4 ms·

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

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 4y 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 4y ago
  I would be perfectly happy with the confiscate option too.
- AndrewDucker 4y ago
  I'm fine with it - because given a couple of generations inheritance tax will take most of it off of them.
- epolanski 4y 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 4y 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...
_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
I am skeptical. - 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?
- epolanski 4y ago
  > Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism. The correlation between "Castles being empty museums, or castles being also museums where real nobles live" is not easy to prove, just a sentiment from people that were asked the question. > Where does the royal family get money to pay the lease? Isn't that also either directly or indirectly from the state anyway? Nobles in UK are like any other private citizens with their own belongings, land, estate, etc. Changing the legal status of this, in particular of The Crown Estate is complex as de jure it belongs to the monarch by various rights till William the Conqueror. It should be noted that no tax payer money goes towards the Royal family, the Royal family gets 15% of the net income of the Crown Estate, a 15B private corporation that manages the belongings of the crown and ranges from rural houses, farming land, tourist attractions, equity in companies, etc. The remaining 85% of the income is spent by the British Parliament for the British citizens. The Crown Estate alone is more than a good reason to not get rid of the monarch to avoid the obvious privatization that would benefit the British citizens very little. Monarchy-related tourism on it's own is valued half a billion pounds. The monarchy moves people for events, celebrations, etc all around UK and the globe. I am not saying that Britain would be destroyed financially by losing the monarchy, but I would advocate that the current status quo works good for the monarchy and its citizens.
  - _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
    The Crown Estate is not private property of the King in the sense that Bill Gates owns his property. It would probably be a legal nightmare to untangle this, but it's hard for me to see how it would be bad for the british citizens if 100% of the profits instead of 85% of the profits would go to them.
mmarq 4y ago
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).
mytailorisrich 4y ago
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.

csmpltn 4y 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 4y ago
I would be perfectly happy with the confiscate option too.
AndrewDucker 4y ago
I'm fine with it - because given a couple of generations inheritance tax will take most of it off of them.
epolanski 4y 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 4y 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...

_fizz_buzz_ 4y ago

I am skeptical. - 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?

epolanski 4y ago
> Have you seen the lines in Versailles? No actual monarch, but definitely no lack of tourism. The correlation between "Castles being empty museums, or castles being also museums where real nobles live" is not easy to prove, just a sentiment from people that were asked the question. > Where does the royal family get money to pay the lease? Isn't that also either directly or indirectly from the state anyway? Nobles in UK are like any other private citizens with their own belongings, land, estate, etc. Changing the legal status of this, in particular of The Crown Estate is complex as de jure it belongs to the monarch by various rights till William the Conqueror. It should be noted that no tax payer money goes towards the Royal family, the Royal family gets 15% of the net income of the Crown Estate, a 15B private corporation that manages the belongings of the crown and ranges from rural houses, farming land, tourist attractions, equity in companies, etc. The remaining 85% of the income is spent by the British Parliament for the British citizens. The Crown Estate alone is more than a good reason to not get rid of the monarch to avoid the obvious privatization that would benefit the British citizens very little. Monarchy-related tourism on it's own is valued half a billion pounds. The monarchy moves people for events, celebrations, etc all around UK and the globe. I am not saying that Britain would be destroyed financially by losing the monarchy, but I would advocate that the current status quo works good for the monarchy and its citizens.
- _fizz_buzz_ 4y ago
  The Crown Estate is not private property of the King in the sense that Bill Gates owns his property. It would probably be a legal nightmare to untangle this, but it's hard for me to see how it would be bad for the british citizens if 100% of the profits instead of 85% of the profits would go to them.

mmarq 4y ago

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).

mytailorisrich 4y ago

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.