This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
After the obvious discussion last night about the monarchy I just googled this in various combinations of words . It could be me but guess what ? Whatever one’s views about “them” shouldn’t this be a simple matter of public record ?
Post edited at 07:56
5
4
In reply to mike123:
Civil list ended a decade ago, it's now a sovereign grant. In effect the Queen gets 15% of the profit all the state owned assets make, the treasury takes the other 85%. Most of the budget she receives relates to travel. Yes, she has her own assets too.
https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2020-21
Post edited at 08:24
13
In reply to ExiledScot: apologies , I replied to your post and have just deleted my reply while trying to edit it, due to fat fingers . Thanks for the link which does answer my question . So …. Why do I have give one the richest women in the country 77 p to help paint her house and fly in private jets ? My now deleted post made reference to a posh paedophile . I’m uncomfortable with giving a posh person a small fraction of my 77p , alleged paedoohile or not .
10
18
In reply to mike123:
In a fit of republican pique this weekend, I did some research and calcs.
My search give me £1.50 per annum for a typical tax payer. That's £60 over a 49yr career.
For that, I have received 5 additional bank.hols in my lifetime. I am expecting another for the inevitable.
That's £10 per day off, a double figure return on investment for most.
I am sold.
God Save The Queen.
62
1
In reply to mike123:
I think the transport costs are very revealing. Looking at how it's reported, anything under £15,000 (!) for a single trip isn't considered worthy of note. I fully understand that a head of state or senior government figures need to travel for work but taking helicopters for lots of short trips isn't a good look. Certainly undermines their preaching on environmental issues (which are important, but people in glass houses...).
4
8
In reply to mike123:
> apologies , I replied to your post and have just deleted my reply while trying to edit it, due to fat fingers . Thanks for the link which does answer my question . So …. Why do I have give one the richest women in the country 77 p to help paint her house and fly in private jets ?
In terms of the Queen think of her as an ambassador for global Britain and our best chance of decent trade deals following the shambles that was and is brexit.
Boris and others have been headliners globally because of party gate, that likely doesn't go down well and earn respect. That single image of the Queen sat on her own at Phillip's funeral likely earned more kudos than the entire cabinet will have in their lives.
Post edited at 11:59
30
1
In reply to Presley Whippet:
> In a fit of republican pique this weekend, I did some research and calcs.
> My search give me £1.50 per annum for a typical tax payer. That's £60 over a 49yr career.
> For that, I have received 5 additional bank.hols in my lifetime. I am expecting another for the inevitable.
> That's £10 per day off, a double figure return on investment for most.
Is this very subtle sarcasm or a totally asinine comment?
1
5
In reply to mike123:
The cost is that there are positions in the UK to which not every child can aspire.
14
6
In reply to ExiledScot:
Threads about the worthwhileness of the monarchy seem to come up pretty regularly on UKC. The last time I read part of one and read a couple of pages, it seemed like the Tourism generated by the royal family existing was quite an important thing to consider.
I would have to say that the queen has done a sterling job of playing the part of a dignified statesperson for a few centuries now and amongst all the dross and occasionally newsworthy stuff that comes out bashing royals and the monarchy, I can't remember anything I heard that sounded bad related to the queen herself (unless you believe she got Diana killed, which I don't). I just wish the same could be said of the rest of the royals. I do wonder whether whomever comes next can even come close to reaching the bar where she has set it (which is no small feat in the age of information overload and famous person stalking by the press that we live in).
I definitely think the royals outside of the immediate family should be cut loose to fend for themselves, I could be persuaded otherwise by a good statistical argument but as of right now, I tend to believe that random dukes/duchesses of whatever don't contribute anything of great cultural or monetary value.
4
In reply to elsewhere:
> The cost is that there are positions in the UK to which not every child can aspire.
Telling every child that they can do anything if they just try hard enough is a blatant lie. It's good to encourage children to surpass their own expectations, try new things, etc. but it's healthy to temper this with realism about what a specific child is capable of. I would say the limits apply mostly to jobs (or "jobs") where there are an extremely small number of positions and getting one of those either requires you to have an exceptional skill/quality or to be incredibly lucky in addition to the huge amount of hard work.
21
8
In reply to mike123:
There are other costs for example the unknown security costs.
But cost and cost / benefit is really nothing to do with whether or not we have a monarchy.
