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

@Tomatotater How does the judiciary gain patronage from the RF? Like most institutions it is part of the set up we have as a constitutional monarchy. I’m happy with that arrangement as candidates for presidency would be difficult. We know and understand the monarchy.

What I want to see is far more transparency and more taxation as other citizens bear. The extreme wealth should be pared back.

I don't mind the royals but agree that their funding should be cut and the money used to fund the NHS

A good labour government would have taken that very commonsense approach, even Murdoch couldn't get the reform lot upset about it

I don't know if it was true - or how it was arrived at if it was - but I read some years ago that the late Queen supposedly owned one sixth of the surface of the world. If it was true at all, I presume it would have all gone to Charles.

My personal main beef with the idea of monarchy is that the UK is lauded as a proud democracy, when we actually aren't at all. If the head of state cannot be voted in or out - and even if (heaven forfend) they were assassinated by an extreme detractor, we would still end up with their son or daughter - we are effectively a benevolent dictatorship.

When you realise that, had Charles not had children and if he met his end, we would then have Andrew as king - and we could do nothing whatsoever about it (and we've all seen what happens to peaceful protestors against the monarchy).

I don't buy the idea that they are just a figurehead either: they have a huge amount of influence and sway behind the scenes, which they have used on numerous occasions.

Even if they only ever strictly enacted what the elected government told them to do, they would have the complete freedom NOT to do so at any time. Our democratic 'rights' come purely at their perpetual whim.

The i paper, BBC and various other sources. All quite slightly different amounts but none are above what I said.
I also didn’t quote a statistic. I gave an opinion which was based on what I’d read and seen.
Anything else you want to scoff over?

I don't understand why people think they bring in money through tourism. These types of comments are so stupid. You can pay tax on money that you didn't earn, and actually they avoid tax. And by colourful history, do you mean terrible things that have been done that arr better off forgotten? Its so archaic in this day and age and add up 1.50, it equates to quite a lot.

Yes but we are comparing two countries, one with a monarchy and one without.

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.

What? We don't fund them? Ummm yes we do. At great expense. I would love to know how you think they are a net financial positive to us when facts and figures have been quoted on here that are completely the opposite to that statement

I err on the side of a constitutional monarchy where parliament is sovereign. I’m not a royalist.

I don’t think there is appetite for change yet especially after Brexit; however I’m all for streamlining, which has happened anyway with no Andrew and no Harry. It’s not as easy as get rid of the lot & we will have money for the NHS or homeless, again Brexit has shown that.

Buckingham Palace is a tricky one as that is in people’s minds where the royals come out on the Balcony but I’m not sure it’s particularly popular with the family themselves. I’m not sure what the answer is tbh.

Just leaving this here:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

I'm now imagining the royal family setting up a GoFundMe. So much drama for the sob story.

Totally agree with you. Maybe I am a constitutional monarchist because nothing will change as far as becoming a republic. However, whilst keeping them, there are very many changes that could be made as far as taxes paid, transparency, and the number of the wider family who are dressed up and paraded.

I can only just tolerate the King and Queen doing their thing, they are all I want to see. Or Kate/William standing in for them if needed. The rest, particularly the children I just do not want to see. Like York sisters, Tindalls children, any of them. They mean absolutely nothing to me and they shouldn't be touted out for photo opportunities for PR.

I think it's really unfair to criticise individuals in the RF. It also shows a misunderstanding of what the issue is. It's the whole system of monarchy which is at fault. Some of the RF are unpleasant and others are hard working, public spirited and charming. Do you really want to get rid of those you don't like because of what you see from photos?

I have no doubt that most members of the RF would be absolutely great to meet (they are brought up with wonderful manners), have a sense of duty and do work hard. Imagine having to go out day after day to meet strangers and be charming them whilst people photograph you from every angle and pull apart what you say, do and wear? That is hard work. But, the whole system is bonkers and wrong. We shouldn't have a monarchy in this day and age. The system should be abolished, not individuals targeted because they don't conform to how we want celebrities to look.

Tony Benn always used to make the point that he liked the Queen but thought the monarchy should be abolished. I think that is the most enlightened approach. We need to change the system

We have Luke Campbell (Reform) as Mayor.

My trust in the electorate is minimal.

I think they are better representatives for our country abroad than some politicians and the pageantry attracts tourists so I don’t begrudge the RF funding and think they are worth the money spent.

The Very expensive Jubilee celebrations should be scaled down though.

@BustingBaoBun i think the children is a hard one, they need to get used to being in the spotlight from a young age ergonomically. Going to events with their parents could be an easy way to navigate this.

I knew (through a friend) a very popular singer who found being thrust into the sudden limelight at a young age very hard. Hence my first paragraph.

Agree about the others.

Tony Benn @ARainyNightInSoho they don’t make them like that anymore.

I have no doubt that most members of the RF would be absolutely charming to meet (they are brought up that way), have a sense of duty and do work hard. Imagine having to go out day after day to meet strangers and be charming to them whilst people photograph you from every angle and pull apart what you say, do and wear?

Of course they are charming. I am charming too. Lots of people are charming. I take issue with the day after day being charming. Someone working a five-day week in a customer facing important role has to do that. They don't. The Wales's do it about one day a week! I could be even more charming if I could sit in the royal box at Wimbledon every single day, and fart about at Ascot if someone had chosen all my clothes for me, driven me there, and all I had to do was smile a lot

I agree it's the system that is wrong.

Also I would never trust the electorate to vote in a president. We might end up with Farage 🤦🏼‍♀️

Bouncing around Google there are estimates that the RF generate around £1.77bn for the British economy. So on that basis, yes, they are good value. Tourists from North America and Asia adore our RF.

As for the argument they are an anachronism, an out of date notion, I agree, actually. I also think they should pay all the taxes I pay.

They are allowed to declare an amount to pay tax on which may or may not mean (likely the latter), a huge sum of money remains untaxed. Because they’re not willing to be transparent on those monies, one can never claim they are value for money. I find that abhorrent when more and more are reliant on food banks and the state of school premises etc are literally crumbling.

Public money (my taxes) gets spent on a lot of things I don't support! I just accept that as an aspect of democracy.

I don't think money is ever the issue here. If you want a republic, lobby and campaign for it.

I love an anachronism though! Most of my favourite things are anachronisms, come to think.

'ti's odd how Republicans can roll out the' we might have got Andrew as monarch' line, but any time someone says 'but we' d have a Boris/Farage etc for president' they get shouted down - and people actually did vote for Boris/Farage, so it's pretty likely we'd end up with someone of that ilk as president shudder.

'I don't mind the royals but agree that their funding should be cut and the money used to fund the NHS'

It would fund the NHS for about an hour. I'm more interested in where Boris' £350million a week for the NHS has gone.

Total bloody nonsense - the money we spend on the royals is massive and seems to be a bottomless pit. No money for winter fuel allowance but if you’ve got a big palace there’s no limit to what we’ll give you.

You either believe in democracy or you don't.

It doesn't guarantee that people will necessarily make wise choices, nor that they won't later regret them; but they are their free choices.

If you regret your choice of a political leader, you have an opportunity within a few years to get rid of them. With a monarchy, you are stuck with them for their whole life - and even then, they are replaced by their own son or daughter.

If you genuinely believe that a king or queen should seize/be given power - purely and randomly based on the parents they are born to - and then, a thousand years later, that power is still in the hands of their descendants, with nobody else from outside their family (however universally popular and respected) ever having had the remotest whiff of a chance, you are an enemy of democracy.