Is The Monarchy Worth Keeping?

[diamondBrg]

I certainly could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the income that the Royal Family gets does NOT come from the government/taxpayers of the UK, but rather from income generated by Royal property that has been in the Royal Family for generations?

Why does some of the British public feel entitled to participate in the PERSONAL aspects of their life?

I can see IF their is some problem with their PUBLIC DUTIES, but their private life?

Since all real political power, for all practical purposes, is vested in the House of Commons in the UK, the Monarch is really nothing more than a figurehead, right? I know the Monarch is regarded as the "Head of State" but again, doesn't the British Prime Minister actually represent the UK in foreign relations and matters, at least as far as what will actually transpire with British participation?

Honestly, I see an evolution where younger members of the Royal family are more and more willing to tell the public to kiss off.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

I certainly could be wrong, but it is my understanding that the income that the Royal Family gets does NOT come from the government/taxpayers of the UK, but rather from income generated by Royal property that has been in the Royal Family for generations?

Why does some of the British public feel entitled to participate in the PERSONAL aspects of their life?

I can see IF their is some problem with their PUBLIC DUTIES, but their private life?

Since all real political power, for all practical purposes, is vested in the House of Commons in the UK, the Monarch is really nothing more than a figurehead, right? I know the Monarch is regarded as the "Head of State" but again, doesn't the British Prime Minister actually represent the UK in foreign relations and matters, at least as far as what will actually transpire with British participation?

Honestly, I see an evolution where younger members of the Royal family are more and more willing to tell the public to kiss off.

Every tax payer pays 61/62p to support the monarchy. Therefore, every tax payer has the right to criticise as any employer has the right to criticise hired help. And if younger members of the Royal Family are going to tell us to kiss off, we'll happily pack their bags.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Every tax payer pays 61/62p to support the monarchy. Therefore, every tax payer has the right to criticise as any employer has the right to criticise hired help. And if younger members of the Royal Family are going to tell us to kiss off, we'll happily pack their bags.

If an employer told me who was acceptable to marry or who was not, I'd gladly pack my own.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

Every tax payer pays 61/62p to support the monarchy. Therefore, every tax payer has the right to criticise as any employer has the right to criticise hired help. And if younger members of the Royal Family are going to tell us to kiss off, we'll happily pack their bags.

Well let's see here, TODAY, ONE BRITISH POUND EQUALS ROUGHLY TWO US DOLLARS AND FIVE CENTS. SO 62p WOULD EQUAL ONE DOLLAR AND 27 CENTS. So ONE British taxpayer pays what will buy you ONE KING SIZE CANDY BAR where I live per year and you think that gives you the right to tell those people how to live?

This must be a cultural difference that exists, here in the US, IF I chose to work for you, the only thing you would have a RIGHT to criticize me about is MY WORK PRODUCT, anything else would be totally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

[Elspeth]

That isn't necessarily the case any more; some businesses are beginning to dictate what their employees may or may not do outside work since the employer pays health care premiums.

However, obviously things are somewhat different from an employer-employee situation. Even so, monarchs have in the past been forced into abdication if they've made themselves unpopular enough, so the younger royals shouldn't imagine they can just do what they like and there won't be any consequences.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Well let's see here, TODAY, ONE BRITISH POUND EQUALS ROUGHLY TWO US DOLLARS AND FIVE CENTS. SO 62p WOULD EQUAL ONE DOLLAR AND 27 CENTS. So ONE British taxpayer pays what will buy you ONE KING SIZE CANDY BAR where I live per year and you think that gives you the right to tell those people how to live?

This must be a cultural difference that exists, here in the US, IF I chose to work for you, the only thing you would have a RIGHT to criticize me about is MY WORK PRODUCT, anything else would be totally NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

But these people aren't working in an office. They're representing me and therefore, if their conduct begins to affect that representation I feel that the British people, who employ the Royal Family and the Government come to that - have a right to call time.

[COUNTESS]

Beatrix Fan is right on the money, so to speak. It has nothing to do with the amount, which I, personally, think comes out to a whole lot more than the figures bandied about, but who cares. If the British people expect certain things from the RF, that is what they should get. These people are basically window dressing. Sorry, IMHO. But, the people of Great Britain have a right to ask the RF for what the majority do expect. It is not an elected office where they have a job and after that what they do is their own business. It is the other business that is their "job".

