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%
WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll · 22/09/2022 14:31

A bit like premium bonds. You could win different prizes garden party invite, OBE, a commemorative mug, knighthood and so on.

Yes! If you miss out on the top prize, but end up getting Duchess of Rotherham or whatever, you still end up with a nice big free house to live in for five years, in exchange for just opening a couple of new scout huts and judging who grew the biggest pumpkin at the odd village fete.

Report
donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 16:34

Ok, so as a dense American, I never understand it when people say this. How do you see the American president as different from the PM?

Yeah, I don't really understand how people don't understand this either. You see loads of people insisting that Boris Johnson would have been President.

Briefly, for those who genuinely don't get it:

The British PM is the head of Government. The monarch is the Head of State. In the US the president is both, which is very different to our system. We are just discussing electing someone to do the waving, visiting and ribbon cutting.

OP posts:
Report
Name1232 · 22/09/2022 16:44

That wouldn't work as the people not contributing (a tiny amount of tax) would still be benefitting from the money brought in by them.
If people aren't happy with how a country is ran then they need to either put up with it unless they are the majority, or look at emigrating to a country they would be happy in.
Can't expect to opt in and out when it suits or we'd have different taxes for everyone (eg people not using up police time, people not requiring benefits etc).

Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 17:35

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.

You’re not going to convince people to replace one system “because it’s unfair” with another system that is equally unfair!

Report
donquixotedelamancha · 22/09/2022 17:38

You’re not going to convince people to replace one system “because it’s unfair” with another system that is equally unfair!

I don't think the 'it's a knockout system' for choosing the monarch that poster was talking about is entirely serious.

OP posts:
Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 17:40

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.

You have me confused. The RF isn’t actually funded by “the taxpayer” btw. That’s inaccurate. They’re funded by the Crown Estate which is neither privately owned nor publicly owned, but owned by the monarch.

Did you or did you not propose that we establish a paid subscription where people would be required to choose to subscribe to either the RF or an elected head of state?

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.


So again, how would you enforce this? Because many people would rather not pay any subscription for any head of state elected or otherwise.

Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 17:46

Blossomtoes · 22/09/2022 13:24

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.

We can’t equate 38million screens tuned to the funeral with # people watching. This doesn’t mean it was one screen per person. TVs in homes…whole families watched. In addition, this doesn’t count the cinemas that screened it for free to thousands of viewers, or the public screens showing it in parks across the country and in London for hundreds of thousands of viewers, or the tens of thousands that lined the streets and saw it IRL.

Report
Getoff · 22/09/2022 17:48

It is kind of amusing to think of the monarchy being funded by maybe a Youtube channel and Patreon account. But I don't think it's straight-forwardly true that we do pay for the monarchy, at all. My understanding is that 100% of the income from crown estates goes to the government, who then give a faction back to them. So they are in fact net contributors to the government, not beneficiaries. And they contribute at a higher rate than most of us, much more than 40%.

For people who prefer to think of them as parasites, this is easily solved. Just more fully confiscate their assets, so we can more justifiably regard the income as ours, then anything we give them does become a hand-out.

Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 17:48

BareGrylls · 22/09/2022 14:13

Look where voting for a president got the USA.

Or got Russia, or us for that matter….Truss the fracking Queen, let it rip on bankers bonuses and cut taxes for the rich.

Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 17:51

@Getoff
My understanding is that 100% of the income from crown estates goes to the government, who then give a faction back to them. So they are in fact net contributors to the government, not beneficiaries. And they contribute at a higher rate than most of us, much more than 40%.

Yes this is correct. The normal % they get back is 15%. It is temporarily now at 25% to cover restoration of Buckingham Palace (which the RF doesn’t own, it’s a palace that is part of the Crown Estate and is housing that comes with the job so to speak and so it’s upkeep should be paid for out of the Crown Estate.)

So on top of the income tax they pay on the private income, the monarch is paying a flat tax rate of 75-85% on monarch owned income.

Report
Wallaw · 22/09/2022 18:17

Discovereads · 22/09/2022 17:48

Or got Russia, or us for that matter….Truss the fracking Queen, let it rip on bankers bonuses and cut taxes for the rich.

@Discovereads

How does having a monarchy protect from that in any way?

The British PM is the head of Government. The monarch is the Head of State. In the US the president is both, which is very different to our system. We are just discussing electing someone to do the waving, visiting and ribbon cutting.

I do agree that no recent British PM has been qualified to cut a ribbon, let alone anything more complicated. I do thank our lucky stars for continuity in ribbon cutting competence.

Report
Blossomtoes · 22/09/2022 18:17

True @Discovereads but I didn’t want to make Ms Implausible spontaneously combust!

Report
Kualma · 22/09/2022 18:27

We won’t get this choice under a Tory government - vote them out!

Report
Discovereads · 22/09/2022 18:34

Wallaw · 22/09/2022 18:17

@Discovereads

How does having a monarchy protect from that in any way?

