advertisement


Prince Charles

So now you think that the G7 leaders won't bother attending if your queen is not there?

Not at all.

I think that the British Monarchy have had a role in the UK's relationships around the World and currently it's even more useful with a government that is not as popular with foreign nations.

You might not like the Monarchy but all of that history and tradition is popular elsewhere in the World and while the country can leverage off it, it should. Christ knows, we need every tool in the box to get us out of the current fix we're in.
 
If Brendan could be sent over to Iraq to negotiate the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe she might be worth some of the £bn’s of taxpayer money the monarchy costs
 
Maybe His Buffoon Highness could get his old job back.
Here seen negotiating a trade deal.

0gdrbdq0elb41.jpg
 
Not at all.

I think that the British Monarchy have had a role in the UK's relationships around the World and currently it's even more useful with a government that is not as popular with foreign nations.

You might not like the Monarchy but all of that history and tradition is popular elsewhere in the World and while the country can leverage off it, it should. Christ knows, we need every tool in the box to get us out of the current fix we're in.

Use a monarch to distract from the fact that the UK has an incompetent government. Are other governments that stupid?
 
If Brendan could be sent over to Iraq to negotiate the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe she might be worth some of the £bn’s of taxpayer money the monarchy costs

£85.9M, apparently. https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/accounts-show-royal-family-cost-20888759

Wouldn't be first on my list of priority savings to the Taxpayer.

Besides, for an estimated contribution to the UK ecoomy of £1.8 Bn pa, and keeping 508 people in work seems like a good return on investment already. https://www.statista.com/chart/11972/does-the-monarchy-benefit-the-uks-economy/
 
I wouldn't disagree entirely, but the Belgians, Danes, Dutch, Norwegians Spanish and Swedes may have a different view.

In some ways we jumped the gun with Oliver Cromwell.
To me, it always seemed that the monarchy in the UK was a reflection of a desire to retain a memory of great days now irrevocably past, no matter what Global Britain thinks. The continental monarchies, notably the Dutch and Nordics, are very much smaller scale, because they either had no empires or their empires have long since departed. The British one is within living memory - my late grandmother was born in the reign of Queen Victoria, when the Empire was at its height. Hence the British tendency to put the monarchy on a pedestal, and retain all the grandeur - they don't want Bets riding around the streets on a bike. Look at Bets's coronation - it was 1953, the UK was simply broke after 2 world wars, but they had to put on a major razzmataz. I wonder whether Charles's approaching coronation, given that the falling of London Bridge cannot be that far away, will be anything like so grand. Certainly all those colonial soldiers will be distinguished by their absence - see 1:03:00 here:

 
Last edited:
The trouble is that Cromwell and his mates only chopped off Charlie's head. They should have done a bit of ethnic cleansing with the aristocracy en masse. The French were much more thorough.

The French model worked well for nearly 100 years. Monarchs replaced by a short-lived republic, replaced by an emperor, replaced by monarchs, replaced by a president who then declared themselves emperor.

Seems to be a lot of absolute power vested in individuals there for a hundred years after Robespierre being a bit guillotine happy with regards to the Aristocracy.
 
Very attractive! No need to dress up with medals and decorations, no need to sit through long boring lunches. A "President" is much easier to manage, and you can change him if he's no good.

The main problem in abolishing the UK monarchy is you'd have to re-name everything; Royal Opera House, Royal Navy, RAF, RCMP, RSPCC, RSPCA, Royal Mail, it goes on for ever!
You can keep the fancy names and monikers.
Honni soit qui mal y pense!
(You may keep that too)
Royal places will still be nice museums to visit for tourists, you know the British heritage stuff we all love anyway.
 
Maybe, but at the moment, it's our Monarchy that plays a very significant role in keeping other countries wanting to remain engaged with us.

No Monarchy? Then your leader has meetings with the PM, Deputy PM and foreign secretary. How attractive to those outside the UK do you think that would look at the moment?
For the sake of argument, let's say that the monarchy is useful for diplomatic reasons. You'd need a modern, streamlined monarchy such as, say, monarchy in the Netherlands (there are probably better examples).

