Why are we still doing this?

[ohdelay]

Article on the BBC today about the annual price going up while everything else is being cut. What is the purpose of a "royal family" in 2025? Surely it's time to let them just be rich people who pay taxes like everyone else and stop funding this circus. It's especially irksome seeing so many in uniform covered in pretend medals when they charge the army millions in rent
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crld11w9538o

I'm with you! And also stamps. A stamp collection worth £100M. And paintings and art and sculptures worth £10 billion.
We don't get to see it of course. It's hidden from the public. Canalettos, Rembrandts, De Vinci, Rubens, and more than 20 by Michelangelo. Just hidden away.
The Royals don't own them. They are kept for the nation by the reigning Monarch.
It's all quite unbelievable isn't it...

A lot of the posters have no idea how long the process to become a Republic is...IMHO, I would wager it would take teams of lawyers at least a decade and a half just to properly segregate and value the public and private assets of the royal family and provide an agreed upon valuation as to any private assets that are of national interest.

Compulsory purchase will protect the RF from the government seizing assets without appropriate compensation because as citizens they would have the same protections from the State as any other citizen. And anyone thinking otherwise should take a long hard look at asset-based lending and understand the nightmare that would ensue as the value of the pound would be completely eroded if governments can seize assets from citizens without compensation...you'd be lucky if £1 was worth 1 US cent.

And everyone representing the taxpayers in the process needs to be paid. The lawyers, valuation consultants, accountants, auditors, preservation specialists, antique appraisal specialists, carbon dating specialists, etc. And parliamentary time is a zero-sum game where time spent unravelling the monarchy is time not spent on critical national issues such as Infrastructure, Health, Defense, Education, etc.

The grass is not always greener on the Republic side of things. France has had 3 legislative elections since 2017 and Germany has a recently elected, newly formed coalition government. Neither government is expected to survive to the end of the year, so taxpayers keep paying for more and more elections. French taxpayers pay for the upkeep of Élysée Palace, just like German taxpayers pay for the upkeep Bellevue Palace and UK taxpayers would still pay for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace as a government building...which if people read the article is the reason for the increased spending as this is the first major refurbishment since the 1950s!

Finally, for those who think, well we had one Restoration so we can go for a second Restoration if the "new Ollies aren't jolly"...good luck getting any of the RF back to be abused by the public and the media!

According to the article linked most of the increase is to do with the renovations of Buckingham Palace. Maybe a conversation needs to be had about the viability of keeping such a building going in modern times. I'm sure I've read that the Royals themselves aren't very keen on living there but have been told they have to because it's symbolic. There is definitely room for modernisation within the institution and I suspect a lot of the insistence on tradition isn't coming from the family but rather from the courtiers. Change takes time and it's a pity no one thought about whether the price of the renovations was worth it before they started. I would guess though that even if the monarchy was replaced tax payers money would still be spent on all those historic palaces.

I do not think many tourists solely turn up because of them. They don’t see them, just their properties. As William and Kate did next to nothing in 2024, did tourism slump? No because the Crown Jewels, Buck house and Windsor were still there and, guess what, so was everything else that’s wonderful in London and elsewhere. Tourists would come regardless of RF. We’ve got more than them to offer. We could compulsorily purchase a few properties …..

The idea of a president isn’t very inviting. Not sure what would be better tbh. RF does seem outdated.

So I'll take that as a yes then, the information is via republic. Maybe if France had a royal family they'd do better than Croatia, or if the whole of France had the weather of the south of France. Or if the UK had Disney, or if the UK was in mainland Europe with many visitors passing through or......

They are sort of. The Soverign Grant is an agreed percentage of their net profit from their private estates. They could legally keep all of this, but agreed to hand it all over to the Treasury who would then give them the agreed amount every year; 12% most recently. This leaves 88% for the public purse.

If they don't want to live in Buck House, they should open it up more or less completely throughout the year. The tourists can them pay for its upkeep.