The British PM is the head of Government. The monarch is the Head of State. In the US the president is both, which is very different to our system. We are just discussing electing someone to do the waving, visiting and ribbon cutting.

I do agree that no recent British PM has been qualified to cut a ribbon, let alone anything more complicated. I do thank our lucky stars for continuity in ribbon cutting competence.

A constitutional monarchy provides zero protection because the monarch isn’t the actual sovereign. My point is more that having an elected head of state provides no protection either or any assurances that life for the common person will get better or be more fair. So the monarchy neither harms nor helps and as a harmless bit of history and pageantry, worth keeping imho. At least the RF work in charities and raise awareness for the plight of the common people.

There’s a saying we heard from our American friends when we lived there. They said they “had the best government money could buy” and they meant it literally, every politician is in the pocket of the 1% rich and so the government is for the rich people, paid for by the rich people.

I look at our MPs and PM in a very similar….I’ve never seen a candidate stand for election that didn’t sell out or self serve in one way or another.

It also benefits the MPs and PM to misdirect our ire over things the government has done towards the RF, and feed the narrative of Republicanism with false promises that abolishing the monarchy would fix the government. It won’t make a dot of difference. It’s just how they distract us from demanding the Parliamentary system be reformed.

Report
BluOcty · 22/09/2022 18:39

Brilliance Grin love the idea. I will unsubscribe ofc

Report
Wallaw · 23/09/2022 00:07

Discovereads · 22/09/2022 18:34

A constitutional monarchy provides zero protection because the monarch isn’t the actual sovereign. My point is more that having an elected head of state provides no protection either or any assurances that life for the common person will get better or be more fair. So the monarchy neither harms nor helps and as a harmless bit of history and pageantry, worth keeping imho. At least the RF work in charities and raise awareness for the plight of the common people.

There’s a saying we heard from our American friends when we lived there. They said they “had the best government money could buy” and they meant it literally, every politician is in the pocket of the 1% rich and so the government is for the rich people, paid for by the rich people.

I look at our MPs and PM in a very similar….I’ve never seen a candidate stand for election that didn’t sell out or self serve in one way or another.

It also benefits the MPs and PM to misdirect our ire over things the government has done towards the RF, and feed the narrative of Republicanism with false promises that abolishing the monarchy would fix the government. It won’t make a dot of difference. It’s just how they distract us from demanding the Parliamentary system be reformed.

Right, but that's not the argument that's made repeatedly, that having a monarch protects the country from 'President Johnson.' I've seen it repeated ad nauseam over the past few weeks.

I mean, sure if you want a monarchy because you like the pomp and have given up on, or don't believe in, a meritocracy, that's fine. It justifies it for you. But the 'at least it protects the country from president Johnson' line that I've seen repeated ad nauseam over the last couple of weeks is disingenuous at best.

And I can assure you that no part of my feelings about a monarchy has to do with the belief that abolishing the monarchy will fix government, nor have I ever been distracted by that belief. Only people voting the right way has the power to do that. And around the jubilee I saw a yougov poll that 8 in 10 conservative votes supported a monarchy as opposed to (I think) 5 in 10 labour, so I guess we know where things stand.

Report
Blossomtoes · 23/09/2022 08:16

Apparently that isn’t the case. It’s not a particularly compelling argument when the national anthem is about to be sung at the Labour Party conference.

conservativehome.com/2022/09/16/labour-has-long-been-a-party-at-ease-with-the-monarchy/

Even in the 18-24 age group support for a monarchy outweighs support for an elected head of state and that increases with age.

www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/

Report
Heartbreaktuna · 23/09/2022 12:20

Blossomtoes · 22/09/2022 13:46

How about we confiscate your personal assets? No? We haven’t adopted communism yet, quite the reverse.

Ah yes. As we all know the abolition of feudalism led to communism in France. But you're fine with feudalism?!
Frig the queen, who gives her the right to own anything.
The question of land ownership is central to any progress towards a new paradigm that would facilitate the realisation of genuine democracy where individuals are free to cooperate or not, deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions and interests dictate.
There would be no need for anyone to move, in the case of the UK the legal notion that the UK is ultimately owned by the monarch as their feudal hereditament (the settlement of 1066) would be replaced by the legal notion that the UK area is owned by the British (not the Monarch or the State) as their incorporeal hereditament (as the monarch presently owns most – not all – of their territory).

Report
Eeksteek · 23/09/2022 16:53

BitOutOfPractice · 22/09/2022 13:58

But @Eeksteek they don't work hard. Even those you've quoted as hardworking, aren't. The last available figures (2019) show that William, for instance, worked 80-odd days that year. And those won't have been 10 hour days. Some of that work was, for instance, attending film premieres.

I'd say, if they were answerable to shareholders or subscribers, they'd have to demonstrate much better ROI than that!

Indeed. There ought to be a minimum. Princess Anne does 500 engagements a year.

Report
WhileMyGuitarGentlyWeeps · 23/09/2022 16:54

😂 Great joke @donquixotedelamancha Tell us another one!

Report
Please create an account

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