TV licence…you can legally opt out if you don’t watch live TV or the BBC iplayer.

So you’re saying no one could opt out of having a ceremonial head of state. They have to purchase a subscription for one or the other- elected or RF. How would you enforce this? A fine the first time caught, prison term for repeat offences?

The elected HoS would be the lowest cost option providing only basic ceremonial duties. I wouldn’t be so sure about that….security alone is the bulk of the costs and we can’t have our HoS elected or otherwise being assassinated or stalked.

Report
Thebestwaytoscareatory · 22/09/2022 12:31

Yanbu, although I would also accept the monarchy being open to a challenge from the public.

We could have some sort of event every 3-5 years where anyone can enter. A bit like BGT but, where the events are decided at random.

To start there would be regional qualifiers, which could be anything from a knock out tournament of connect four to doing a 5k juggling race.

Regional would be followed by the nationals and would follow the same format, before the winners of that moving on to the finals.

The goal of the nationals would be to narrow the field of potential monarchs down to 255 individuals, who would then go on to compete in the Finals.

The reigning king or queen would be allowed to select a champion to represent them, who will recieve a bye into the finals, bringing the total contestants to 256.

Unlike the regionals/nationals the events in the finals would be decided by the public and announced a week before the event, with competitors given the week to prepare themselves.

The finals would take place over a period of 8 weeks with each week seeing the field halved until there were just two candidates who would then battle it out in a grand final with the winner going on to be the new king or queen.

A fair, fun, and potentially profitable solutions to this particular issue.

Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 12:35

Thebestwaytoscareatory · 22/09/2022 12:31

Yanbu, although I would also accept the monarchy being open to a challenge from the public.

We could have some sort of event every 3-5 years where anyone can enter. A bit like BGT but, where the events are decided at random.

To start there would be regional qualifiers, which could be anything from a knock out tournament of connect four to doing a 5k juggling race.

Regional would be followed by the nationals and would follow the same format, before the winners of that moving on to the finals.

The goal of the nationals would be to narrow the field of potential monarchs down to 255 individuals, who would then go on to compete in the Finals.

The reigning king or queen would be allowed to select a champion to represent them, who will recieve a bye into the finals, bringing the total contestants to 256.

Unlike the regionals/nationals the events in the finals would be decided by the public and announced a week before the event, with competitors given the week to prepare themselves.

The finals would take place over a period of 8 weeks with each week seeing the field halved until there were just two candidates who would then battle it out in a grand final with the winner going on to be the new king or queen.

A fair, fun, and potentially profitable solutions to this particular issue.

How is this even remotely fair? Those with conventional beauty- advantaged. Those with bags of money to run a PR campaign to get votes-advantaged. Those with some entertaining talent if that’s why you mean by “juggling contest” and “finals”- advantaged.

Report
BitOutOfPractice · 22/09/2022 12:36

I love this idea OP. It could be built on the Only Fans model: Only Royals

Report
donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 12:37

No it doesn’t. You don’t have to have a TV licence…you can legally opt out if you don’t watch live TV or the BBC iplayer. So you’re saying no one could opt out of having a ceremonial head of state. They have to purchase a subscription for one or the other- elected or RF. How would you enforce this? A fine the first time caught, prison term for repeat offences?

I was referring to how the RF works, not the BBC. It's paid from taxation, you can't opt out of taxation and yes there are fines if you try. I'm just suggesting two options.

Of course if the RF decide to offer a premium subscription that would be up to them to administer.

OP posts:
Report
donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 12:39

How is this even remotely fair? Those with conventional beauty- advantaged. Those with bags of money to run a PR campaign to get votes-advantaged. Those with some entertaining talent if that’s why you mean by “juggling contest” and “finals”- advantaged.

Yeah. If the RF is about anything, it's about equality of opportunity.

OP posts:
Report
LetMeSpeak · 22/09/2022 12:42

I maybe be wrong but I think the average tax payer gives 50p a months to the royal family. Knowing how dedicated royalist are I would actually think that you plan would cause them to get even more money then they already get right now. They would most likely give them even more money to show their support to the crown.

Report
BitOutOfPractice · 22/09/2022 12:44

LetMeSpeak · 22/09/2022 12:42

I maybe be wrong but I think the average tax payer gives 50p a months to the royal family. Knowing how dedicated royalist are I would actually think that you plan would cause them to get even more money then they already get right now. They would most likely give them even more money to show their support to the crown.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but I think that's the whole point!

Report
FlipFlopFlippedyFlop · 22/09/2022 12:45

How about a world wide charity through which you could sponsor a royal. They charity could send out letters saying for just £50 a month, a royal can get their hair cut and for £200 a month a royal can visit a horse race of their choice. Then they can send their sponsors updates and photos.

Report
CryingAtTheDiscotheque · 22/09/2022 12:51

😂 inspired, OP!

Report
balalake · 22/09/2022 12:54

I think the better idea would be to have perhaps only Balmoral and Windsor used by the Royal Family, and the rest open to the public perhaps managed by the National Trust or English Heritage.

Report
FlipFlopFlippedyFlop · 22/09/2022 12:57

donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 12:39

How is this even remotely fair? Those with conventional beauty- advantaged. Those with bags of money to run a PR campaign to get votes-advantaged. Those with some entertaining talent if that’s why you mean by “juggling contest” and “finals”- advantaged.

