12 ms·

Why are we talking about the 'Queen' like she's a private citizen who could cash out, and take all that money to a privately owned island in the Bahamas? Being

Why are we talking about the 'Queen' like she's a private citizen who could cash out, and take all that money to a privately owned island in the Bahamas? Being 'Queen' is a job. She's effectively the CEO of a company (which is why it's informally called 'the firm'). She also works hard and has worked hard as a key member of the firm all her life. Being upset at the Queen for being rich, is like being upset at the board members of an international bank. It's not her personal money, that she can take with her if she stopped being the Monarch, in fact she has less of an option to do that. The Monarchy does so much for this country via tourism and and international relations, that we'd be worse off without them. Calculations have proven that they MAKE money for the country despite the huge cost in keeping the institution running.

Symbiote 5y ago
> The Monarchy does so much for this country via tourism and and international relations, that we'd be worse off without them. This is the crap the royal family's press department churns out, to be repeated by fawning journalists trailing their every move. More tourists visit Paris than London. Unlike in London, they can go inside those palaces and see the art collections. The presidential guards in Athens or Moscow still do a ridiculous dance when they change shift, and Britain could keep their equivalent in a republic if it's what tourists want to see. Republics choose who represents them. If they want a conman with no respect for women, they can vote for Trump. They can change their minds and vote for someone else a few years later. Britain has Prince Andrew anyway.
- tialaramex 5y ago
  > Republics choose who represents them. If they want a conman with no respect for women, they can vote for Trump. Britain has Prince Andrew anyway. Liz doesn't represent us. Britain elected Boris and his crew of incompetents and liars to do that job. Liz is merely a symbol.
  - tim333 5y ago
    Liz does represent us a bit and doesn't do too bad a job. I find her less of an embarrassment than Boris, Theresa et al.
    - Symbiote 5y ago
      We don't know that. She is completely unaccountable. The British press is unwilling to criticize, and people who've discussed anything with her rarely discuss it with others. Princes Philip, Charles, Andrew and Harry have all been embarrassing, and they also represent Britain.
- andrepd 5y ago
  You're being downvoted but you're spot on. An hereditary monarchy is spitting in the face of democratic and liberal values.
  - hakfoo 5y ago
    There is a valid place for a figure who's a "spokesperson" for the country though. When there's a national disaster and we need someone to put on TV to provide calming words, when we want to organize charitable efforts, or send someone on tours to represent our interests, it's great to have a figure who can be brought out as a single trusted, respectable voice for the nation. This person, almost by nature, cannot be an elected official. The moment you drag a PM or President-- ANY PM or President-- into the role, you're going to have 40% of the population ignoring the message because of toxic political divisiveness. You've also got the factor that many of them are short-term players-- if you were a real-estate developer until 5 years ago, you don't necessarily develop the same people skills and self-presentation. In a way, having it be some sort of hereditary position works, because it's such a delicate job that you want a clear pipeline of people who can be developed for the job, trained for life, and kept "on call" for their turn. Now, you could argue there's a way to get this sort of service with better value for money, perhaps bringing in a similar role with some more republican-friendly title instead of an allusion to an old absolute monarchy, but I can see the value a figurehead monarch can provide. Elizabeth II has done, by any possible measure, a spectacular job in the spokesperson role for the country. Even the most ardent republicans generally don't dislike her on a personal level, and you can send her anywhere and be sure she won't cause an international incident.
    - Symbiote 5y ago
      You seem to assume a hereditary monarch will be universally respected and trusted, but a president won't be. That's not even the case for Elizabeth, and will be more difficult for Charles. I would accept Charles Windsor as president in a Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But he should compete against everyone else for the position — and if there's racism or interference in the legal process, we can kick him out.
djrobstep 5y ago
It's pure ideology to not consider the enormous capital income rich people receive as a cost. If the monarchy ended, the 25% of the Crown Estate the Queen currently receives could be kept by the government and used for schools, hospitals etc instead. And tourism would be unaffected, because all the old buildings etc would still be there just the same. Paris does fine for tourism in spite of a lack of royal family.
- anovikov 5y ago
  No, if monarchy ended, the Crown Estate would just become ex-royal family's private property. That was a condition of its formation in the XVIII century. Make no mistake - originally it WAS King's private property. It was only half-reverted to the State when the King (George III in particular) ran into serious financial difficulties.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    No it wouldn't - it is literally government property already, and would remain so. Why would the government transfer it to a private citizen that does not own it?
daniel-cussen 5y ago
She can always abdicate.
flir 5y ago
Monarchs before her paid tax. That deal is where a lot of her personal wealth came from. I believe that Victoria was actually in debt at the start of her reign. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/15/monarchy.stephenbates https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/15/monarchy.stephenb... Versailles is the most successful tourist attraction in Europe, with 10 million visitors per year. I'm confident that if we had the ability to fully open the Royal Palaces and make the whole of the Royal Collection available for public view, tourism would go up, not down. Viewed this way, they're a hindrance to the country making money not a help.