[diamondBrg]

Beatrixfan and Countess

The British public gets something out of the Royal Family and the Monarchy or else it would be eliminated. The British public still in it's majority wants a Monarchy. The British are not keeping the Royal Family out of the goodness of their hearts.

What both of you are proposing is nothing more than a form of slavery. The Royal Family does NOT owe you their entire life, 24/7, that is absurd. They certainly do not owe you a voice in whom they choose to marry.

[BeatrixFan]

When did I say they owed me their lives? They don't but they owe me their lifestyle. Now, who they marry actually affects their working lives which is the bit I pay for and am really quite keen that they do well. So if who they marry is likely to be a problem for us professionally speaking then I have a right to criticise and object to the marriage taking place. Which I didn't in Charles and Camilla's case but it doesn't mean I forfeit the right to ever criticise the Royals.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

When did I say they owed me their lives? They don't but they owe me their lifestyle. Now, who they marry actually affects their working lives which is the bit I pay for and am really quite keen that they do well. So if who they marry is likely to be a problem for us professionally speaking then I have a right to criticise and object to the marriage taking place. Which I didn't in Charles and Camilla's case but it doesn't mean I forfeit the right to ever criticise the Royals.

How do you figure that they owe you their lifestyle? Do you really think that Candy bar you provide gives you the right to tell them what to do in their private life. You do realize, that even according to British LAW, the Royal Family PRIVATELY OWNS HUGE AMOUNTS of land and has vast capital of it's own, right? What IF they just decided to chuck it in, and leave? What do you suppose would happen then?

[ysbel]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

These people are basically window dressing. Sorry, IMHO.

Given the number of times that you have informed the members here that the royal family is unimportant and 'window dressing' as you call them, I rather think that you are NOT sorry for stating your opinion but rather you are pleased with the fact. Oh well, if you are happy talking about people you see as pure window dressing then that is your privilege but if I regard a person or institution as window dressing, they are usually not important enough for me to waste any of my time discussing them.

But, the people of Great Britain have a right to ask the RF for what the majority do expect. It is not an elected office where they have a job and after that what they do is their own business. It is the other business that is their "job".

An elected official is usually considered more accountable to the public because we put him (or her) in office. If the people vote someone into office, they usually hold them to a higher standard of accountability than they do a non-elected official, especially if the elected official holds power.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

How do you figure that they owe you their lifestyle? Do you really think that Candy bar you provide gives you the right to tell them what to do in their private life. You do realize, that even according to British LAW, the Royal Family PRIVATELY OWNS HUGE AMOUNTS of land and has vast capital of it's own, right? What IF they just decided to chuck it in, and leave? What do you suppose would happen then?

The candy bar thing really doesn't work when you consider that that candy bar is actually several country estates, hoards of servants, numerous cars and helicopters not to mention the billion other luxuries that our money goes towards. Ok I pay a small amount but I still pay and they live off of public money, therefore if they happen to take advantage of that then the public has a right to criticise and hold to account. The private estates you mention were all bought with public money at some point.

If they did decide to chuck it in and leave I suppose Britain would have to become a modern country where equality and meritocracy were embraced. Tough one eh? Look, if the Royal Family want to do as they please and never be questioned then that's fine but give the public back it's money and make them stand for election like our politicians do. Politicians are held to account based on their lifestyle, life choices and the example they set - why shouldn't the Royal Family be held to the same standard, especially when we're paying for them to live a life of wealth and luxury?

[ysbel]

What is paid via the Civil List is only a small portion of the Queen's income. The monies from the Duchy of Cornwall is certainly not paid for via British taxpayers nor is the Duchy of Lancaster the other money making entity of the British Crown. Perhaps if the British taxpayer has a right to claim ownership of the Royal Family's lifestyle they should claim the percentage of the lifestyle that is subsidized through their tax money which would not be the majority of the income that supports the Royal Family's lifestyle.

