Royalty ruling your country?

[Dennisch]

I was wondering, what's your idea of having a King or Queen 'ruling' your country?

We, the Dutchies, have a King. His position is more symbolic than functional. The whole idea is outdated at best. I don't see why it still exists, and why they are living off the taxes of people who have nothing in common with them. I won't shed a tear if they would be demoted to regular civilians like you and me.

Thoughts?

 

[FoRiZon]

Well obviously there are ceremonial royalty and absolute royalty. I think most of the royal country has been ceremonial. So the judgement of royalty ruling there will be kinda bit missing the target considering the real ruling comes from the PM.

Only very few has been absolute and some of them disguised as "democratic", like North Korea.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I guess you might have been prompted to thread this topic after seeing the Brits hating/applauding their Best Ever British Monarch HooRAH in the Britain thread. Here's what I said there...

So yo think it's proper and correct that one single family should hold the right to sit at the top of parliament, be funded to an excruciating extent by the taxpayer, sit outside the law and automatically command the armed forces? Based just on their bloodline? And that we should grovel, curtsy, bow and follow silly protocol in their presence for fear of offending them? Blimey...

Watching public budgets slashed while she rides around in a gold carriage surrounded by servants in the most insanely-expensive uniforms is more than a little galling, imo.

I'd say it probably does; Britain' royal history wouldn't go away with the abolition of the monarchy... I suspect that very little real profit would be lost with the loss of their physical presence in a royal role. People come to wave at Buck House and buy ****** London souvenirs whether the Queen's in her gaff or not.

The Daily Express, the last surviving home of Lady Di, would have it that the royals cost us about £36m a year. Some republicans put it 10 times higher than that... without even counting lost revenue from all the public land or other property that's been given to them on the basis of their bloodline.

 

[Liquid]

Nope. Submissive and undemocratic.

"We're all in this together."

 

[Dotini]

The whole idea is outdated at best.

Great questions and insights, thanks for starting an interesting thread.

IMO, the practice of kings as heads of states evolved from the preceding age of feudalism, and goes all the way back to neolithic times. So it is traditional, but definitely outdated. The question is what to replace it with. The American Revolution and constitutional representative democracy in a federal republic has been a preferred replacement system. But now the sovereign nation-state system itself is becoming superseded by an even more radical change - currently resembling the beginnings of a de facto world government based on interest groups and lobbies. Kings as well as presidents, magnates, investors, authors and philanthropists are all involved. So the royal family and institution may still have life in it.

 

[Joel]

Queen Elizabeth is still the queen of Canada, don't really mind since we don't pay for it besides the odd visit and her representative just rubber stamps parliament's decisions. I don't support the monarchy and if it was a simple matter of voting in a referendum to abolish the monarchy I'd vote to abolish it, but I just don't really see it as worth the effort of opening the constitution when the monarchy in Canada is just a paper abstraction. I think it's wrong that Canadian taxpayers fund royal visits, and pay for a Governor General to rubber stamp parliament's decisions, but it's really not worth dragging out the constitution and trying to get all the provinces to agree on changes.

I think another part of it in Canada at least is that overall people have a really positive view of Queen Elizabeth. She's a grandmotherly figure that most working age Canadians grew up with and she's mostly kept out of interfering with politics in the UK and abroad. If the king or queen were someone more distasteful I think you'd see more of a push to end the monarchy, but people associate the monarchy with their positive feelings about Queen Elizabeth in particular and it would be political suicide to say negative things about her.

Overall anglophone Canadians have a fairly positive view of the monarchy and its heritage, our navy and airforce were called "Marine Command" and "Air Command" for a while but they were recently changed back to the RCN and RCAF to tie in with the WW1/WW2 heritage, and our national police force is still the RCMP so I don't really see anything changing anytime soon. I guess the biggest thing that genuinely irks me is it's a pretty exclusionary set up towards French Canadians to have all of our institutions steeped in British royal heritage.

 

[Grayfox]

This video made my eyes glaze over

 

[McLaren]

I was wondering, what's your idea of having a King or Queen 'ruling' your country?

We, the Dutchies, have a King. His position is more symbolic than functional. The whole idea is outdated at best. I don't see why it still exists, and why they are living off the taxes of people who have nothing in common with them. I won't shed a tear if they would be demoted to regular civilians like you and me.

Thoughts?

So, the King is just there for no reason than to look pretty or because his family used to rule the country?

 

[Dennisch]

So, the King is just there for no reason than to look pretty or because his family used to rule the country?

Yes. They say that he upholds foreign relationships, but that's mostly with other royalty, so pretty much pointless.

