"Are the Royals worth the tax?" poll discussion

Former_MSE_Penelope

Poll started 3rd May 2011, click here to vote

Are the Royals worth the tax?

The civil list, which pays for the Royals to do their official work, costs UK taxpayers £38.2 million a year (source: BBC). On the other hand, the Royal family do pay tax on their income, which doesn't just come from the list.
Whatever your view, as taxpayers' money contributes, this is a consumer decision, so your view matters. We’ve run this poll before, and thought it’d be interesting to see if views have changed after the royal wedding.

Which of these is closest to your view of what should happen with the Royal family?

Put the Royals back in charge. Ditch all PMs & let them rule.
No change. It's fine as it is.
Deconstitutionalise them. Just leave a pure figurehead monarchy.
Ditch 'em. End the monarchy forever.

icklepeach

teddyco wrote: »

The Royal Family is an asset that costs a mere 69p a year for every person in Britain, or £1.33 per taxpayer. In return, besides the Crown Estate profits, there is the unquantifiable, but enormous, tourist revenue it generates.

I voted 'No Change. It's fine as it is.'

This is exactly what I wanted to say!

Gavin83

I have no interest in the Royal family in the slightest, didn't watch the wedding and certainly wouldn't bow to any of them. However I still think they're an asset to the country and generate far more revenue than expense. They also employ a large number of people, which is important. Therefore I say keep them where they are.

Ernisius

I would like to see the royal family abolished and it has nothing to do with the cost .

I believe that everyone should at least be born equal.
The royal family have privileges given to them as a birthright.

I don't want to be a subject of her majesty, but rather a citizen of England.

This acceptance that this family is born with 'royal' blood fuels the class divide in this country.

In an equal society everyone should receive privileges they have earned, not given as because of their family name.

I know I am in the minority with this view but I found the wedding sickening, the way the general public idolized people who already have everything, but have earned nothing.

Many will disagree with me but ask yourself, why are they better than you.

MSE_Martin

Ernisius wrote: »

I would like to see the royal family abolished and it has nothing to do with the cost .

I believe that everyone should at least be born equal.
The royal family have privileges given to them as a birthright.

I don't want to be a subject of her majesty, but rather a citizen of England.

This acceptance that this family is born with 'royal' blood fuels the class divide in this country.

In an equal society everyone should receive privileges they have earned, not given as because of their family name.

I know I am in the minority with this view but I found the wedding sickening, the way the general public idolized people who already have everything, but have earned nothing.

Many will disagree with me but ask yourself, why are they better than you.

Without going too far into my own personal views - I think it is important to separate the individuals from the institution. I watched the royal wedding and was moved to watch a young couple who I hope are very much in love at the centre of a day of pagentry. It was enjoyable.

I wish every member of the family a healthy long, successful, enjoyable life - as I do everyone who isn't 'royal' too.

Yet I d find it very difficult that we have a country where an unelected individual, chosen by accident of birth - can declare war, appoint the prime minister, or perhaps refuse to sign a law enacted by parliament - never mind the fact that it gives males a priority and is exclusive to those of the anglican faith.

I would be far happier with a deconstituionalised monarchy which would also give a seperation of church and state (yes I am a disestablishmentarianist, i suspect there may be a few antidisestablishmentarianists out there too - which gives me the joy of getting to write that word in context)

I don think we'd lose any heritage or tourism from doing so - but I do believe it would be a step towards the right direction of democracy.

Hmmm I think I may've ended up going too far into my personal views!

wallbash

chosen by accident of birth - can declare war, appoint the prime minister, or perhaps refuse to sign a law enacted by parliament - never mind the fact that it is gender biased, and exclusive to those of the anglican faith.

The wonderful thing is that it is possible , but it has not happened in years and won't happen in the future.Why won't it happen in the future, because if it did, the monarchy would be finished.
The (Royal ) system works , and if a thing ain't broke .................

MSE_Martin

wallbash wrote: »

The wonderful thing is that it is possible , but it has not happened in years and won't happen in the future.Why won't it happen in the future, because if it did, the monarchy would be finished.
The (Royal ) system works , and if a thing ain't broke .................

Not strictly true - from memory (i've not double checked) in the 1970s hung parliament the Queen effectively brokered the PM she wanted to form the parliament. We were only just saved from it this time. For me that is broke.

wallbash

the Queen effectively picked the PM she wanted

And you don't think she took advice ??

MSE_Martin

wallbash wrote: »

And you don't think she took advice ??

Yes from a group of unelected advisors and that's the problem. Even this vanity fair article suggests the problem (there are many others this is just the easiest) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/05/a-hung-parliament-means-showtime-for-the-queen.html

I understand this is constitutional geekiness (my degree is government and law, and effectively constituional law was a big part of that). Yet on principle I object to the monarch making that decision - separate to whether she would make a good decision or not.

wallbash

Whats the problem with unelected advisor's if they have had years of experience ?
I would rather have an 'expert' giving advice , rather than a recently elected amateur.

I expect most of the advisor's were heads of the civil service , known to be fairly non-political.
( at least in their recommendations)

PS how is the golf going?

zagfles

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Yes from a group of unelected advisors and that's the problem. Even this vanity fair article suggests the problem (there are many others this is just the easiest) http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/05/a-hung-parliament-means-showtime-for-the-queen.html

I understand this is constitutional geekiness (my degree is government and law, and effectively constituional law was a big part of that). Yet on principle I object to the monarch making that decision - separate to whether she would make a good decision or not.

But surely "unelected" isn't the issue. In the case of a hung parliament, a decision is required about those elected!

If it wasn't the Queen it'd presumably be some unelected judges? Or maybe we should elect judges like in the US?