Our monarchy, on the other hand is an affront to democracy. There is no justification for the following. There should be a principle of equity in front of the law. What kind of society has one rule for them, another rule for us?

The monarchy has special tax rules, including exemption from Inheritance Tax for the Duchy of Lancaster and The Duchy of Cornwall.
Prince Philip's will is sealed for 90 years.
"The sovereign not only has immunity from prosecution, it has become accepted that he or she cannot be required to give evidence in court"
Exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (since 2010).

The monarchy, despite serving us, appears to be exempt from scrutiny.
 
£85.9M, apparently. https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/accounts-show-royal-family-cost-20888759

Wouldn't be first on my list of priority savings to the Taxpayer.

Besides, for an estimated contribution to the UK ecoomy of £1.8 Bn pa, and keeping 508 people in work seems like a good return on investment already. https://www.statista.com/chart/11972/does-the-monarchy-benefit-the-uks-economy/
Sorry but all of that is highly questionable. First of all the monarchy costs much more that the Sovereign grant, secondly the benefits are spurious. Tourism for example, Tourist don’t come to the UK because of the monarchy, France’s tourist industry is worth a lot more than ours, and they don’t have a monarchy.

Besides, even a non maths person like me can take a quick look at the numbers and seem they don’t add up. If the monarchy can demonstrate that it brings in £550m, say from gate receipts to their various residences, why not give up the £85m and live off the £550m in gate receipts?
 
£85.9M, apparently. https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/accounts-show-royal-family-cost-20888759

Wouldn't be first on my list of priority savings to the Taxpayer.

Besides, for an estimated contribution to the UK ecoomy of £1.8 Bn pa, and keeping 508 people in work seems like a good return on investment already. https://www.statista.com/chart/11972/does-the-monarchy-benefit-the-uks-economy/
These spurious official figures have been demolished many times. The most prominent researchers on this are Republic Campaign whose in-depth report reaches a conservative cost figure of £345m a year. Many costs are hidden in a warren of complications to deflect scrutiny. Money squirrelled away from scrutiny - such as the Royal 'investments' that turned up in the Panama Papers, aren't included in these figures. These people are thieves and layabouts.

https://www.youtube.com/c/RepublicCampaign/videos

The spurious claims about the Royal draw for tourism is dismembered in the video below. Whenever a mention in the popular press appears claiming Royal tourism boons, they are easily traced back to the 'source' articles which are always the same few who are dedicated to propagating this view to justify the Royal Family. The video most pertinent to this thread topic is 'The Man Who Shouldn't Be King' which documents the way Charles runs Cornwall like a private fiefdom.

 
King Farouk once stated that the the only Royals to survive would be Kings of Aces, Spades, Hearts, and Diamonds and our lot! To a degree the royal family survive because our politicians are too crappy to head a republic. They have no contact with Joe Public and all their mates are Lord and Lady Bunkup types.

Very difficult to think of an alternative for the job...perhaps Michael Caine or Dennis Skinner?

Throw things at them, of course not, but what an out dated system we have with the Hannover/ Windsor Kraut crew and Bettys favourite son of Pizza Hut, shooting parties and I do not know the girl fame.

Oh of course they bring in tourists!
 
The French model worked well for nearly 100 years. Monarchs replaced by a short-lived republic, replaced by an emperor, replaced by monarchs, replaced by a president who then declared themselves emperor.

Seems to be a lot of absolute power vested in individuals there for a hundred years after Robespierre being a bit guillotine happy with regards to the Aristocracy.

You have a point there!
 
The Monarchy and the Royals aren't going anywhere. They are, in essence, meta influencers for the country, and wield significant soft power both internationally and domestically. Rarely does a person decline an invite to Buckingham Palace. Forbes estimates they bring in £1.9 billion annually.
 


advertisement


Back
Top