 

[McLaren]

Yes. They say that he upholds foreign relationships, but that's mostly with other royalty, so pretty much pointless.

Sounds like an alimony payment only paid because the spouse (or family in this case) became accustomed to a way of life. Some weak sauce, there.

 

[Davidies]

Whenever I share my viewpoint of Nay about our queen, I always get the argument ''She advertises our country!''. I kind of get that, but then why not have someone else do what she does? And could she not just have less money? The queen of Denmark got paid almost $11 million alone in 2014. I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the subject here, but I'm almost certain that less could do it.

And then I had something else to say, but I forgot what it was. So that concludes this comment.

 

[polysmut]

I asked, in the Britain thread, about whether the cost of the British Royal Family is outweighed by the tourism money it generates.
Since then, I've learned that for 2014/2015 the Sovereign Grant was £35.7million.
Just as a gut feeling, I would be surprised if that isn't surpassed by the income it generates.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I asked, in the Britain thread, about whether the cost of the British Royal Family is outweighed by the tourism money it generates.
Since then, I've learned that for 2014/2015 the Sovereign Grant was £35.7million.
Just as a gut feeling, I would be surprised if that isn't surpassed by the income it generates.

So you didn't read the figures I replied with? That expenditure is nearer £350 million. The sovereign grant is a very small piece of the pie upon which some people inherit a right to gorge themselves.

 

[Joel]

You also have to wonder how much of the tourism you could reasonably say is due to the royal family continuing to stay on the throne. Somehow I doubt people would stop visiting Buckingham Palace if it were turned into a museum like the palace in Versailles. Look at Rome for that matter, people still visit Rome to see the historical buildings from the Roman Empire, even though the empire is long gone.

 

[polysmut]

So you didn't read the figures I replied with? That expenditure is nearer £350 million. The sovereign grant is a very small piece of the pie upon which some people inherit a right to gorge themselves.

Sorry, I didn't see that bit. I think at the time that I read your post, it ended at the "the Queen's in her gaff or not" part. I've been back & seen the rest of it now.
My phone crashed just now when I tried to download the pdf but I can now see the £350 million written in your post.
I asked an economist a couple of very brief questions today, after it came up this morning. He only mentioned the sovereign grant as expenditure & didn't know the numbers for tourism money. It seems it's an area he hasn't looked at very much, or at all.

 

[A2K78]

No, but but rulers e.g. president(s) have acted more like one.

 

[A2K78]

I asked, in the Britain thread, about whether the cost of the British Royal Family is outweighed by the tourism money it generates.
Since then, I've learned that for 2014/2015 the Sovereign Grant was £35.7million.
Just as a gut feeling, I would be surprised if that isn't surpassed by the income it generates.

Its funny you bring that up, but the cost even adjusted for monetary inflation is no where close to what to what it cost to maintain expensive america's presidency. To put things in perspective, british taxpayers are getting a better deal on the Windsor so they shouldn't complain about them.

 

[polysmut]

Its funny you bring that up, but the cost even adjusted for monetary inflation is no where close to what to what it cost to maintain expensive america's presidency. To put things in perspective, british taxpayers are getting a better deal on the Windsor so they shouldn't complain about them.

We've since heard that that's only a part of the actual cost of the royal family though.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Its funny you bring that up, but the cost even adjusted for monetary inflation is no where close to what to what it cost to maintain expensive america's presidency. To put things in perspective, british taxpayers are getting a better deal on the Windsor so they shouldn't complain about them.

I'm not sure where inflation factors, whether italicised or otherwise. You're also forgetting that if we were to go "like for like" with the presidency then we'd also include the cost of the prime ministership, Westminster Palace and all that goes with that.

That would all take the bill way beyond the existing £330 million. It's also worth noting that it isn't a Capital offence to plot to kill your President.

 

[Liquid]

That would all take the bill way beyond the existing £330 million. It's also worth noting that it isn't a Capital offence to plot to kill your President.

There are no capital crimes left in the United Kingdom. Absolutely zero.

But true, it wasn't always this way.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There are no capital crimes left in the United Kingdom. Absolutely zero.

But true, it wasn't always this way.

You're right, abolished in 1998. My fiendish plans* can continue

* That's a joke, m'lud.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I asked, in the Britain thread, about whether the cost of the British Royal Family is outweighed by the tourism money it generates.
Since then, I've learned that for 2014/2015 the Sovereign Grant was £35.7million.
Just as a gut feeling, I would be surprised if that isn't surpassed by the income it generates.

