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

Its also very easy if you are never challenged or questioned in any way, if people are just lined up to talk to you, you are driven to and from engagements and after you've done your half an hour shaking hands and getting photo ops you are done for the week.

Maybe they don't gain patronage, but if the Royals want things kept secret, they always will be able to. They can extend embargos, and no one knows why.
I agree, if they were more transparent and if the checks and balances worked properly, then crack on with a Monarchy. They get enough just by dint of being the Royal Family. They don't need extra protection to cover up their behaviour.

Right, I agree. But I wasn't arguing that the RF is good value because they work hard. I was arguing that the RF should be abolished as it does not have a place in a modern democracy, not because some of them are lazy, grumpy, sleazy or whatever.

The personalities or work habits of any individual members of the RF are really irrelevant. I personally think that most of them come across as quite pleasant. However, we really shouldn't have a system like this in the modern age.

Boris was removed by his party. He could have lost an election. As could Farage, if hes ever elected. If Andrew was Monarch, he would be there for life. Not just him, can you imagine what hed spend his cash on, an absolute army of servants, his daughters and ex wife spending money like water and there would not be a single thing we could do about itWe probably wouldnt know about it because everyone- the Palace, the courtiers, the press would collude to cover up how awful he was. That level of deference and covering up of faults and awful behaviour doesn't happen with politicians to the same extent at all. He's in his 60's. We could be stuck with him for 40 years.

I’m not so sure. There have been 2/3 of times when parliament has acted historically, Charles I, James II, Edward VIII. The Hanoverians was that to do with James II or another. I’m not sure!

I don't mind if people want to keep them, as long as they're self supporting. I have to be so why shouldn't they be?

What ifs doing a lot of work there. And sorry, there's been plenty of cover ups of appalling behaviour by elected politicians. We can oust them, and another, equally appalling, gets voted in.

Also, the rf are figureheads - they do not make policy, no matter how much the denigrators claim they have power over how we live our lives

A constitutional monarchy has served us well for a long time. The countries we purport to admire (Scandi/Dutch) are all monarchies. Soft power internationally means something.

We can oust them, and another, equally appalling, gets voted in.

Well, we can oust them too. We can't oust anyone in the royal family, it's a job for life! And they are protected to the nth degree by parliament. No one can question them, their roles, their workload, nothing.

I must admit I find it extraordinary that they have such adoration (not by anyone on here in particular, just in general). These are people who have the head of the family... millions dished out to him, and his heir, the massive wealth they are accruing generation after generation, the riches that I mentioned before (stamps, art, sculptures, jewels worth billions) that actually belong to the nation but are squirrelled away by them. I could go on. But I won't. I'll save it for another post 🤣

The point they're making is that we can vote them out.

We can, but it doesn't stop equally bad, or worse, being voted in. The rf provide a stable head of state.

Look at elected HOS around the world - elected doesn't mean better. It doesn't, in many cases, mean their electorate can get rid of them.

Our system isn't broken. It has worked well for a long time.

If the crown estates were taken over by the govt, how long do you think it would be before they were sold off to overseas entities and we could kiss goodbye to any return from them at all.

It hasn't worked worked well, it's just been accepted. I believe in democracy, I'm surprised you don't, and I'd like to vote for the head of state.

It's an anachronism that we have billionaires as head of state riding around in carriages and living in palaces when 1/3 of children are in poverty.

I'm also surprised that you think it's acceptable the royals own so much of the UK and can't live normal lives.

We seem to manage very well voting in governments so I'm sure we'll cope.

Princess Anne did 457 engagements in 2024. Prince Edward does around 270. The Duke of Gloucester is in his late 70s and does the same number of engagements at William, with the Duke of Kent (also in his late 70s) doing slightly less.

Whether or not they are worth what is paid for them is a debate to be had but it is entirely untrue that the working Royals who are covered by the SG do next to nothing.

It has worked well. Do you think an elected president is likely to be, what? Poor?

