# Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK



## drdel (Sep 20, 2022)

There will now be a reshuffle of residents in the vast Royal estate as the various members of the RF relocate. The proportion of UK land 'owned' by royalty in the UK is pretty high.

With their fortunes is it  time they were self sufficient and not funded by taxpayers who commonly and increasingly find house prices moving beyond their reach.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 20, 2022)

As each person pays a total of £1.29 a year then I think for the level of money they bring in and the level of employment they provide then £1.29 is well worth it. 

I’ll take the Royal Family and King being the nations head all day long 👍


----------



## larmen (Sep 20, 2022)

There isn’t much tourism due to the weather and the great beaches in this country. I think a lot of what we have we can attribute to the monarchy.


----------



## Jimaroid (Sep 20, 2022)

Did I miss a memo about political discussions being allowed again?


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 20, 2022)

No.
Next


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As each person pays a total of £1.29 a year then I think for the level of money they bring in and the level of employment they provide then £1.29 is well worth it.

I’ll take the Royal Family and King being the nations head all day long 👍
		
Click to expand...

Where are you getting 1.29 from ? Does it make you feel better than saying 10s and 10s of millions?


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			Did I miss a memo about political discussions being allowed again?
		
Click to expand...

The royal family are unable to make political comment. How can it be a political thread ?


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Where are you getting 1.29 from ? Does it make you feel better than saying 10s and 10s of millions?
		
Click to expand...

Possibly as much as 300 million, even more


----------



## Val (Sep 20, 2022)

You can't quantify what the bring to the economy in terms of tourism. I'm no royalist but I believe the country gets its worth from them.


----------



## chico (Sep 20, 2022)

Simply use Buckingham Palace as an Airbnb and any cost would be offset quite quickly.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 20, 2022)

The thread is to be non political, discussion of the constitution / funding of the monarchy etc  is ok, 

As a Royalist I’m not going to comment on the subject matter, I’ll just let the anti’s talk among themselves


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 20, 2022)

No, the fix cost roughly £1.29 a person plus whatever security costs 

Worth every penny 

Rather that then an elected head of state we then get people who crave power and act classless.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			The royal family are unable to make political comment. How can it be a political thread ?
		
Click to expand...

Actually one of the strongest arguments for retaining the Monarchy is the knowledge that without it our heads of state will be third rate failed politicians. Presidents Blair, Major or Bercow – a fate considerably worse than the apolitical House of Windsor!


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			No, the fix cost roughly £1.29 a person plus whatever security costs

Worth every penny

Rather that then an elected head of state we then get people who crave power and act classless.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying £1.29 ... It's upwards of £250000000

And royal families are more than adept at being power hungry and acting class less🤣😅😂


----------



## Jimaroid (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			The royal family are unable to make political comment. How can it be a political thread ?
		
Click to expand...

Our entire political system of governance is constitutional monarchy. Discussion for and against or questioning what and whether it should be changed are wholly political. 

But I know you know that and you’re just on the wind up. 👍


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Where are you getting 1.29 from ? Does it make you feel better than saying 10s and 10s of millions?
		
Click to expand...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...al-family-cost-a-breakdown-of-the-key-figures

£102.4 million - Official expenditure by the monarchy - a rise of £14.9 million or 17% from £87.5 million in 2020/2021.

*£1.29 - Cost per person in the UK of funding the total Sovereign Grant.*

77p - Cost per person of the "core" part of the Sovereign Grant for official duties - not including funds for the long-term Buckingham Palace works.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-57559653.amp

*For 2021-2022 the Sovereign Grant was set at £86.3m - equivalent to £1.29 per person in the UK.This does not include security costs.*


----------



## Crow (Sep 20, 2022)

No.


----------



## upsidedown (Sep 20, 2022)

No


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 20, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			Our entire political system of governance is constitutional monarchy. Discussion for and against or questioning what and whether it should be changed are wholly political.

But I know you know that and you’re just on the wind up. 👍
		
Click to expand...

Discussion about the system itself is not political

It gets political when political parties are brought into the thread, certain policies criticised or personalities mentioned.