[COUNTESS]

Well, Ysbel, you are right, I do find them "window dressing". But I shall not argue whether I have the right to discuss "window dressing" or not. Divergence of opinion, in my opinion, is good. First, as an American, I do not have the right to judge whether you have a RF or not. It is for you, if you are British. That I find them "entertaining" shall we say is why I bother to discuss them. I think Beatrix Fan has a good handle on the whole thing.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The candy bar thing really doesn't work when you consider that that candy bar is actually several country estates, hoards of servants, numerous cars and helicopters not to mention the billion other luxuries that our money goes towards. Ok I pay a small amount but I still pay and they live off of public money, therefore if they happen to take advantage of that then the public has a right to criticise and hold to account. The private estates you mention were all bought with public money at some point.

If they did decide to chuck it in and leave I suppose Britain would have to become a modern country where equality and meritocracy were embraced. Tough one eh? Look, if the Royal Family want to do as they please and never be questioned then that's fine but give the public back it's money and make them stand for election like our politicians do. Politicians are held to account based on their lifestyle, life choices and the example they set - why shouldn't the Royal Family be held to the same standard, especially when we're paying for them to live a life of wealth and luxury?

Because politicians CHOOSE to run for public office and hold REAL political power, the Royal Family does not. No one chooses to be born a member of the Royal Family, it is a happenstance of birth.

Again the British public is getting much, much more out of having a Monarchy than the Royal Family is receiving or else the Monarchy would simply be abolished. The UK is a democracy and to this point your elected government has not chosen to abolish the Monarchy, WHY? Because it knows it would be swept out of office in the next general election.

EDITED TO ADD: We are talking about LIVING, BREATHING, FALLIBLE HUMAN BEINGS WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, NEEDS. The Royal Family are not "higher powers" they are flesh and blood just like us. They make mistakes just like we do. They want their personal freedom just like we do ours. They too only have ONE life to live, as far as any of us know and can prove, just like we do. I am would not TOLERATE being treated and disrespected by the media and public for a second the way that they do and ARE EXPECTED TO. The expected to is what just irritates me to no end.

[BeatrixFan]

Originally Posted by diamondBrg

Because politicians CHOOSE to run for public office and hold REAL political power, the Royal Family does not. No one chooses to be born a member of the Royal Family, it is a happenstance of birth.

They're quite welcome to do a Duke of Windsor and shuffle off to Buffalo.

Again the British public is getting much, much more out of having a Monarchy than the Royal Family is receiving or else the Monarchy would simply be abolished. The UK is a democracy and to this point your elected government has not chosen to abolish the Monarchy, WHY? Because it knows it would be swept out of office in the next general election.

Firstly, Britain is not a democracy and the question of abolishing the monarchy has not and will not come to front line politics due to the nature of the political scene in this country. And if it did, bear in mind that we have the House of Lords which would stand in the way of any real progress on the matter of a republic. Please don't be naive and believe that the UK is a democracy, we're far from it. Secondly, when people are worrying about how to afford feeding the kids they really couldn't care less whether a government introduces monarchy as a front line issue. The only time it'll ever be put to us would be after a big political event or national crisis such as a war or the rise of the extreme right or the extreme left. To suggest that a government would fall because it makes Britain more democratic and more equal is absurd.

EDITED TO ADD: We are talking about LIVING, BREATHING, FALLIBLE HUMAN BEINGS WITH FEELINGS, EMOTIONS, NEEDS. The Royal Family are not "higher powers" they are flesh and blood just like us. They make mistakes just like we do. They want their personal freedom just like we do ours. They too only have ONE life to live, as far as any of us know and can prove, just like we do. I am would not TOLERATE being treated and disrespected by the media and public for a second the way that they do and ARE EXPECTED TO. The expected to is what just irritates me to no end.

You really don't need the capitals, I haven't got glaucoma. Nor have I got sympathy for people who are born into luxury, are kept into luxury by the people and live for many years as a result of that fabulous treatment. Personal lives are personal I agree but if personal lives interfere with professional lives then as in any environment, the boss has the right to criticise and to demand that his workers meet the standard that's acceptable to both the workers and to the company. Yes the media are intrusive, yes some of the public disrespect them, yes they are expected to put up with it - but if they don't like then they can always go away. If they want personal freedom, they can go away. The days of paying Peter's Pence and not criticising the big wigs who spend it are gone. The country keeps the Royal Family afloat financially, we kept the Queen Mum in stockings and gin for years - in return, she played the game and opened fetes in silly hats. It's not brain surgery, it's a job anyone can do - and thats what the RF have to remember. Whilst we say we dont want them to marry this person or that person, they won't marry them because they're in our employ and they do what we expect. Not the other way around. And if they don't like that, they're always welcome to join their 'subjects' in the real world.

