6 ms·

Stupid waste of time and money. We should abolish the damn monarchy once and for all, let them get a job like the government tells everybody else they must do.

by davedx 12y ago

Stupid waste of time and money. We should abolish the damn monarchy once and for all, let them get a job like the government tells everybody else they must do. Unfortunately I choose to migrate from one constitutional monarchy to another, which seems to have just as much fun with all the ceremonies, days off and drunken patriotism as back home. Peer Netherlands

seanalltogether 12y ago
I agree, but I imagine they'd have a hell of a time unweaving the multitude of agreements and concessions between the monarch and the government over the centuries. Give them back a bunch of assets and property to manage under private ownership and be equally taxed on and we'd have a fair start.
- arethuza 12y ago
  The whole financing of the Royals was updated fairly recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011
- waitwhat 12y ago
  The "bunch of assets" that the crown effectively surrendered in return for financial dependence on parliament is the Crown Estate, currently worth GBP 8.1 billion (USD 13.6 billion). They also pay tax: "In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." I also assume that she does minimal tax avoidance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxation.aspx http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxa...
  - robin_reala 12y ago
    She avoids the 40%-over-£325k inheritance tax normal people have to pay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_%28United_Kingdom%29#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_%28United_King...
acallaghan 12y ago
If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate about it can begin. We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on. The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
- alphadevx 12y ago
  Key difference I suppose is that President Hollande was elected. The French did not like Sarkozy anymore so they kicked him out at the last election. Bit more accountable that way, and it's not possible that you would be stuck with the same president for decades unlike monarchs.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  We probably wouldn't have a President Cameron , most republics separate the head of state from the head of parliament. The US system works differently altogether in this regard. We would probably have someone like Jeremy Clarkson as president.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of chief of state has from the functional head of government. Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
scrumper 12y ago
She has a job, mostly it comprises representing British interests at home and abroad in a very visible way. This article reflects another aspect of it. I encourage you to look here: https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/Todaysevents.aspx https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/To... where you can see exactly what they all get up to.
- alphadevx 12y ago
  Not a job she can get fired from, was hired to do, or is held accountable for etc...
  - cmdkeen 12y ago
    We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job. Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
    - signal11 12y ago
      Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free. So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch? [edit: grammar]
      - Naga 12y ago
        Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
Accacin 12y ago
I'm not sure that I agree. If you look at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw) you'll see just how much money they make for the UK. I'm also quite sure that most of the Royal Family do more work than most people do.
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  It's also worth saying that the "soft power" of a Royal Visit, not even the Queen, is immense. A visit from the US President is probably on par with a visit from the Queen in terms of soft power projection, no other head of state in the world would garner anything close. A visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge probably eclipses either. The goodwill benefit to the UK is immense. Taking the politics out of it is also very useful, see the recent state visit to Ireland, any elected British head of state would not have been able to produce such a meaningful and symbolic event.
mathattack 12y ago
I am with you in concept, and the idea of royalty seems crazy when the current generation has more in common with the Kardashians and Hiltons than anything seemingly royal. That said, I think it's ok to honor a deal of, "Walk away, and we let your offspring pretend they are important, and we won't expropriate your wealth." And as much of a shmuck Prince Harry seems to be, I respect that he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, where he knew he would be a target. That's more brave than any president that the US has seen in the past 20 years.
- jiggy2011 12y ago
  Prince Harry is only something like 4th in line to the throne though, they didn't let Prince William go to Afghanistan.
  - mathattack 12y ago
    Fair enough. I cite Harry because he's the one doing the dumbest things in his free time. (Though not that much worse than when I was 19)
rtkwe 12y ago
The monarchy actually saves the country money over all from just first layer income given to the country... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
sbmassey 12y ago
The replacement, given that people still believe in the idea of democracy, would be either elected by the people, or appointed by the political classes. Either way, they would be political insiders, and so would be identical to the Blairs and Camerons of this world. I would like to see the Monarchy take a more active role in the government of the country, but even without that they remain a theoretical counter to the foolishness of our current leadership.

by davedx 12y ago

seanalltogether 12y ago

I agree, but I imagine they'd have a hell of a time unweaving the multitude of agreements and concessions between the monarch and the government over the centuries. Give them back a bunch of assets and property to manage under private ownership and be equally taxed on and we'd have a fair start.

arethuza 12y ago
The whole financing of the Royals was updated fairly recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011
waitwhat 12y ago
The "bunch of assets" that the crown effectively surrendered in return for financial dependence on parliament is the Crown Estate, currently worth GBP 8.1 billion (USD 13.6 billion). They also pay tax: "In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." I also assume that she does minimal tax avoidance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxation.aspx http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxa...
- robin_reala 12y ago
  She avoids the 40%-over-£325k inheritance tax normal people have to pay: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_%28United_Kingdom%29#Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_Tax_%28United_King...

acallaghan 12y ago

If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate about it can begin. We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on. The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.

alphadevx 12y ago
Key difference I suppose is that President Hollande was elected. The French did not like Sarkozy anymore so they kicked him out at the last election. Bit more accountable that way, and it's not possible that you would be stuck with the same president for decades unlike monarchs.
jiggy2011 12y ago
We probably wouldn't have a President Cameron , most republics separate the head of state from the head of parliament. The US system works differently altogether in this regard. We would probably have someone like Jeremy Clarkson as president.
dragonwriter 12y ago
In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of chief of state has from the functional head of government. Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)

scrumper 12y ago

She has a job, mostly it comprises representing British interests at home and abroad in a very visible way. This article reflects another aspect of it. I encourage you to look here: https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/Todaysevents.aspx https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/To... where you can see exactly what they all get up to.

alphadevx 12y ago
Not a job she can get fired from, was hired to do, or is held accountable for etc...
- cmdkeen 12y ago
  We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job. Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
  - signal11 12y ago
    Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free. So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch? [edit: grammar]
    - Naga 12y ago
      Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.

Accacin 12y ago

I'm not sure that I agree. If you look at this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw) you'll see just how much money they make for the UK. I'm also quite sure that most of the Royal Family do more work than most people do.

cmdkeen 12y ago
It's also worth saying that the "soft power" of a Royal Visit, not even the Queen, is immense. A visit from the US President is probably on par with a visit from the Queen in terms of soft power projection, no other head of state in the world would garner anything close. A visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge probably eclipses either. The goodwill benefit to the UK is immense. Taking the politics out of it is also very useful, see the recent state visit to Ireland, any elected British head of state would not have been able to produce such a meaningful and symbolic event.

mathattack 12y ago

I am with you in concept, and the idea of royalty seems crazy when the current generation has more in common with the Kardashians and Hiltons than anything seemingly royal. That said, I think it's ok to honor a deal of, "Walk away, and we let your offspring pretend they are important, and we won't expropriate your wealth." And as much of a shmuck Prince Harry seems to be, I respect that he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, where he knew he would be a target. That's more brave than any president that the US has seen in the past 20 years.

jiggy2011 12y ago
Prince Harry is only something like 4th in line to the throne though, they didn't let Prince William go to Afghanistan.
- mathattack 12y ago
  Fair enough. I cite Harry because he's the one doing the dumbest things in his free time. (Though not that much worse than when I was 19)

rtkwe 12y ago

The monarchy actually saves the country money over all from just first layer income given to the country... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

sbmassey 12y ago

The replacement, given that people still believe in the idea of democracy, would be either elected by the people, or appointed by the political classes. Either way, they would be political insiders, and so would be identical to the Blairs and Camerons of this world. I would like to see the Monarchy take a more active role in the government of the country, but even without that they remain a theoretical counter to the foolishness of our current leadership.