What, intrinsically, do you expect to be different about a republic. What difference will it make to your life? My guess is absolutely zero. What makes you think an elected Head of State will eradicate child poverty? It hasn't done so in the US, in Ireland.

The royals don't 'own' so much of the UK. We benefit from the crown estates. If they didn't belong to 'the crown' they'd have been sold off to overseas investors long ago, and we could kiss goodbye to any financial return from the land.

I've seen the governments we voted in, in the last almost 2 decades. That's where the blame for child poverty lies, not with the HOS. With the government WE voted for.

The president’s salary in Ireland is pegged to the top rank of civil servants.which is what he or she is. They get use of a house for the duration of their term, staff, a car, a helicopter, security etc. So yes, you could conceivably be poor.

I didn't say that an elected head of state would end child poverty. You seem very triggered by democracy.

Why do you keep making things up? You obviously don't know how much land Charles owns - look it up. Who said everything is going to be sold off? Do you have evidence of this plan?

I don't want an inherited head of state and would like a democratically elected leader. That's what difference it would make.

The Duke of Gloucester is in his late 70s and does the same number of engagements at William

And how embarrassing and appalling is that. He is actually 80, but yet the heir to the throne who is half his age does the same number of engagements. The troouble is... they can do what they want. As little or as much

Important to remember that some “engagements” last 20 minutes and some are phone calls.

The Court Circular gives the figures I posted for Royal Engagements. The ones above are double the actual events attended. That is what counts.

In Prince Harry's book he writes that some members of the RF have staff who are really on the ball about making sure that every little 'event' is included in the tally of engagements, including phone calls. Apparently they compete to have the highest tally. It seems Prince William doesn't bother to compete.

Also, the rf are figureheads - they do not make policy, no matter how much the denigrators claim they have power over how we live our lives

They have enormous influence and ability to shape policy or change things if they want to - but they tend to be very hush-hush and subtle about it.

Even if they never did use their sway or request/demand changes, it's still their absolute prerogative to do so at any time.

Supposing your DH demanded the unrestricted right to sleep with anybody else that he wanted, but he 'assured' you that, just because he now could, he wouldn't - would you think that absolutely fair enough, as he only has the right as a 'figurehead' and will almost certainly (probably) decide never to use it?

Do you not also think that, if they really had no actual power and also no desire to ever use any for their own ends, that would make even less sense for us not to throw it open for an election, or have a trusted panel to decide who the next king or queen was going to be after, say, 5 years?

After all, if it were nothing more than reading out a couple of scripted paragraphs, cutting the odd ribbon and posing for a few photos, why would we so desperately need it to be that same family until the end of time?

At the Festival of Remembrance, for example, every year there are certain poignant and words that are said and pieces of music played every year. These are symbolic, traditional and important to millions of people; BUT it doesn't actually matter who says the words, or carries the flag or plays the bugle. It's obviously a trusted and respected person paying the tribute on behalf of all the public - but most people watching will not even know the name of that person; nor will they want or need to know.

You can't have it both ways: either they do rule to whatever extent they choose to do so, in which case it must be the one family who are supposedly assumed to be the only ones for the job; or otherwise it's all just symbolic, and they are nothing but a nominated representative, in which case anybody could do it.

None of the Republican posters have discussed how to pay for the extensive process to become a Republic. Similar to how Brexit and Scottish Independence advocates skated over the financial and economic implications of these decisions. One would hope people learned something from the Brexit experience.

IMHO, the UK would be better served in focusing on "Brentry" to reverse "Brexit". All large UK businesses sell to EU markets so need to comply with EU rules. But unlike their French or German competitors, UK businesses do not have a government presence in the EU to vigorously advocate for their benefit. So basically, the UK is stuck following rules it cannot influence. What an own goal!

What exactly do you imagine the costs to be?

Have you seen the surge in reform voters

I have. The point is: these clowns can be voted out.

Your all focusing on the wrong thing like it really makes a difference in the grand scheme of things you really think that we will get rid of the royal family and suddenly happily we have more money for pensions and disability payments?

Fucking deluded