Symbiote 5y ago

> The Monarchy does so much for this country via tourism and and international relations, that we'd be worse off without them. This is the crap the royal family's press department churns out, to be repeated by fawning journalists trailing their every move. More tourists visit Paris than London. Unlike in London, they can go inside those palaces and see the art collections. The presidential guards in Athens or Moscow still do a ridiculous dance when they change shift, and Britain could keep their equivalent in a republic if it's what tourists want to see. Republics choose who represents them. If they want a conman with no respect for women, they can vote for Trump. They can change their minds and vote for someone else a few years later. Britain has Prince Andrew anyway.

tialaramex 5y ago
> Republics choose who represents them. If they want a conman with no respect for women, they can vote for Trump. Britain has Prince Andrew anyway. Liz doesn't represent us. Britain elected Boris and his crew of incompetents and liars to do that job. Liz is merely a symbol.
- tim333 5y ago
  Liz does represent us a bit and doesn't do too bad a job. I find her less of an embarrassment than Boris, Theresa et al.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    We don't know that. She is completely unaccountable. The British press is unwilling to criticize, and people who've discussed anything with her rarely discuss it with others. Princes Philip, Charles, Andrew and Harry have all been embarrassing, and they also represent Britain.
andrepd 5y ago
You're being downvoted but you're spot on. An hereditary monarchy is spitting in the face of democratic and liberal values.
- hakfoo 5y ago
  There is a valid place for a figure who's a "spokesperson" for the country though. When there's a national disaster and we need someone to put on TV to provide calming words, when we want to organize charitable efforts, or send someone on tours to represent our interests, it's great to have a figure who can be brought out as a single trusted, respectable voice for the nation. This person, almost by nature, cannot be an elected official. The moment you drag a PM or President-- ANY PM or President-- into the role, you're going to have 40% of the population ignoring the message because of toxic political divisiveness. You've also got the factor that many of them are short-term players-- if you were a real-estate developer until 5 years ago, you don't necessarily develop the same people skills and self-presentation. In a way, having it be some sort of hereditary position works, because it's such a delicate job that you want a clear pipeline of people who can be developed for the job, trained for life, and kept "on call" for their turn. Now, you could argue there's a way to get this sort of service with better value for money, perhaps bringing in a similar role with some more republican-friendly title instead of an allusion to an old absolute monarchy, but I can see the value a figurehead monarch can provide. Elizabeth II has done, by any possible measure, a spectacular job in the spokesperson role for the country. Even the most ardent republicans generally don't dislike her on a personal level, and you can send her anywhere and be sure she won't cause an international incident.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    You seem to assume a hereditary monarch will be universally respected and trusted, but a president won't be. That's not even the case for Elizabeth, and will be more difficult for Charles. I would accept Charles Windsor as president in a Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. But he should compete against everyone else for the position — and if there's racism or interference in the legal process, we can kick him out.

djrobstep 5y ago

It's pure ideology to not consider the enormous capital income rich people receive as a cost. If the monarchy ended, the 25% of the Crown Estate the Queen currently receives could be kept by the government and used for schools, hospitals etc instead. And tourism would be unaffected, because all the old buildings etc would still be there just the same. Paris does fine for tourism in spite of a lack of royal family.

anovikov 5y ago
No, if monarchy ended, the Crown Estate would just become ex-royal family's private property. That was a condition of its formation in the XVIII century. Make no mistake - originally it WAS King's private property. It was only half-reverted to the State when the King (George III in particular) ran into serious financial difficulties.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  No it wouldn't - it is literally government property already, and would remain so. Why would the government transfer it to a private citizen that does not own it?

daniel-cussen 5y ago

She can always abdicate.

flir 5y ago

Monarchs before her paid tax. That deal is where a lot of her personal wealth came from. I believe that Victoria was actually in debt at the start of her reign. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/15/monarchy.stephenbates https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/oct/15/monarchy.stephenb... Versailles is the most successful tourist attraction in Europe, with 10 million visitors per year. I'm confident that if we had the ability to fully open the Royal Palaces and make the whole of the Royal Collection available for public view, tourism would go up, not down. Viewed this way, they're a hindrance to the country making money not a help.