Constitutional Monarchy rules OK.
Well done Ma'am.

 

I'm actually a fan of the Queen and I agree with comments that they generate a lot of tourism income for this country.

I also believe Will and Kate will possibly surpass that as they have a royal / celebrity status.

I was merely questioning the comment that they pay their own way, the taxpayer puts a lot of money into the Royal Family, so whilst they do generate a lot for us they certainly don't pay their own way.

 

Going completely Republican would almost certainly end up costing the country a lot more in lost tourism revenue than it would save in taxpayers' money, studies have proved this time and time again. That's quite beside the fact that it would be pandering to the crassest gesture-politics agenda in any case.

Massively scaling back the headcount of Royals who are supported by the public purse on the other hand, so that for example only first-line relatives of the reigning monarch get security service escorts everywhere they go, or a stately home to live in rent-free with all expenses paid, might be a different story altogether. It would strike exactly the right balance between maintaining tradition, and demonstrating that the country is moving and thinking forwards, IMO.

 

The tax payer put a lot less money than they generate, so they are remarkably good value for money.

The Civil List costs a paltry £7million a year, the cost of security is unknown, but is still small compared to the revenue they generate.

The Crown Estate (the estate the Monarch agreed to release the revenues from in return for the Civil List) generated £230 for HM Treasury in 2010/2011.

Add to that the unquantifiable amount that tourism brings, the Royal Family indeed makes very good financial sense.

If you want to be a republican because you think that monarchs are an outdated concept, fair enough, but there is no financial argument against them whatsoever.

Geezer

 

Reference please?

 

The Civil List is like their expenses - the depth of expenditure to maintain the Royal Family is far more extensive through indirect expenditure.

The Crown estate argument is irrelevant - many landed gentry have hefty tax bills. Queen, or not Queen, owning some massive lumps of land in the UK and running much of it commercial will raise revenue for HM Treasury.

 

I'm a pragmatic monarchist.

It works fairly well and provides political stability.

Can you imagine what chaos and damage someone like Blair could have done if he had become President/head of state?

 

You mean the Monarchy should do that or it is a good reason to go to a Republic?

To be honest I would rather keep the Royal estates as they are. We only have so much family silver to flog, and if you mean the Monarchy should run them commercially then no thanks; the Queen is the sovereign not a fly by night Dragon den wannbe. Seriously bad idea for teh Monarchy to become a business.

 

I think neither.

The Crown Estates are heritage - no doubting that - but the revenue they generate is not because we have a Queen. Ergo it is neutral to the pro-royal or republic argument.

I can see benefits of royalty, however I generally feel like a republican.

 

Vs. what would a president cost?

The answer is less, but that wont satisfy the petty republicans and class warriors.

 

PMSL

 

Thanks for the extra long bank holiday weekend!

 

Another assertion - where are the facts?

I am not sure that basing it solely on the US presidency is valid

 

The great Royalist debate,


Hang 'em or shoot 'em?

 

What's the difference?

 

Since you don't seem capable of using Google yourself:


"In France, Nicolas Sarkozy set an annual budget for his establishment at the Elysée of 110 million euros (£90 million). Last year, the French head of state's expenses were audited for the first time since the reign of Louis XVI; it revealed a flower bill of 275,809 euros and 3,000 euros in fines for late payment of electricity and gas."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-Britain.html

 

She has no say in anything anyway. What decisions does she actually make? Which maid shall wipe my wrinkly **** today?

 

That's kind of the whole point, isn't it. If we did switch to a presidential system, the odds are that the has-been politicos who would invariably find their way into office would try their damndest to rig things so they'd get to have their say on all kinds of stuff. At least with a monarchy, you know the head of state will just button it and smile for the cameras

 

Constitutional Monarchy is an effective system of governance so my guess is that the republicans on the thread have a very shallow British heritage and are simply jealous of the accomplishments of the Empire. Probably have their roots in a plot we leased like Hong Kong or some piddling outpost of the Commonwealth like Australia or New Zealand.

 

You may 'mock':-

Groom of the Stool

 

And you think the monarchy only cost £7.9m?

 

I am sure Queen is far more subtle, however the actions of Charles in blocking a huge property development in London, because he did not like it, are an example of egregious abuse of an undemocratic position. There are many examples of interventions by Charles, our future monarch.

The Queen is just more experienced.

 

Whether or not she makes any decisions on the day to day running of the country or not, the knowledge that we have royalty there could be comforting to some degree. In the event of some sort of political crisis or armageddon situation, where all faith is lost in the political class, a royal family could, in theory, be a sort of guarantor of stability, acting briefly to calm or settle things down - like a dictator, but one which ensures/restores rights rather than removing them. Just having someone there with a bit of resolve who doesn't get flustered easily, to look to when there's chaos, could make a real difference to people who don't know what to do.

We've had a very different history of royalty in this country. The idea that a monarch should serve the people (or that they actually want to, for whatever reason), and not the other way round, is a rarity.

 

If one were to generalise, one might guess that the Monarchists on this thread are simply living in a past, pining over a long lost empire. They probably have their roots in a plot that hangs of the coat tails of the US and that the tail is somehow wagging the dog.
Perhaps it makes them feel proud sucking up to some antiquated aristocracy that is basically a laughing stock.
Personally I couldn't care less one way or the other.
The money argument is totally irrelevant.
I suppose it is a quaint notion to have a queen and that is about it.

 

Aussie?

 

And what if they cost ten times that?

I hate to bring up the Edinburgh trams again... You're talking about, what, three quarters of a billion pounds for little or no benefit? And where else is there money being wasted in the same fashion to the same extent? The Olympics springs to mind for a start.

It doesn't justify a monarchy, but if someone is looking to make savings to the budget, tens of millions are pretty meagre by comparison. Look elsewhere first; politicians are obscene with resources.

 

pretty disrespectable to the 100's of thousands of commonwealth volunteer soldiers buried in war graves across Europe and the middle East (not withstanding the Far East)

but you don't dissapoint

 

Indeed - My point was more to test the rose tinted spectacles.

Just watched The Kings Speech again.

I love the film - and it highlights the nostalgic view of heritage as well as the absurdity of birthright.

 

Nice effort. New Zealand dual citizenship?

 

No, the same article I cited even says the total cost is just over £35m. But as that's still barely a third of what Sarkozy costs the French, you're obviously far happier pretending you hadn't notice the figure was right there staring at you