This list is not exhaustive


----------



## chico (Sep 20, 2022)

The cost of the Monarchy is much greater than the Sovereign grant alone so its a bit disingenuous to use that figure as the cost.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Why do you keep saying £1.29 ... It's upwards of £250000000

And royal families are more than adept at being power hungry and acting class less🤣😅😂
		
Click to expand...

The cost is £1.29 per person in the UK 

It does not cost me that does it. I don't even earn that.. simple


----------



## adam6177 (Sep 20, 2022)

No. Long may they be part of our fabric and funded by us.


----------



## D-S (Sep 20, 2022)

No


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 20, 2022)

No. I suspect the parts of the UK that don’t like the monarchy cost the tax payer far more than the Royal Family.


----------



## Captainron (Sep 20, 2022)

The monarchy is a core part of the tourism efforts in the UK. They are worth the cost for me. 
And I don’t think they should be propping up the masses by ridding themselves of land/buildings etc to put into public coffers.


----------



## Jimaroid (Sep 20, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Discussion about the system itself is not political
		
Click to expand...

Tell me what I’m not understanding here. 

The question in the OP is about taxation of the nation and if we as taxpayers should or shouldn’t change that in the funding of the monarchy. 

If that’s not the root of all politics in the UK since 1600 and something I don’t know what is.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Where are you getting 1.29 from ? Does it make you feel better than saying 10s and 10s of millions?
		
Click to expand...




theoneandonly said:



			Why do you keep saying £1.29 ... It's upwards of £250000000

And royal families are more than adept at being power hungry and acting class less🤣😅😂
		
Click to expand...

Well Phil’s provided links to back up his claim, perhaps you could do the same?


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

The question should be what's the point of a royal family in modern 21st century democracy. None I'd say.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 20, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			Tell me what I’m not understanding here.

The question in the OP is about taxation of the nation and if we as taxpayers should or shouldn’t change that in the funding of the monarchy.

If that’s not the root of all politics in the UK since 1600 and something I don’t know what is.
		
Click to expand...

Post 19 sets it out quite clearly


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			Well Phil’s provided links to back up his claim, perhaps you could do the same?
		
Click to expand...

Or perhaps you can do your own research rather than have me do it for you.  Its easy to do, just Google it.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 20, 2022)

I'm happy in the knowledge that we will still have a royal family for many years to come despite the views of the anti brigade on here.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Or perhaps you can do your own research rather than have me do it for you.  Its easy to do, just Google it.
		
Click to expand...

That’s a no then.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			That’s a no then.
		
Click to expand...

No what ? It costs upwards of 250 million a year. I dont need to post links to make it true. 
All Liverpool Phil has done and the other chap is classic obfuscation to try and make it sound like it peanuts. Rather than the actual paying of crazy money to keep a whole undeserving family in the lap of luxury.


----------



## Swingalot (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			The question should be what's the point of a royal family in modern 21st century democracy. None I'd say.
		
Click to expand...

29 million people from the UK who watched yesterday would disagree, plus the billions who watched worldwide.

All about timing with a comment like yours and to be frank, your timing stinks.


----------



## spongebob59 (Sep 20, 2022)

chrisd said:



			I'm happy in the knowledge that we will still have a royal family for many years to come despite the views of the anti brigade on here.
		
Click to expand...

Imagine the arguments there would be if we didn't have the royalty to put on currency/stamps etc 🤣


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

Swingalot said:



			29 million people from the UK who watched yesterday would disagree, plus the billions who watched worldwide.

All about timing with a comment like yours and to be frank, your timing stinks.
		
Click to expand...

Timing is everything 🤣 some real precious types on here , we get threatened and told to be respectful and stay out of that queen thread, so here we are and still getting whined at.


----------



## Jimaroid (Sep 20, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Post 19 sets it out quite clearly
		
Click to expand...

I disagree.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			I disagree.
		
Click to expand...

Yes Harriet we know.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 20, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			I disagree.
		
Click to expand...

Well that’s a drag


----------



## Jimaroid (Sep 20, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Well that’s a drag
		
Click to expand...

See you when you come back to lock the thread then.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 20, 2022)

Jimaroid said:



			See you when you come back to lock the thread then.
		
Click to expand...

If it goes political then I will
At the moment it isn’t , so I won’t 👍


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 20, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			If it goes political then I will
At the moment it isn’t , so I won’t 👍
		
Click to expand...