[diamondBrg]

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

They're quite welcome to do a Duke of Windsor and shuffle off to Buffalo.



Firstly, Britain is not a democracy and the question of abolishing the monarchy has not and will not come to front line politics due to the nature of the political scene in this country. And if it did, bear in mind that we have the House of Lords which would stand in the way of any real progress on the matter of a republic. Please don't be naive and believe that the UK is a democracy, we're far from it. Secondly, when people are worrying about how to afford feeding the kids they really couldn't care less whether a government introduces monarchy as a front line issue. The only time it'll ever be put to us would be after a big political event or national crisis such as a war or the rise of the extreme right or the extreme left. To suggest that a government would fall because it makes Britain more democratic and more equal is absurd.



You really don't need the capitals, I haven't got glaucoma. Nor have I got sympathy for people who are born into luxury, are kept into luxury by the people and live for many years as a result of that fabulous treatment. Personal lives are personal I agree but if personal lives interfere with professional lives then as in any environment, the boss has the right to criticise and to demand that his workers meet the standard that's acceptable to both the workers and to the company. Yes the media are intrusive, yes some of the public disrespect them, yes they are expected to put up with it - but if they don't like then they can always go away. If they want personal freedom, they can go away. The days of paying Peter's Pence and not criticising the big wigs who spend it are gone. The country keeps the Royal Family afloat financially, we kept the Queen Mum in stockings and gin for years - in return, she played the game and opened fetes in silly hats. It's not brain surgery, it's a job anyone can do - and thats what the RF have to remember. Whilst we say we dont want them to marry this person or that person, they won't marry them because they're in our employ and they do what we expect. Not the other way around. And if they don't like that, they're always welcome to join their 'subjects' in the real world.

Or people who feel entitled to intrude into their private life and seek to become hitler like dictators can learn to mind their own business and live their own life. There are always options available.

The UK is most certainly a democracy. The House of Lords CANNOT block legislation and if the Monarch refused to assent to it and when was the last time that happened, btw, the House of Commons can simply abolish it.

The British public OVERWHELMINGLY WANTS the Monarchy because they get something out of it.

[diamondBrg]

"Civic and charitable work now takes up much of the royal calendar. Moreover, royal patronage and fund-raising are worth between £100 and £200 million to the voluntary sector annually, which is three or four times what the royals receive from the state."

Oxford DNB theme: The monarchy and charity

Edited to add: Seems like a GREAT DEAL to me. :)

[COUNTESS]

Oh, stop it. Civic and charity work is carried out in our country by many who get nothing, they just give their time to charity and good works. No photos, no palaces, no nothing. You have no idea who they are. Beatrix Fan is on the money. Also, since Beatrix Fan lives in Britain, their opinion is far more valid than anyone who does not. Also, the royals have what they have, because of their status. For years they did not pay income taxes, so while the poor British schnook forked over whatever they had to, the RF kept everything for themselves. It grew exponetially. Also, the great lands and homes were a perq from their position, too. They were not earning a buck on street corners. They cut ribbons and opened meat markets. The queen has done a marvelous job holding the Commonwealth together. At her end, it will end. Yes, the monarchy benefits England, because those of us who live in reality, seem to find facination with people who ride in carriages and live in palaces and wear tiaras. It is an anachronism for the 21st century. But it is entertainment.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Also, since Beatrix Fan lives in Britain, their opinion is far more valid than anyone who does not.

I don't buy that. At all. I refuse to submit to the (wrong) notion that opinions are more valid or less valid based on geography.

The financial argument for the royal family is really pointless. Does anyone really think that the cost for a head of state would go down if that head of state were a President? Unless the palaces were all abandoned in such a case, they'd still have to be paid for as public monuments. 99.9% of the current costs would continue as costs of a president.