People go on about how amazing The Queen is without noting all the instances where the Royal Family have intervened in legislation, in their own favour or how we very nearly had a fascist monarch with the delightful Edward VIII. As it is we will have a fully paid up twit.
12
3
In reply to henwardian:
The limits should be the child's limits rather than the limited by parentage.
Post edited at 12:45
18
1
In reply to henwardian:
> I definitely think the royals outside of the immediate family should be cut loose to fend for themselves, I could be persuaded otherwise by a good statistical argument but as of right now, I tend to believe that random dukes/duchesses of whatever don't contribute anything of great cultural or monetary value.
An heir plus a spare. It's tough as it is character driven, Anne is everything Andrew isn't.
The future, siblings can all fend for themselves, and hopefully do a better job of it than Harry. They won't survive after the Queen if they aren't seen to streamline things in a major way.
2
1
In reply to Tyler:
> Is this very subtle sarcasm or a totally asinine comment?
It is evidence based thinking. My analysis may well be incorrect, I have not verified any sources. It was a simple, "I wonder" Google.
£10 per day off is an absolute bargain, it is double figure ROI for most. Even if I discount 2 of the days off because they occurred before I was a tax payer, it still represents great value for money.
Whilst I still feel that a state funded royal family is wrong, I recognise that I am not going to change that and I am happy with the benefits.
9
In reply to elsewhere:
> The limits should be the child's limits rather than the limited by parentage.
I agree with that. Not that the UK is anything like a mertitocratic society. I can think of a huge number of more impactful and meaningful changes I would make before abolishing the royal family if the aim was to "give everyone the best shot in life" type of thing.
5
1
In reply to elsewhere:
> The limits should be the child's limits rather than the limited by parentage.
Parentage will always limit the child. There are huge numbers of kids who won't even enter further education or end up doing better than a low wage, zero hours job due to the limits that parents, (and even their teachers), put on them. “University is for rich kids, not the likes of us”, “Don't even bother applying for that job, you're too thick” etc, etc, etc.
The idea kids from council estates are held back from achievement because they can't become Empress of India or whatever is nonsense. There are plenty of real barriers to eliminate before even considering the monarchy.
15
1
In reply to henwardian:
> I would have to say that the queen has done a sterling job of playing the part of a dignified statesperson for a few centuries now
She’s old, but not that old!
6
In reply to Ridge:
I don't think it's always parents holding kids back. Sometimes that household desperately needs another working adult to stay afloat, they are trapped in some multi generational minimum wage loop. The lack of apprenticeships and the addition of tuition fees just add to it, there is no escape. The notion of chasing a scholarship for their child is beyond many parents imagination.
1
In reply to freeheel47:
> People go on about how amazing The Queen is without noting all the instances where the Royal Family have intervened in legislation, in their own favour
Indeed. The vast majority of British citizens fondly imagine that the monarch's sole role in government is to rubber-stamp legislation which has been passed by Parliament. Very few are aware of the process known as "Queen's consent" by which she, and Prince Charles, have the power to vet, and lobby for changes to, legislation before it is passed by Parliament. See: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-100... and other articles in that series (including one by Andy Wightman). There is also evidence of Royal interference with legislation in the draft stage, before Parliament even sees it.
From https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/how-queens-consent-raises-q...:
In its present incarnation, the procedure is supposed to apply to two categories of laws. The first are those that affect the fundamental powers of state known as the royal prerogative, such as the ability to declare war or conduct foreign affairs. While formally such powers are vested in the person of the monarch, in practice they are exercised by the government.
The second category of laws in which consent is invoked is those affecting the revenues, assets or interests of the crown, principally referring to the historical landholdings known as the crown estate, the Queen’s estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, and Prince Charles’s estate, the Duchy of Cornwall.
Current guidance from government lawyers states that this also encompasses properties owned by the Windsor family privately, such as Sandringham or Balmoral, as well as the Queen’s private investments.
5
5
In reply to Stuart Williams:
> She’s old, but not that old!
Been on the thrown for 464 years as far as I can make out. That's a good few centuries.
Ofc there are liars out there who will tell you there were 2 Elizabeths but I don't give them much credence.
11
In reply to Ridge:
> The idea kids from council estates are held back from achievement because they can't become Empress of India or whatever is nonsense. There are plenty of real barriers to eliminate before even considering the monarchy.
The monarchy is a very symbolic peak of hereditary privilege. They manage to get working class people celebrating "long to reign over us".