Trolling is fine though? I thought it was banned as per the Mikes post at the top?


----------



## DaveR (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			No what ? It costs upwards of 250 million a year. I dont need to post links to make it true.
All Liverpool Phil has done and the other chap is classic obfuscation to try and make it sound like it peanuts. Rather than the actual paying of crazy money to keep a whole undeserving family in the lap of luxury.
		
Click to expand...

Do you mean the undeserving family that performs countless hours of charity work etc every year?


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 20, 2022)

So £1.29 per person is considered the basic cost by some.

Then the extra cost 

So basically if call it £400 million a year to be extreme to the max 

That's a cost of £5.16 a year per person 

So not even a sleeve of pro v1s 

Think it's fantastic value 

The royals bring in 350 million a year so even if you take it to the extreme of oh they cost 400 million then they only cost net 50 million 

Bargain 

Cheaper than chelsea spend on managers every season


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			So £1.29 per person is considered the basic cost by some.

Then the extra cost

So basically if call it £400 million a year to be extreme to the max

That's a cost of £5.16 a year per person

So not even a sleeve of pro v1s

Think it's fantastic value

The royals bring in 350 million a year so even if you take it to the extreme of oh they cost 400 million then they only cost net 50 million

Bargain

Cheaper than chelsea spend on managers every season
		
Click to expand...




DaveR said:



			Do you mean the undeserving family that performs countless hours of charity work etc every year?
		
Click to expand...

🤣 I tell you what pay me 40 mill and I'll take over.


----------



## woofers (Sep 20, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Timing is everything 🤣 some real precious types on here , we get threatened and told to be respectful and stay out of that queen thread, so here we are and still getting whined at.
		
Click to expand...

No one threatened you.
I asked that The Queen thread could stay on topic, which basically was in respect of her death. I didn’t think adults, whatever view they held of the monarchy, needed to be ‘told to be respectful’, in fact there were posts from ’anti‘s’ that understood the situation and articulated their views in the right manner and tone.
So, here you are, copping a bit of flak, but currently you seem to be in the minority.
Maybe just accept that?


----------



## WGCRider (Sep 20, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			The royals bring in 350 million a year
		
Click to expand...

Where does that come from? The value of tickets sold to visit royal properties is about £9m a year. Mostly the £30 a pop to go to Buckingham Palace.

So that's about £341m a year in unquantifiable/intangible "people come to England cause of the Queen"


----------



## WGCRider (Sep 20, 2022)

Swingalot said:



			29 million people from the UK who watched yesterday would disagree, plus the billions who watched worldwide.

All about timing with a comment like yours and to be frank, your timing stinks.
		
Click to expand...

Funeral on every channel (even the Sky porn ones) 29m viewers.
Women's Euro 2022 Final on BBC 1 - 31m viewers.

So not even the biggest TV event of the year.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 20, 2022)

I broadly disagree with the notion that someone should be the rightful ruler of a country simply by winning the lucky birth lottery. I dislike the fact that while we struggle to pay energy bills we're spoken down to by someone who wears a billion pound hat. I dislike the fact that there are thousands of homeless people on the streets of London while Buckingham Palace sits there with its 250 odd bedrooms.

But I don't have the first clue what would have to happen to even begin a process of eradicating the monarchy in this country so I try not to lose any sleep over it.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 20, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			I broadly disagree with the notion that someone should be the rightful ruler of a country simply by winning the lucky birth lottery. I dislike the fact that while we struggle to pay energy bills we're spoken down to by someone who wears a billion pound hat. I dislike the fact that there are thousands of homeless people on the streets of London while Buckingham Palace sits there with its 250 odd bedrooms.

But I don't have the first clue what would have to happen to even begin a process of eradicating the monarchy in this country so I try not to lose any sleep over it.
		
Click to expand...

Well said.


----------



## Swingalot (Sep 20, 2022)

WGCRider said:



			Funeral on every channel (even the Sky porn ones) 29m viewers.
Women's Euro 2022 Final on BBC 1 - 31m viewers.

So not even the biggest TV event of the year.
		
Click to expand...

remote control just happen to jump to the sky porn channel did it?

