"Are the Royals worth the tax?" poll discussion

Gareth_Lazelle

At least someone did pick the judges - that's better than "accident of birth" (you do want to live in a meritocracy right? Our inheritance laws are bad enough as it is without that sort of power being handed down out of anyone's control),

Part of the problem with the current "Republic" movement is that I think we have been extremely lucky with our current queen - she truly is (or at least seems) a worthy leader. But lets face it, the royal family don't have a strong tradition of good leadership...

Fundamentally, either the royal family shouldn't have that sort of power, or they should be elected in some way (ideally by the people, not some judge or other). To be honest I'm good with either.

Oh, and in reference to Martins comments about being a sexist and anglican organisation - I hesitate to imagine what would have happened if Harry had decided to marry a Hindu, Moslem, Pagan or someone from another faith... Or for that matter if he'd opted for a civil partnership But I doubt very much that it would have been a big wedding like we had last week...

Red_Doe

I would like to see them abolished.

VfM4meplse

MSE_Martin wrote: »

I would be far happier with a deconstituionalised monarchy

I'm in good company then! The Queen is littlle more than a figurehead atm anyway.

mouldylocks

When the Royal Yacht was decommissioned, it was a wake up call to us British - we are a 3rd rate nation now, that knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
As a child born in the East End of London just after the war I got a school place, an excellent primary education, access to affordable pastimes (cinema, swimming, youth clubs etc.) a place at a grammar school, free university place, excellent health care from a dedicated local GP, free museums, great public services, even daily milk deliveries............this list goes on.
Can ANYONE explain to me how all that was affordable after 2 world wars in 50 years, and how the poorest kids (me for one) could access so much of benefit to them?
And look at us now, paying royal ransoms for spitting, diving, cheating, swearing footballers who won't sing the National Anthem, and counting the pennies to pay for a family whose genuine pride and love for this country is unequivocal.:(

zagfles

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

At least someone did pick the judges - that's better than "accident of birth" (you do want to live in a meritocracy right? Our inheritance laws are bad enough as it is without that sort of power being handed down out of anyone's control),

Part of the problem with the current "Republic" movement is that I think we have been extremely lucky with our current queen - she truly is (or at least seems) a worthy leader. But lets face it, the royal family don't have a strong tradition of good leadership...

Fundamentally, either the royal family shouldn't have that sort of power, or they should be elected in some way (ideally by the people, not some judge or other). To be honest I'm good with either.

Oh, and in reference to Martins comments about being a sexist and anglican organisation - I hesitate to imagine what would have happened if Harry had decided to marry a Hindu, Moslem, Pagan or someone from another faith... Or for that matter if he'd opted for a civil partnership But I doubt very much that it would have been a big wedding like we had last week...

But an elected head of state will have to have policies, political opinions etc, to form a basis on which to elect them rather than other candidates. And in doing so, like with politicans, they'll alienate people who don't have have those opinions and ideas.

The advantage of an unelected head of state is that they can be a figurehead for the whole country, rather than the preferred politician for some but hated by others. The PM of the day may be elected, but is always hated by more people than the Queen.

Of course the consent of the people is vital, but the Queen basically has that implicitly - there are no significant protests to get rid of her, any mass protests tend to be against what the elected govt are doing. Besides, looking at things like the viewing figures for the royal wedding, estimates of about 24 million people in the UK, and 2 billion worldwide are incredidible - nearly 1 in 3 people on the planet! If they televised the wedding of an elected politician's grandson how many people would watch?

Yes, it's unfair, sexist, religion-ist (is that a word)? but so what, it does seem to work. Personally I'm glad I wasn't born a royal by "accident of birth", I don't envy the regimented, formal lives they lead, as (I think) Fergie once said - it's hard to have a relationship with someone who's never been to a pub! I prefer to be able to get drunk occasionally and make a fool of myself, without it being all over the papers the next day, be able to give my opinions without causing a national controversy, etc.

