The issue with the British monarchy is that we pay them and their only duty is to not look like a bunch of idiots, nothing more is asked. But unfortunately all we got from the royal family is (1) somebody that gets involved in sex assaults against children, (2) somebody whose main achievement is having cheated repeatedly on his wife and (3) a TikTok influencer that writes books about freezing his dick.
I’m not sure my taxes are well spent on this insanity.
My understanding is that the royal family is financially a net benefit for the UK for several reasons.
1) The royal family leases most of it's belongings (from land for farming to museums/castles) and that's a 300M+ pounds benefit for the British government. The crown gives back more than it takes (40M pounds/year). If you removed them from power, why would they have to do so anymore? Like it or not, it's still their personal belongings and you would also need to confiscate those.
2) The royal family drives a lot of gossip business. It's a very huge industry on which many indulge out of boredom/curiosity that gets no parallel among other VIPs. Thousands of people's livelihood depend on that.
3) Apparently it's a huge bonus/benefit for tourism. I can't find the source but most tourists find it more interesting that real nobles and monarchs live in British castles. Goes without saying that the monarchy is also essentially a tourist attraction with all it's traditions/parades/coronations in London.
Essentially the Crown is more of a financial benefit to the UK than the opposite.
- Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism.
- Gossip magazines are not the most desirable industry who need to be boosted by the government. But in any case, they are very adaptable and can just as well write about other celebrities. I doubt their business would shrink just because they write more about George Clooney and less about Prince William.
- You're first point is puzzling. Where does the royal family get money to pay the lease? Isn't that also either directly or indirectly from the state anyway?
> "Like it or not, it's still their personal belongings and you would also need to confiscate those."
As long as they fully pay taxes (multiple dwellings, appreciation), maintenance and security out of their own pockets (like everybody else does) - as opposed to having all of that fully subsidized by the British public - I don't think anybody is going to have a problem with that.
Also, the claim that those are all "their personal belongings" is contestable. You could easily make the case that at it all belongs to the British people (as it's being funded, maintained, guarded and paid-for by the British people).
I've heard several times the argument that they run a clown shitshow that produces lots of money (which is your points 2 and 3), and usually my retort is that another Champions League would look less classist, trickle down more wealth and entertain more people. Maybe a Love Island or a Big Brother edition with Kylie Minogue, Cristiano Ronaldo, Andrew Windsor and some child celebrity would be more interesting and produce more money.
Point 1 is debatable, there's lots of data that suggest they are a net cost (such as a recent investigation of the Guardian).
The Crown Estate and its revenues should really be excluded from costs/benefits. It is effectively the State, not their personal property, and I suspect that if the Monarchy was abolished the only change to it would be the name.
This is hyperbole. The monarchy has many problems but it seems Charles' principal failing is that he isn't as "hip" as his sons, despite being way ahead of his time on awareness of environmental issues. Every other argument against him you could easily level at any public official.
And please remember (if you were around at the time) that Diana was the mistress of media manipulation.
Fine, but Diana was not just a failure in herself, she was first and foremost a failure of the so-called royal family. Again, their job is to not behave like total idiots, which includes choosing partners that don't go mad if they are not cuddled enough.
You're going to have to pay for a head of state anyway so this isn't a great argument, and I don't know where you've been for the last decade if you don't think similar levels insanity exist with elected leaders too.
The monarchy is flawed, but at least provides a stable and apolitical head of state.
I think the term "sexual assault" covers everything from slapping someone's butt all the way to much worse. Epstein and his pedo island is towards the nightmare end of the spectrum for the kids involved.
For most Brits, at least by my estimation, have fairly complicated feelings towards the Monarchy that often cannot really be expressed. Many Brits aren't monarchists but 'Elizabethans', but now that the Queen has passed, those complicated feelings that were kept at bay by the public's genuine affection for the Queen are now rearing their head. The King, and I suppose the Royal Family in general, aren't doing themselves any favours either. That being said, we aren't shown really any examples of good republicanism.
We know that a Monarchy is weird, that this is the 21st century, that a birthright to rule is medieval... but what's the alternative? No really, what's the alternative? We look at America with its independent, co-equal executive in horror. We don't want that. And then we look at France, whose President just forced through a rise in the retirement age against the will of the Parliament. We don't want that either. Having an elected President inherently means that they'll have a democratic mandate, so there'll always be questions of whether they should be granted more power, or whether the President has the mandate to exercise power. There's great usefulness to having a Head of State who's not involved in politics or policy. And yes, WE KNOW that it's not that simple, that the Monarchy has its claws in the legislative process to grant themselves shady opt-outs to tax laws and such, we know this. We just need to be shown what a good republic looks like and then be able to actually make the change to the law without it being moulded in favour of whoever was in Government at the time. We are literally facing deterioration of our Human Rights. You think the Government wont go after the most fundamental parts of our constitution once they know it's on the chopping block? The Monarchy is the very last protection we have against a tyrannical government, as weird as that may sound. People who want the Government to remove that need to have a very convincing argument.
