4 ms·

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

by mmarq 3y ago

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.

FredPret 3y ago
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.
kypro 3y ago
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.
epolanski 3y ago
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.
- csmpltn 3y ago
  > "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).
  - drcongo 3y ago
    I would be perfectly happy with the confiscate option too.
  - AndrewDucker 3y ago
    I'm fine with it - because given a couple of generations inheritance tax will take most of it off of them.
  - epolanski 3y ago
    > The royal family collects fees from The Sovereign Grant Act, a taxpayer fund that is used to maintain royal palaces and royal duties such as receptions and travel. > The Sovereign Grant for 2022 to 2023 is just under $100 million. Payments are based on profits from the Crown Estate, a property business that is owned by the monarch but runs independently Essentially most of the crown belongings are managed by the government and the royal family gets 15% of it, with the remaining 85% going to the British citizens. But to say that average briton spends a single penny on the royal family is technically wrong.
  - lou1306 3y ago
    > As long as they fully pay taxes Yeah about that, you may want to look into the Duchy of Lancaster. A huge holding whose owner (aka the sovereign) only pays income tax because they want to, and which has not been subject to inheritance tax. https://news.sky.com/story/why-king-charles-wont-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax-on-duchy-of-lancaster-estate-12695884 https://news.sky.com/story/why-king-charles-wont-have-to-pay...
kitd 3y ago
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.
- mmarq 3y ago
  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.
_2uwr 3y ago
[dead]

by mmarq 3y ago

FredPret 3y ago

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.

kypro 3y ago

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.

epolanski 3y ago

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.

csmpltn 3y ago
> "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).
- drcongo 3y ago
  I would be perfectly happy with the confiscate option too.
- AndrewDucker 3y ago
  I'm fine with it - because given a couple of generations inheritance tax will take most of it off of them.
- epolanski 3y ago
  > The royal family collects fees from The Sovereign Grant Act, a taxpayer fund that is used to maintain royal palaces and royal duties such as receptions and travel. > The Sovereign Grant for 2022 to 2023 is just under $100 million. Payments are based on profits from the Crown Estate, a property business that is owned by the monarch but runs independently Essentially most of the crown belongings are managed by the government and the royal family gets 15% of it, with the remaining 85% going to the British citizens. But to say that average briton spends a single penny on the royal family is technically wrong.
- lou1306 3y ago
  > As long as they fully pay taxes Yeah about that, you may want to look into the Duchy of Lancaster. A huge holding whose owner (aka the sovereign) only pays income tax because they want to, and which has not been subject to inheritance tax. https://news.sky.com/story/why-king-charles-wont-have-to-pay-inheritance-tax-on-duchy-of-lancaster-estate-12695884 https://news.sky.com/story/why-king-charles-wont-have-to-pay...

kitd 3y ago

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.

mmarq 3y ago
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.

_2uwr 3y ago

[dead]