Debating the monarchy's relevance, reform and public accountability in modern Britain

[LipglossAndLies]

Welcome to this thread! 👋 I am hoping it provides a dedicated space to discuss and debate the relevance, utility, and future of the institution of monarchy in modern times.

To help make this a welcoming space for genuine discussion, I would like to encourage everyone to follow a few simple guidelines:

💬 Respectful Challenge, Not Nastiness: let's keep the focus entirely on the ideas, not the people posting them.

👀 Focus on the roles, not the people: This thread is about governance, constitutional law, economics, and the function of a head of state. I think it would help to use the official roles and not personal names to keep the conversation completely agnostic.

🙏 Gossip free: Please avoid discussing personal family drama, media feuds, or the private lives of individual family members. There are plenty of other threads for that!

💁‍♀️ Report or ignore: If you feel someone is not commenting in good faith, or is trying to provoke a hostile reaction as it will help keep the conversation on track.

To kick off the debate, for me I would think its time for significant structural reform. Recent years have highlighted major blind spots in how official state roles such as official trade or investment envoy appointments are handed out, funded, and scrutinised by the public. When individuals holding these titles face serious scrutiny over their expenses, or how they utilise state-backed influence, it reflects heavily on the entire institution.

If the monarchy is to survive in modern times, it needs to move past a culture of internal deference and accept rigorous financial oversight, auditing, and transparency as any other government body receiving taxpayers money.

Yes ... but... he highlighted what a lot of us think about the Monarchy, the massive cost and all of that.

No one else has spoken up like him and it was all over the media. So good on him as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed.

Old 'two jobs' George with his questionable meetings and his very own expenses scandal🙄

As for the proposed sale I don't think it's been firmly established as yet whether W is even able to dispose of any percentage of Duchy holdings given he doesn't own them but in any case I think we need far more clarity on the small print.

Any sale of Duchy property of value greater than £500k has to be approved by the Treasury, under the terms of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act.

There is also a requirement, under that Act, for transactions to be carried out in the long term best interest of the Duchy.

This is not a case of William randomly doing something of his own accord with no controls.

Lord Foulkes clearly had every right to say what he did.

As he's been saying the same thing since 1979, it's hardly news that warranted an exclusive in the Mirror.

It's disappointing to me that is what got the report, rather than the actual news of the change to the Sovereign Grant Bill (soon to be Act), which is what several posters had previously been asking for.

"And the taxpayer has funded two new helicopters for the royal family, whereas mountain rescue for their helicopters, have to raise money through charitable efforts. Now, is that right in the 21st century?”

Quite a fair question of the Lord to be asking. When they have shown they can use commercial flights, cars, trains...well why do they need to have helicopters too 🤔 abd why two. Why not one? The King and his heir get £40m between them in 'private income' you would think that's plenty to fund helicopters for themselves or a second one if it was absolutely necessary.

So out of touch.

He's hoping to raise £500m though, not sell a few properties in isolation.

Even at an average of £50m a year over the next decade (his stated timeframe) it's going to dump an awful lot of extra work and by extension cost to the taxpayer onto the shoulders of Treasury staff and those responsible for weighing up long term interests.

There is nothing though in this requirement that clarifies whether or not W is actually permitted to dispose of property at this kind of level although it would seem to confirm once again that the estate is not 'private' as the royals insist.

Nothing either in the trumpeting press releases on the matter that indicates such an extensive disposal might get outside brakes put on it.

To all intents and purposes it's been projected as W's decision alone and a done deal.

Ah.

I had a discussion on the shiny new choppers a while back.

IIRC it was all apparently AOK because there's an urgent need to cover as many ribbon cuttings as possible on the days they finally manage to report for duty and also the new whirlies were going to be running on sustainable fuel which is unutterably marvellous.

No mention said fuel is significantly more expensive than standard but presumably also deemed AOK because the bloated SG will cover all the short hops between forever homes required...

It's disappointing to me that is what got the report, rather than the actual news of the change to the Sovereign Grant Bill (soon to be Act), which is what several posters had previously been asking for.

It's the always planned cutting of the eye-watering provision for the renovation of BP which no-ones going to be living in and which remains unexplained when the repairs had always been previously deemed achievable within the existing SG funding.

The SG is still going to be £100m. Some 65% higher than 10 years ago and more than 90% higher than the last Civil List payment in 2011.

I think it needs to end. Catherine and William barely work. And let's be honest, no one with a sane mind likes Camilla representing the country.

There's Andrew, a pedophile or at least a sexual criminal protected within the family. Catherine is allegedly racist, Charles was friends with pedophiles like Jimmy Savile, and Ghislaine Maxwell literally sat on the British throne, among many racists and pedophiles that closely surround this family. Is that the kind of people the UK wants to be represented by? Surely not.

It's the always planned cutting of the eye-watering provision for the renovation of BP which no-ones going to be living in and which remains unexplained when the repairs had always been previously deemed achievable within the existing SG funding.

No, it's not just that. I linked to the page with the details of the Bill upthread.

There's a new section which places a duty on the Treasury to adjust the amount of the Sovereign Grant, including to reduce it where the Royal Trustees thinks the standard calculation results in an amount which is too great, and to state 'an appropriate amount for the relevant financial year'.
It removes the anomaly in the 2011 Act where it was difficult to reduce the yearly amount once the calculation was made.
It also reduces the level at which the Reserve is required to be kept.

I think it's unlikely significant reductions will be made but we'll see.

The SG reserve is a slush fund. Any excess should be returned to the Treasury rather than left to underwrite the costs of sundry family parties or events. I'm thinking specifically here of the Jubilee, funeral and coro.

As the SG covers cost of maintaining buildings lets take those back refurb them, open them up as tourist places so they generate money to fund the ongoing upkeep of them.

Which buildings do you mean here . Sorry if I'm not understanding you properly.