There's always the option of having a (largely) ceremonial president, usually elected by a non-standing representative body which is quite common in central Europe. It retains the role of a non-political head of state who represents the constitutional order and in theory even has quite a few powers should things go south, but without all the monarchy, blood based lineage, and pomp that at this point I think undermines the legitimacy these institutions have.
Monarchy even if in many countries still around and reasonably popular is in my opinion on life support without any sort of modern justification for its existence. The Economist a while ago had a good column how the drama within the British Royal family with Megan and Harry is essentially a 'all that is solid will melt into air' moment as the family itself is gradually absorbed into something more like capitalist American celebrity-dom.
But most importantly are proud in unity of the big and independent Empire that is so influential in most of the UK. Or British Isles minus Ireland. Or Great Britain without some folks in Scotland. Or Englad + Wales. Difficult to follow what is what and where and why and who. Nevertheless, this amount of pride mandates a Brexit. Or maybe even two.
Not being funny, but 'elected' has lost some of the properties it used to be associated with. For example, the UK parliament consist of elected MPs - in theory, representing their constituents. In practice, they are 'whipped' by their party into however the government wants them to vote - often against the will of the constituents that elected them.
Another example is the Mayor of London, elected - but instituting wildly unpopular plans like extending the ULEZ zone despite the fact that it will not improve air quality, will push the cost of living in and around London higher and will cost more to implement than it raises in revenue.
What is the purpose of electing people who will then do as they please?
ULEZ did improve air quality in central London - owing to the large concentration of cars. I'd say probably strong incentives for non-gas vehicles helped also (exemptions from Congestion Charge, reduced parking fees in certain boroughs, etc)
The ULEZ 'extension' is different. It extends ULEZ to areas on the outskirts of London (the suburbs). There are a number of problems with this:
* Public transport options not as great, so car ownership is far higher. Lots of commuters (that either have to travel to surrounding areas or commute in from nearby).
* The area is not as densely populated as the central areas and there are more highways and things designed to support greater volumes of traffic.
* The costs are high (daily £12.50)
* From 2030, all new cars in the UK will be non-gas. The shift is already gaining momentum so naturally through incentives those that can afford to move to an EV are doing so. TfL's own analysis shows that the scheme will cost more to rollout than the revenue it generates.
Also, I detest the 'pulling at heart strings' approach taken to justify this extension. It is akin to the people who want to break E2E encryption and privacy crying 'think of the children' - the basis is not logically sound.
The point of elected people is that if the majority disapproves of their actions they will vote them out at the following election. IMO, the system is not so much about guaranteeing 'good' people are elected but rather about guaranteeing that 'bad' people have a limited expiry date.
This is especially valid for someone lie the Mayor of London, who is directly elected and has power individually, so ultimately Londoners will decide. Currently I suspect that Labour is safe, and that they know it.
Yea, I agree with you on this. It just sucks when the options available involve trying to guess which candidates are the 'lesser evil' rather than the 'greater good'.
But to dig down into the point, if it is to avoid 'bad' people, then the reasoning is questionable as far as the monarchy go. They have very limited powers as things stand and their economic impact from things like tourism has been greater than the cost of maintaining them. I doubt very much anyone will want to visit the UK to see an elected monarch.
Public sentiments regarding the monarchy have been massaged over the centuries via the British media which is also utterly entangled in the City. It's all one giant mutual interest collective which practises tax evasion on a galactic scale.
I'd recommend picking up a copy of "Treasure Islands" by Nicholas Shaxson. Chapter 12 ("Griffin") focuses on the City and I'd also recommend viewing the reactions to any anti-monarchy campaign through this lens.
Lots of coverage around the time of the Queen's death and unsurprisingly in the news now given the coronation. Little to no media coverage at any other time and has very little public support albeit growing support in certain demographics.
In all fairness, the elected officials of the past 10-15+ years have been awful in so many ways. Ineffective, populist, law-breaking, corrupt and laughing in the face of law. That's mostly Tories, but I don't seem to remember much love for Tony Blair.
End of Monarchy - maybe. But replacing it with elected officials doesn't sound like an improvement.
Readit News
I’m not sure my taxes are well spent on this insanity.
1) The royal family leases most of it's belongings (from land for farming to museums/castles) and that's a 300M+ pounds benefit for the British government. The crown gives back more than it takes (40M pounds/year). If you removed them from power, why would they have to do so anymore? Like it or not, it's still their personal belongings and you would also need to confiscate those.
2) The royal family drives a lot of gossip business. It's a very huge industry on which many indulge out of boredom/curiosity that gets no parallel among other VIPs. Thousands of people's livelihood depend on that.
