The Future of the British Monarchy

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

Put out to pasture? We’re talking about elderly people. I don’t see what possible difference it makes to not just leave things as is for what will be a few years.

Kicking people out of their homes and stripping them of HRH seems unnecessary and rather cruel. And frankly a poor PR move.

What do you mean status and privilege should be earned- not given at birth? That’s literally what the monarchy is.

[royal-blue]

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

There aren’t many working royals and there aren’t many with HRH titles and styles. The money allocated to the BRF are mainly used to pay for upkeep of Crown properties and staff as well as travel. The BRF is not personally responsible for the upkeep, there is a committee that handles that and makes decisions on maintenance. Why should the expenses you listed be reduced? Why should the few working royals have salaries? The BRF already get scrutinized both necessarily but most unnecessarily on a number of issues.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Taxes are collected from those sources any ways and it’s not an ATM for royals, the incomes from the duchies helps pay for upkeep of Crown estates and for the Dukes of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall provides an income for the Dukes of Cornwall and taxes on paid the income.

The incomes from the Duchies of Lancaster and Wales do not pay for the upkeep of the Crown Estates. The income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall provide private incomes for the Soveriegn and the Prince of Wales. The fundamental idea behind the royal duchies is to provide an independent income for the sovereign and heir, so that they are never beholden to the government of the day for financial matters.

The income from the Crown Estates (c£300mn per year) is provided to the Treasury in its entirety. Of this, a Sovereign Grant of c15% of the income from the Crown Estates, subject to certain checks and balances, is provided to the monarch to cover their duties as Head of State, and to cover the maintenance of the royal palaces. There is an additional amount of c£300mn that is being provided over a 10 year period to finance the renewal of BP which was in need of urgent repairs.

A voluntary tax of 25% of the surplus of the incomes from the royal duchies is payable to the Treasury.

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Why should family members be kicked out of Crown properties? The Kent’s and Gloucester’s pay rent in Kensington palace and don’t t live for free so what would be the point? Their children don’t live there either and won’t have the HRH title and style and cease to be royal dukes. Their children are private citizens and have jobs, the Gloucester’s and Kent’s have jobs outside of the BRF and work. Princess Michael of Kent is an HRH via her husband not in her own right. The Wessexes and Sussexes have different reasons and circumstances for not having or using titles so they are not a good example. The minor royals don’t receive public funds.

The monarch is the only member of the BRF that receives any funding from the government. This funding is the Sovereign Grant I mentioned. This covers the costs associated with being the Head of State, and the maintenance of the royal palaces.

Costs of other working members of the BRF (like Edward, Anne, the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent) are covered rivately by the Queen, using funds from the Duchy of Lancaster.

The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent do live either rent-free or pay a peppercorn rent for the homes they occupy at KP. This is because they are working members of the BRF. Prince Michael of Kent pays rent on a commercial basis for his apartment as he is not a working member of the RF.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

I would like to see the BRF reduced to just 7 working royals who should be paid a generous salary for their work. I would like to see the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster handed to the government. All other members of the BRF (except William's kids) should be stripped of their titles and kicked out of the palaces. For example I don't see why someone like Princess Michael should be an HRH at all. All minor royals should become private citizens. The Wessexes and Sussexes have exactly the right idea by the example they have set with their own untitled children.

In effect that is that you have. Other than this, you have the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester who do carry out quite a lot of low key engagements on behalf of the Crown. Following a life time of service and given their age, the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra now only carry out very few engagements on behalf of the BRF. I would not be surprised if they soon retired.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

Let us not mix titles and perks. The titles are as a result of the 1917 Letters Patents. I can see severely limiting giving out new royal titles only to the main line, and children of future monarchs only.

I do not think HM will strip existing HRHs of their titles at this stage, but that remains to be seen.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

I can certainly see some rationalisation of the royal properties to reduce costs, hence I had suggested they carefully evaluate whether to keep KP or not.

Originally Posted by royal-blue

I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

I do not support the idea at all. The Crown must be independant of the government of the day. They must not draw salaries or seek financing from the government at all. I think the current arrangement with the royal duchies and the Sovereign Grant works well.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by muriel

I can certainly see some rationalisation of the royal properties to reduce costs, hence I had suggested they carefully evaluate whether to keep KP or not.



I do not support the idea at all. The Crown must be independant of the government of the day. They must not draw salaries or seek financing from the government at all. I think the current arrangement with the royal duchies and the Sovereign Grant works well.

To the first comment, it doesn’t matter if residences were reduced, the maintenance and upkeep would still have to be done.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

To the first comment, it doesn’t matter if residences were reduced, the maintenance and upkeep would still have to be done.

Yes, but it would no longer count as a royal cost. A different government department (Dept of Culture & Media?) would probably need to find a use for the building and fund it.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by muriel

Yes, but it would no longer count as a royal cost. A different government department (Dept of Culture & Media?) would probably need to find a use for the building and fund it.

I agree and they could probably turn it into a profitable or at least self-funding property.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

Put more simply, I believe that the titled RF is too big and the perks the royal family get are too generous. Non-working royals do not need to be either HRH or Prince/esses. The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022. Status and privelegea should be earned, not just given at birth. The monarchy hasn't suffered by the withdrawal of Andrew, Philip, Meghan or Harry from royal duties. Nor will it suffer if the Gloucesters, Alexandra and Duke of Kent are put out to pasture either.

Not a very nice comment regarding the putting people out to pasture. People who are the grandchildren of a king and as a result obtained the HRH titles. Just like William and Harrys children are grandchildren of the monarch.