Removing them would be a strong symbolic change, that could give society a push to start removing some of those barriers.
18
7
In reply to ExiledScot:
> In terms of the Queen think of her as an ambassador for global Britain and our best chance of decent trade deals following the shambles that was and is brexit.
Weren’t such negotiations delegated to the Duke of York?
1
In reply to Ciro:
> Removing them would be a strong symbolic change, that could give society a push to start removing some of those barriers.
What barriers would it remove?
6
3
In reply to elsewhere:
> The cost is that there are positions in the UK to which not every child can aspire.
And a good thing too, otherwise 'head of state' would have been on the achievable future career path for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, soon to be followed by Liz Truss.
Looking across the Atlantic, the Presidency doesn't seem to often go to the principled, honest but (financially) poor candidate.
5
1
In reply to NathanP:
>otherwise 'head of state' would have been on the achievable future career path for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, soon to be followed by Liz Truss.
Phew we dodged a bullet there then didnt we. Luckily Johnson could only become PM and so have no influence.
> Looking across the Atlantic, the Presidency doesn't seem to often go to the principled, honest but (financially) poor candidate.
And yet we could look at Germany and Ireland amongst others for examples of the ceremonial head of state.
7
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Hmm, a story in a paper that was a cheerleader for Hitler AT THAT PERIOD
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opinion/revealed-the-extent-of-the-daily-...
"Hurrah for the Blackshirts"
Post edited at 09:06
1
In reply to wercat:
I like the idea that even the mail thinks Edward VIII was traitorous scum. An extra irony.
Post edited at 09:19
3
In reply to Presley Whippet:
> £10 per day off is an absolute bargain, it is double figure ROI for most. Even if I discount 2 of the days off because they occurred before I was a tax payer, it still represents great value for money.
Well it would be if your basic premise wasn’t wrong. In your scenario £60 goes to the Royal Family from your tax, the govt decides what bank holidays to legislate for and employers pick up the tab. If the most important thing is the extra bank holidays we can have them without the royal family, the Queen doesn’t decide when you get a day off!
I also recognise that I’ve allowed myself to be triggered by a throw away comment and now can’t easily back down so yeah, god save the Queen and thanks for the days off Liz, same again next year?
Post edited at 09:48
2
In reply to Presley Whippet:
> My search give me £1.50 per annum for a typical tax payer. That's £60 over a 49yr career.
> For that, I have received 5 additional bank.hols in my lifetime. I am expecting another for the inevitable.
> That's £10 per day off, a double figure return on investment for most.
This is great reasoning. I like it.
1
In reply to Tyler:
Agreed but without the royals, would the government have any reason to give additional bhs?
In reply to Presley Whippet:
> In a fit of republican pique this weekend, I did some research and calcs.
> My search give me £1.50 per annum for a typical tax payer. That's £60 over a 49yr career.
> For that, I have received 5 additional bank.hols in my lifetime. I am expecting another for the inevitable.
Ah, but after the revolution we could add our very own Bastille day to the rostra of public holidays.
Off with her head.
8
In reply to Max factor:
I like your style.
2
In reply to Max factor:
> Ah, but after the revolution we could add our very own Bastille day to the rostra of public holidays.
Said BH would only be available to those amongst us left alive after the traditional bloodbath that has accompanied virtually every overthrow of a monarchy.
Equally, so many of these overthrows have just replaced a monarchy with a different family/party that controls with even greater "diligence" - if you need an example just look at Russia.
3
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> What barriers would it remove?
I didn't say it would remove any barriers, I said it "could give society a push to start removing some of those barriers."
The royal family is the most prominent symbol of hereditary privilege in the UK - getting rid of them might help us examine why we tug our forelocks to hereditary peers, allow one small school to produce most of our political leaders, and run our national economy for the benefit of a city economy dominated by the graduates from a select handful of schools and universities.
I wouldn't hold my breath for an immediate change upon getting rid of the monarchy, but a fish rots from the head down, so chopping off the head might be a good start
6
5
In reply to Ciro:
That all seems cheerfully optimistic, we get rid of the monarchy, your forelock-tugging proclivities and Eton disappear and we all live happily ever after.
4
3
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> That all seems cheerfully optimistic, we get rid of the monarchy, your forelock-tugging proclivities and Eton disappear and we all live happily ever after.
I guess English comprehension isn't your strong point.
5
3
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...