I had a significant birthday at about the same time as the Queen's jubilee. I had a great time with family and friends, did some really daft things, drank far too much etc, like most people celebrating anything. The Queen seemed to spend her special day waving at people and meeting dignitaries. I doubt she got drunk and streaked naked down Pall Mall for a bet.

The thing I find most incredible is that so many ex British colonies chose to retain the Queen as their head of state when they became independant - going to countries like Australia and Canada and seeing the Queen on coins is quite a sign of this small country's influence on the world. There is no way this would work with an elected head of state.

Gareth_Lazelle

zagfles wrote: »

But an elected head of state will have to have policies, political opinions etc, to form a basis on which to elect them rather than other candidates. And in doing so, like with politicans, they'll alienate people who don't have have those opinions and ideas.

That kind of depends upon what sort of powers the head of state has,

If it's a figurehead type of position, then that wouldn't be true. Likewise if it was a ceremonial position,

On the other hand, if it was more of an US-style president, then you would be correct,

Of course, even as things stand, she has the power to alienate people - just because she doesn't state a preference doesn't mean that she doesn't use her powers to further them.

zagfles wrote: »

The advantage of an unelected head of state is that they can be a figurehead for the whole country, rather than the preferred politician for some but hated by others.

If the King/Queen where simply a figurehead then I could live with that (indeed, as I said above),

But the Queen does have power, and the potential to use or abuse it. And if she wished, then she could use it to further her own agenda.

And if we do "hate what she does" with that power, then what are we going to do about it?

As I said above (again), the Republican movement is unfortunate that the current monarch is by and large very good. What if the next one isn't?

Of course the consent of the people is vital, but the Queen basically has that implicitly - there are no significant protests to get rid of her,

How does she have that implicitly (believe it or not I don't really have the time to protest for everything that I believe in) - that is exactly what she does not have. We have no say and no power over her or her heirs.

And as I've said - the current Queen seems to do a generally good job, so why would there be protests. What if her son isn't as good? We could then see protests perhaps?

Besides, looking at things like the viewing figures for the royal wedding, estimates of about 24 million people in the UK, and 2 billion worldwide are incredidible - nearly 1 in 3 people on the planet!

What of it? I don't see why popularity has anything to do with the right or wrong of it. It was a big spectacle - and I am sure that plenty of non-royalists watched it too.

TV ratings aren't everything,

Yes, it's unfair, sexist, religion-ist (is that a word)? but so what, it does seem to work.

Should we use that argument for other aspects of our culture or society? Sexism at work perhaps? The slave Trade? The feudal system?

Sometimes even broken things can work (Insert adage about broken clocks here...), but perhaps they should still be fixed?

And to be completely honest, can you truthfully say that in the centuries of our Kings and Queens, that all have been so popular and 'seeming to work'?

Personally I'm glad I wasn't born a royal by "accident of birth", I don't envy the regimented, formal lives they lead, as (I think) Fergie once said - it's hard to have a relationship with someone who's never been to a pub! I prefer to be able to get drunk occasionally and make a fool of myself, without it being all over the papers the next day, be able to give my opinions without causing a national controversy, etc.

Look, this isn't some sort of weird wish-fulfilment thing on my part, I don't want to be a royal either (and not all "accidents of birth" are good, as I am sure you can appreciate),

But I do want some say in who has power over me, whether is is directly or indirectly. And I don't think that is unreasonable.

The thing I find most incredible is that so many ex British colonies chose to retain the Queen as their head of state when they became independant - going to countries like Australia and Canada and seeing the Queen on coins is quite a sign of this small country's influence on the world. There is no way this would work with an elected head of state.

Is that really a good reason to keep them? I mean really? If they wish to retain the Queen then that's fine - but do we have to wait for them to get rid first? And do we have to support (pay) them for their benefit (should the royals count as foreign aid?)?

robin_banks

Do we really need a 'head of state' ?.

craig86

I think that the question is poorly worded and misleading. To imply that the Royal Family is a drain on the nation's resources is just plain wrong.