Yeah. If the RF is about anything, it's about equality of opportunity.

😂

Report
DownNative · 22/09/2022 13:00

donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 12:28

Without all the pomp and ceremony, tourists (from overseas especially) will likely not be attracted to the UK the way they are now. We’ll be comparable with, say, Luxembourg. Wonderful place, I’m sure. But tourist appeal? Nah.

Lucembourg gets almost 4 times as many tourists per capita as us. We are under half the European average. As many PP's have said, most Royal Palaces aren't open to the public for tourism.

www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Tourist-arrivals/Per-capita#country

Luxembourg is bordered by Belgium, France and Germany. Its clearly much easier to travel there from those countries than it is to travel to island nations like the UK. The cheaper it is to travel, the more attractive a destination becomes. Travel by road is far cheaper sea or air travel.

Hence, Luxembourg has a higher Tourist Per Resident (TPR) than the UK.

But the UK gets more absolute tourists than Luxembourg does:

www.statista.com/statistics/261729/countries-in-europe-ranked-by-international-tourist-arrivals/

Report
BigWoollyJumpers · 22/09/2022 13:05

and the rest open to the public perhaps managed by the National Trust or English Heritage

For which you would have to pay a large annual fee or a very large per person charge. Probably more than we pay each to the RF.

Report
donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 13:06

But the UK gets more absolute tourists than Luxembourg does:

Of course it does, Luxembourg is tiny. PP I replied to picked Luxembourg, it's a stupid comparator.

If you compare UK tourism to most comparable countries we don't do that well. There is no evidence of vastly more people coming here because of the RF which is what's cited as the reason we should subsidise their lifestyle.

OP posts:
Report
CranfordScones · 22/09/2022 13:07

A desire to replace what works with what seems like a good idea at the time.

Report
Thebestwaytoscareatory · 22/09/2022 13:07

Discovereads · 22/09/2022 12:35

How is this even remotely fair? Those with conventional beauty- advantaged. Those with bags of money to run a PR campaign to get votes-advantaged. Those with some entertaining talent if that’s why you mean by “juggling contest” and “finals”- advantaged.

I meant the events in the finals would be decided by the public not the winners, and the randomness is the fairness. One year the regional events might play to your strengths the next time it might not. One year might feature a juggling contest, one year might feature a bed making contest or pringle eating challenge.

But nothing has been finalised yet, there's still plenty of time to work out the kinks and address any concerns you have over my fictional contest.

Report
Flopisfatteningbingforchristmas · 22/09/2022 13:09

arethereanyleftatall · 22/09/2022 11:28

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.

But only 40% of people in the UK watched it.

Report
HerRoyalNotness · 22/09/2022 13:11

We could be like investors and the money from the crown estate would no longer go to the govt but to us as dividends

Report
Heartbreaktuna · 22/09/2022 13:18

How about instead we reclaim/confiscate the properties from the their personal and crown estates. For the good of the nation. Viva la revolución!

Report

Don’t want to miss threads like this?

Weekly

Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

SpicePearl · 22/09/2022 13:21

HerRoyalNotness · 22/09/2022 13:11

We could be like investors and the money from the crown estate would no longer go to the govt but to us as dividends

I would really like to see a royal family that is answerable to shareholders 😂

Report
Blossomtoes · 22/09/2022 13:24

B00mShakeShakeShakeTheR00m · 22/09/2022 11:29

I very much doubt those figures. Highly implausible.

Implausible because you don’t want to believe them. The funeral was on the front page of just about every newspaper world wide. 38 million people in the UK watched it and over 4 billion worldwide. Support for the monarchy went up in Australia which has now shelved the prospect of becoming a republic. Support is also high in Canada.

Report
Eeksteek · 22/09/2022 13:26

DangerNoodles · 22/09/2022 11:26

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’m not a monarchist, in that I believe power and respect should be earned, not inherited, and that one person is not innately superior to another by birth.

But I do think the current lot are working hard to justify what they have (that they didn’t choose). Presumably they don’t have to do anything. They could abdicate or just live off their extensive private wealth. But Charles, Anne and William and Kate are pretty active, and the children are fairly visible too. I find myself pro-QEII (and Anne) whilst being anti-monarchy, and ambivalent about Charles, (who I think behaved appallingly over Diana). At the end of the day, it’s part of our international identity, and it brings us status and money in. They add value to Britain, and what else have we got? We’re generally shit at sports, don’t have any industry left, the weather’s lousy, the war was ages ago, beautiful (imo) but very tame countryside and no really spectacular natural wonders. We’re just a tinpot little ex-European country. We rather risk obscurity without our pomp and ceremony. So someone has to do it.

I’m also mindful that Anne and QEII especially were dignified, dedicated, dutiful and decent. Compared to many elected to office, well, I’d rather have Anne than Boris, wouldn’t you? Which is ironic, because I’d have said democracy over everything, but Boris was a spoilt and feckless chancer who conned his way into a job he utterly failed at, whereas Anne seems to dislike her Royalty, but accept it as her due, and works her arse off to do the best she can for people.

Report
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.