Its funny you bring that up, but the cost even adjusted for monetary inflation is no where close to what to what it cost to maintain expensive america's presidency. To put things in perspective, british taxpayers are getting a better deal on the Windsor so they shouldn't complain about them.

As a generalization, it actually costs more to maintain the Royal Family than it does the American president, and it all boils down to one thing, land. The American president, outside his personal holdings, doesn't maintain any land as a head of state whereas the Royal Family does. The income from that land, and I am being overly generalized here, is 200 million pounds a year. The Royal Family gets 40 million of that while parliament gets the rest.

The average cost per citizen to maintain the Royal Family? 65 pence. Had King George III not made that deal with parliament to cover his debts, the average UK citizen's taxes would actually go up, not down, as those lands still belong to the Royal Family.

Now take the American president.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

According to the Office of Personnel Management, a sitting US President earns $400,000 a year, plus $50,000 to aid him in the execution of his duties (moving money). That is money that is guaranteed to him for the tenure of his administration. Past Presidents also get money from the government for their service in office (there are currently 4, Carter, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43), but that is all they get. The massive tracts of land that make up 99.99% of our parks? Owned by the government.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The average cost per citizen to maintain the Royal Family? 65 pence.

You're only looking at their headline figure via the sovereign grant.

 

[Liquid]

You're right, abolished in 1998. My fiendish plans* can continue

* That's a joke, m'lud.

And, to paraphrase Clive Anderson, whose fault is it anyway? Who changed it so that treason, piracy and arson in the royal dockyards were the last capital crimes to be struck from the list?

STRASBOURG! THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS!

FARAGE IS RIGHT! SAUSAGE AND MASH! PINTS OF REAL ALE! VIVA THE REVOLUTION!

Man, I miss the days where you could be executed for plotting to overthrow the state. It's PC gone mad (!)

 

[Sanji Himura]

You're only looking at their headline figure via the sovereign grant.

That may be true, seeing as I got that number by a third party. It still doesn't invalidate the rest of my post, however.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That may be true, seeing as I got that number by a third party. It still doesn't invalidate the rest of my post, however.

No, you're right.

The average cost per citizen to maintain the Royal Family? 65 pence. Had King George III not made that deal with parliament to cover his debts, the average UK citizen's taxes would actually go up, not down, as those lands still belong to the Royal Family.

The debts you speak of (or the national debt) was mostly incurred through British land in America, that's one of the reasons (poryphyria aside) that George wanted to continue to fight. Most of the land you refer to is now the United States. Regardless of whether or not colony land had remained part of the national debt the income stream would still have been altered by parliament at some time in the late 18th or early 19th century.

Whether or not the land then attributed for Royal income would have been so apportioned is another question, of course. Her Royal Highness the Duke of Lancaster receives about £15 million from Duchy lands (effectively her "wage") with the Prince of Wales making nearly twice that from his Duchy - it would be more proper for those lands, profits and enterprises to be public. The Crown Estate in total is worth about £8 billion and gives the Crown a massive income that's undeclared. Needless to say, that should be public too.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The Crown Estate in total is worth about £8 billion and gives the Crown a massive income that's undeclared. Needless to say, that should be public too.

Oh I agree. The same attitude could be applied to the American President, who's tax papers are not a matter of public record (though everyone else's is under the Freedom of Information Act.)

 

[Tired Tyres]

No, you're right.



The debts you speak of (or the national debt) was mostly incurred through British land in America, that's one of the reasons (poryphyria aside) that George wanted to continue to fight. Most of the land you refer to is now the United States. Regardless of whether or not colony land had remained part of the national debt the income stream would still have been altered by parliament at some time in the late 18th or early 19th century.

Whether or not the land then attributed for Royal income would have been so apportioned is another question, of course. Her Royal Highness the Duke of Lancaster receives about £15 million from Duchy lands (effectively her "wage") with the Prince of Wales making nearly twice that from his Duchy - it would be more proper for those lands, profits and enterprises to be public. The Crown Estate in total is worth about £8 billion and gives the Crown a massive income that's undeclared. Needless to say, that should be public too.

Why? Do you think inheritance is a bad thing? You think I shouldn't inherit? That my children shouldn't inherit? That their children shouldn't inherit?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why? Do you think inheritance is a bad thing? You think I shouldn't inherit? That my children shouldn't inherit? That their children shouldn't inherit?

Why would inheritance of things that are rightfully owned be a problem?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Why would inheritance of things that are rightfully owned be a problem?

Your saying the Queen doesn't own what she owns because she inherited it. That's the problem.