Firstly, the £38m given to them is used so they can perform their duties (travel, upkeep of palaces, etc.).

In return, we, the taxpayers, receive over £200m profits from the Crown Estates. In addition, there are untold millions generated from tourism. (Tourism in London alone generates an estimated £15bn to the economy. Even if only 1% of that tourism was as a result of the Royal Family - and I imagine it's more - that still amounts to £150m.)

Secondly, the idea that abolishing the monarchy would save money is extremely questionable. Germany's presidency costs a similar amount to our monarchy, and France spends around £90m on its. The fact that anybody can seriously suggest that the Royal Family are poor value for money is just astounding. As a previous poster said, we know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

Now, whether a constitutional monarchy is a good system of government - that's a different question entirely. I think zagfles has summed that up better than I could.

Ernisius

craig86 wrote: »

there are untold millions generated from tourism. (Tourism in London alone generates an estimated £15bn to the economy. Even if only 1% of that tourism was as a result of the Royal Family - and I imagine it's more - that still amounts to £150m.)

France probably has at least as much tourism as UK, and they got rid of their monarchy.

zagfles

Gareth_Lazelle wrote: »

If the King/Queen where simply a figurehead then I could live with that (indeed, as I said above),

But the Queen does have power, and the potential to use or abuse it. And if she wished, then she could use it to further her own agenda.

And if we do "hate what she does" with that power, then what are we going to do about it?

There'd be mass protests. The situation would be untenable - we are mature enough a democracy that a "dictator" king/queen couldn't emerge. There are enough mass protests against what elected govts do!

As I said above (again), the Republican movement is unfortunate that the current monarch is by and large very good. What if the next one isn't?

As above.

How does she have that implicitly (believe it or not I don't really have the time to protest for everything that I believe in) - that is exactly what she does not have. We have no say and no power over her or her heirs.

Popular opinion will always have power. For instance over the issue of whether Camilla becomes Queen - the current Palace view is that she won't - and this is (at least partly) down to public opinion.

And as I've said - the current Queen seems to do a generally good job, so why would there be protests. What if her son isn't as good? We could then see protests perhaps?

Yes, basically the monarch's position would rapidly become untenable if he/she did things which angered significant numbers of people (it wouldn't even have to be the majority).

What of it? I don't see why popularity has anything to do with the right or wrong of it. It was a big spectacle - and I am sure that plenty of non-royalists watched it too.

Indeed - but it keep Britain in the public eye of the world. Not much else seems to!

Should we use that argument for other aspects of our culture or society? Sexism at work perhaps? The slave Trade? The feudal system?

If affects so few people. Princess Anne has a genuine gripe about where she is in the pecking order, but then it also favours the first born. Yes it's clearly unfair, but it's an unfairness that has no effect on 99.99999% of people, so who really cares? If Princess Anne isn't complaining, then why would anyone else?

Sometimes even broken things can work (Insert adage about broken clocks here...), but perhaps they should still be fixed?

As long as the "fix" doesn't make things worse. Putting lead in petrol was a "fix"!

And to be completely honest, can you truthfully say that in the centuries of our Kings and Queens, that all have been so popular and 'seeming to work'?

No, but who wins when there's a dispute between the monarch and the elected PM/public? eg Edward VIII?

Look, this isn't some sort of weird wish-fulfilment thing on my part, I don't want to be a royal either (and not all "accidents of birth" are good, as I am sure you can appreciate),

But I do want some say in who has power over me, whether is is directly or indirectly. And I don't think that is unreasonable.

The police have power over you. Judges have power over you. Neither are elected. In the US judges and sheriffs are often elected - and I think that makes things worse, not better.

Is that really a good reason to keep them? I mean really? If they wish to retain the Queen then that's fine - but do we have to wait for them to get rid first? And do we have to support (pay) them for their benefit (should the royals count as foreign aid?)?

As above the cost is trivial, and the cost of an elected head of state would be much greater.