3) Apparently it's a huge bonus/benefit for tourism. I can't find the source but most tourists find it more interesting that real nobles and monarchs live in British castles. Goes without saying that the monarchy is also essentially a tourist attraction with all it's traditions/parades/coronations in London.
Essentially the Crown is more of a financial benefit to the UK than the opposite.
- Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism.
- Gossip magazines are not the most desirable industry who need to be boosted by the government. But in any case, they are very adaptable and can just as well write about other celebrities. I doubt their business would shrink just because they write more about George Clooney and less about Prince William.
- You're first point is puzzling. Where does the royal family get money to pay the lease? Isn't that also either directly or indirectly from the state anyway?
As long as they fully pay taxes (multiple dwellings, appreciation), maintenance and security out of their own pockets (like everybody else does) - as opposed to having all of that fully subsidized by the British public - I don't think anybody is going to have a problem with that.
Also, the claim that those are all "their personal belongings" is contestable. You could easily make the case that at it all belongs to the British people (as it's being funded, maintained, guarded and paid-for by the British people).
Point 1 is debatable, there's lots of data that suggest they are a net cost (such as a recent investigation of the Guardian).
And please remember (if you were around at the time) that Diana was the mistress of media manipulation.
The monarchy is flawed, but at least provides a stable and apolitical head of state.
Dead Comment
We know that a Monarchy is weird, that this is the 21st century, that a birthright to rule is medieval... but what's the alternative? No really, what's the alternative? We look at America with its independent, co-equal executive in horror. We don't want that. And then we look at France, whose President just forced through a rise in the retirement age against the will of the Parliament. We don't want that either. Having an elected President inherently means that they'll have a democratic mandate, so there'll always be questions of whether they should be granted more power, or whether the President has the mandate to exercise power. There's great usefulness to having a Head of State who's not involved in politics or policy. And yes, WE KNOW that it's not that simple, that the Monarchy has its claws in the legislative process to grant themselves shady opt-outs to tax laws and such, we know this. We just need to be shown what a good republic looks like and then be able to actually make the change to the law without it being moulded in favour of whoever was in Government at the time. We are literally facing deterioration of our Human Rights. You think the Government wont go after the most fundamental parts of our constitution once they know it's on the chopping block? The Monarchy is the very last protection we have against a tyrannical government, as weird as that may sound. People who want the Government to remove that need to have a very convincing argument.
Monarchy even if in many countries still around and reasonably popular is in my opinion on life support without any sort of modern justification for its existence. The Economist a while ago had a good column how the drama within the British Royal family with Megan and Harry is essentially a 'all that is solid will melt into air' moment as the family itself is gradually absorbed into something more like capitalist American celebrity-dom.
Another example is the Mayor of London, elected - but instituting wildly unpopular plans like extending the ULEZ zone despite the fact that it will not improve air quality, will push the cost of living in and around London higher and will cost more to implement than it raises in revenue.
What is the purpose of electing people who will then do as they please?
The ULEZ 'extension' is different. It extends ULEZ to areas on the outskirts of London (the suburbs). There are a number of problems with this:
* Public transport options not as great, so car ownership is far higher. Lots of commuters (that either have to travel to surrounding areas or commute in from nearby).
* The area is not as densely populated as the central areas and there are more highways and things designed to support greater volumes of traffic.
* The costs are high (daily £12.50)
* From 2030, all new cars in the UK will be non-gas. The shift is already gaining momentum so naturally through incentives those that can afford to move to an EV are doing so. TfL's own analysis shows that the scheme will cost more to rollout than the revenue it generates.
Also, I detest the 'pulling at heart strings' approach taken to justify this extension. It is akin to the people who want to break E2E encryption and privacy crying 'think of the children' - the basis is not logically sound.
This is especially valid for someone lie the Mayor of London, who is directly elected and has power individually, so ultimately Londoners will decide. Currently I suspect that Labour is safe, and that they know it.
But to dig down into the point, if it is to avoid 'bad' people, then the reasoning is questionable as far as the monarchy go. They have very limited powers as things stand and their economic impact from things like tourism has been greater than the cost of maintaining them. I doubt very much anyone will want to visit the UK to see an elected monarch.
[1] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/new-history-lond...
Public sentiments regarding the monarchy have been massaged over the centuries via the British media which is also utterly entangled in the City. It's all one giant mutual interest collective which practises tax evasion on a galactic scale.
I'd recommend picking up a copy of "Treasure Islands" by Nicholas Shaxson. Chapter 12 ("Griffin") focuses on the City and I'd also recommend viewing the reactions to any anti-monarchy campaign through this lens.
Lots of coverage around the time of the Queen's death and unsurprisingly in the news now given the coronation. Little to no media coverage at any other time and has very little public support albeit growing support in certain demographics.
End of Monarchy - maybe. But replacing it with elected officials doesn't sound like an improvement.