The Gloucesters and the Kents have devoted their lives to supporting the Queen, doing public duties when in any other walk of life they would have retired. The Duke of Kent struggles to walk but he still does his best, he would have been upset not to have been fit to follow the Queens coffin.

This is a pet hate of mine that these people are ridiculed because they are older.

[Denville]

yes, that is very unkind. THe Kents and Gloucester's have devoted their lives ot the Monarchy. why should they give up their jobs or their titles?

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Denville

yes, that is very unkind. THe Kents and Gloucester's have devoted their lives ot the Monarchy. why should they give up their jobs or their titles?

I do not believe they should. I expect the Duke of Kent will do fewer engagements in view of his age, but I suspect the Gloucester's will motor on, unless told otherwise by the King.

[royal-blue]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

Not a very nice comment regarding the putting people out to pasture. People who are the grandchildren of a king and as a result obtained the HRH titles. ...This is a pet hate of mine that these people are ridiculed because they are older.

Well Prince Andrew was put out to pasture and he was only 60.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

Well Prince Andrew was put out to pasture and he was only 60.

Andrew lives on property that he pays a lease on and his royal duties weren’t that much compared to other working royals. Plus he’s not a working royal because of a scandal not because anyone thinks he’s a hanger on as you call it

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

I agree and they could probably turn it into a profitable or at least self-funding property.

Exhibitions and tours happen there from time to time? What could it be used for again?

Originally Posted by muriel

Yes, but it would no longer count as a royal cost. A different government department (Dept of Culture & Media?) would probably need to find a use for the building and fund it.

Don’t government agencies already have properties that their offices are located on?

[Kataryn]

Originally Posted by muriel

I do not support the idea at all. The Crown must be independant of the government of the day. They must not draw salaries or seek financing from the government at all. I think the current arrangement with the royal duchies and the Sovereign Grant works well.

The Sovereign Grant is so much smaller than the revenue from the Crown Estate it was exchanged for. As Charles only days ago at his proclamation as king declared, the Crown Estate should be used to help all people and that the Sovereign Grant will only be used to pay for the cost of his and the working Royals cost of representation. That of course includes allowances for them. The private costs will be funded from the two Royal duchys and the private belongings of the king.


It has been declared by experts that if the citizens of the UK decide to get rid of their monarchy, they face the fact that both duchies are the private property of the Windsors and that the government would have to give back the Crown Estate to the former king because it is still his to do with it as he wants and he gave it up out of his free will to the government but still owns the Cron's property as his private estate. It has been that for centuries and the inheritance laws at the base of the Crown Estate are still valid in today's Britain. To rid Charles Mountbatten-Windsor of his property, the government must rid all Britons of their private estate and one cannot imagine how this is going to happen!


The monarchy does appear to be based in ancient traditions but whoever wants to get rid of it will find out that these ancient traditions have led to very modern estates that belong to the Windsors and would be theirs in private possessions once the system of laws governing the monarchy is broken up and destroyed. The only things in Royal use that belong to "the people" are some palaces and the Crown Jewels, but when it comes to the "Royal collections" it is a good question who those works of art and jewellery belong to and most of it would revert to the king when the monarchy would be dissolved.



The old laws were mostly concerned about power and not property. It's only in the last 200 years that has changed and part of the Royal properties got into the Royal hold for "the people". But even here one could argue that it would be a break of faith if the goverment keeps it from the Windsors when all is split up. So I wouldn't see an end to the monarchy as an end to the costs

[Alison H]

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...l-royal-family

The latest opinion polls show strong support for King Charles and for the monarchy in general. They also show support for a slimmed down monarchy, but that will happen naturally: the Gloucesters will retire in due course, it doesn't look likely that either Louise or James will seek a public role, and there's very little support for Harry and Meghan coming back.

It's also been pointed out that politicians in general, of all parties, are not very popular at the moment. That's not unique to the UK, but it's seen as beefing up support for a constitutional monarchy above party politics. And I don't think people would be keen on the idea of working royals being on some sort of government payroll: it's never been done that way here.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Exhibitions and tours happen there from time to time? What could it be used for again?

They already do some of the following but they could do more of them, more often eg corporate events, conferences, weddings, parties, meetings, film sets, exhibitions, public visits, concerts, award ceremonies ... plenty of options to bring in money to fund itself.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

The Spanish royal family has the right idea. This is 2022.

Hmm, but there was this story about the retired King of Spain, Juan Carlos, who took in hundreds of millions, if not two billion Dollar/Euro, as was estimated - dubious bribe money, arms trading! And he has not given back his loot until today.

So, the Spaniards are a questionable role model!

Besides: A King should be at least somehow a sovereign and not an employee!

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by royal-blue

In my opinion, the British monarchy can perform the exact same function and purpose with fewer working royals, fewer HRHs in general, a small reduction in residences, and a big reduction in its budget. The government should be responsible for the upkeep of palaces, not the BRF, which, together with a small reduction in royal engagements and a bigger reduction in travel and staff wages, the overall budget could be substantially reduced. I'm in favour of a salary for working royals, like the Spanish royal family.

The elderly Royals such as the dukes of Kent and Gloucester were forbidden to have careers or work in "trade" during their young and most productive years. Instead they have spent their entire lives supporting the Crown and the monarchy.

To suggest that Princess Alexandra and all the other elderly family should now be "put out to pasture" in their vulnerable twilight is beyond cruel.