No? I read about France's tourism revenue versus the UK and that was not on Republic

I don't understand the rest of your post

They are soooo generous, just £132million for them. How kind they are

Seen as though they're not legally bound to pay anything it seems pretty good to me. However people feel about the monarchy that is their private land and they can do as they please with it, the fact they voluntarily give billions to the public purse seems good to me- they could just keep all of the profits. Not claiming they're amazingly altruistic, but so many people don't understand how the sovereign grant is funded.

It's not their private land though.

You quoted facts stated by visit Britain, which I questioned and yet to have been verified and followed by comparing France and the UK as if the only difference between the two nations is royalty, when both countries have many other differences.

Be careful what you wish for. If we didn’t have a monarchy, what would we have instead? Would you really want any of our recent PMs to have been President? I think there’s a lot to be said for having a Head of State to do all the ceremonial and entertaining stuff - in terms of soft power, they’re invaluable. One of the reasons Britain punches above its weight on the world stage is because of the Royal family - look how pleased Trump was to have his invitation from the King. Without the monarchy, we would lose all the ceremonial that goes with them, in terms of Trooping the Colour, State funerals, Changing of the Guards etc etc etc - and to those who say, well it could exist without a monarchy, it would all be a bit hollow. Likewise, if you were honoured with a medal or a title, would you rather go to Buckingham Palace to receive it from one of the Royal Family, or get it from some politician? The Royal Family does a lot of good in terms of Charity and patronage, and it’s very easy to underestimate the good they do for the nation.

Where on earth do you get your “statistics” from??? Or do you just make them up and hope we’ll all blindly believe you?? 🙄

I think it’s actually far easier to OVER estimate the good they do for the nation - an Irish style presidential system would be far more cost effective and mean we could all decide who gets to be our head of state. The idea of an inherited title in this day and age is anachronistic garbage.

Why are we still doing this?

Because the alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

I agree, but this is a genuine question, how would they divide up the land otherwise????

What's the alternative????

I think an Irish style Presidential system, but at the very least a downsized European style Monarchy that is properly held to account. The have huge wealth and privilege and are still allowed to be above the law in so many ways. They should not be allowed this. It stems from them in the first place and the desperation of politicians, the judiciary and press barons to gain patronage from the Royals. They should all be holding the powerful to account and working for us, yet they don't when it comes to working to protect one extremely wealthy and powerful family at the top of all this.

They're part of our culture and attract interest, visits and revenue from all over the world. Once that is considered, they are a net financial positive to us. So I don't consider us to fund them.

I actually feel really sorry for them. Born into a the royal family, scrutinised, insulted, threatened, lack of privacy, can't even walk down the street without security or attention. Yes, they have money/things, but I don't think that can replace just being able to be free and live normally.

I’d be embarrassed for the UK but we have this so we’re not in a position to judge anybody else.
The crappy thing is people fought and died in many wars so this draft dodging jackass could sit in the Oval Office and tear up the Constitution.
We’re all gonna die, I just know it. lol

For heaven’s sake it’s Trump. Heads of state laugh at him. He’s stupid, ignorant, foolish and mean.
I would never put stock into what “Trump was pleased” over.
Trump was pleased over the mis-identification of five Black young men in a murder case and took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for their execution. The trouble was, they were innocent. That was years ago and he still hasn’t set it right. He never will.
Trump is pleased over the deportation of American citizens to El Salvador. He thinks it’s humorous.
Trump was pleased with his post showing him dressed as Pope, a week after he attended Pope Francis’ funeral - and walked past Francis’ open casket.
Regardless of his position, you surely know that Donald Trump is abhorrent.

I wish no harm on any of them but yes the monarchy is a revolting anachronism in this climate of extreme wealth disparity.

@ DreamTheMoors

The US is an important country on the world stage, and Trump is the current President. Perhaps Mr Trump is a good reason why we might choose to keep the monarchy…