So, we’ve established what you do on a Bank Holiday, the UK generally love the Royal family and football. All good.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 20, 2022)

WGCRider said:



			Funeral on every channel (even the Sky porn ones) 29m viewers.
Women's Euro 2022 Final on BBC 1 - 31m viewers.

So not even the biggest TV event of the year.
		
Click to expand...

Weird, Google says 17m watched the Women's Euros final on the BBC 🤔
Are you also counting streaming and other devices in your figures?
The 29m for the funeral was tv alone, no streaming etc figures were counted in that.
Either way nice try at trying to be clever.
You know what they say about empty vessels.


----------



## Oddsocks (Sep 20, 2022)

Surely the biggest question is if they are pro LIV or PGA?.


----------



## 2blue (Sep 20, 2022)

spongebob59 said:



			Imagine the arguments there would be if we didn't have the royalty to put on currency/stamps etc 🤣
		
Click to expand...

Thats easy...  have a look at some Scottish notes


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 20, 2022)

I prefer our Constitutional Monarchy to a Presidential one.   I can see the case for a somewhat thinned down Royal Household though.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

drdel said:



			There will now be a reshuffle of residents in the vast Royal estate as the various members of the RF relocate. *The proportion of UK land 'owned' by royalty in the UK is pretty high.*

*With their fortunes* is it  time they were self sufficient and not funded by taxpayers who commonly and increasingly find house prices moving beyond their reach.
		
Click to expand...

The Crown Estate is held and audited by the treasury. *It is owned by the nation in the name of the monarch. The monarch can not sell any of it.* The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall form part of the Crown Estate. Revenue from the estate goes to the treasury. The Sovereign Grant is 15% of that revenue, although there is currently an increase to fund repairs and renovations to Buckingham Palace. It is set to return to 15% when these are completed.

The Crown Estate, all the land therein and revenue from it, functions as a nationalised industry.

King Charles' personal wealth, which will soon include Balmoral and Sandringham, is not impressive. *He will be somewhere around the 300th wealthiest person in the UK.*

In my view, we have a very good system for keeping and funding a non-politicised head of state.
Far preferable to me than the USA, France or Germany system, where the head of state is the head of government.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 21, 2022)

Beezerk said:



			Trolling is fine though? I thought it was banned as per the Mikes post at the top?
		
Click to expand...

Just because someone has an opinion that might be different from yours doesn’t make it trolling.

Trolling is when someone expresses an extreme view with the sole intention of baiting a response. 

It can be a fine line, but imo not crossed yet.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Possibly as much as 300 million, even more
		
Click to expand...

 What?

It's not £1.29 each, its £300 million  - they must have taken the £300 million from my bank account yesterday as I saw my balance had dropped, I assumed it was my leccy bill 😁😁


----------



## IanM (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Why do you keep saying £1.29 ... It's upwards of £250000000

And royal families are more than adept at being power hungry and acting class less🤣😅😂
		
Click to expand...

I have not read the whole thread,  but are you really not grasping the differences between total cost and per capita?


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

IanM said:



			I have not read the whole thread,  but are you really not grasping the differences between total cost and per capita?
		
Click to expand...

And are you aware of obfuscation?


----------



## IanM (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			And are you aware of obfuscation?
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			And are you aware of obfuscation?
		
Click to expand...

Isn’t that what you’re doing in refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2022)

Too costly, yes. I don't care what the cost per person is but whatever it is I'd rather it went elsewhere. There are far better uses for it.

Having a royal family in a modern democracy is an outdated nonsense that just doesn't stand up to analysis. One we are stuck with for the time being but as the generations change so may their status.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			Isn’t that what you’re doing in refusing to provide evidence to back up your claims?
		
Click to expand...

No , but thanks for asking. 
Quotes that it £1.29 or the same cost as cheeseburger per person  per year are there to obscure the fact it's a staggering waste of money. Whether that's 8, 80 or 800 million.


----------



## Dando (Sep 21, 2022)

Oddsocks said:



			Surely the biggest question is if they are pro LIV or PGA?.
		
Click to expand...

If they use pink castle tees then get rid of them


----------



## IanM (Sep 21, 2022)

Dump them and have a random Belgian as Head of State.

Actually,  that was more expensive!


----------



## DaveR (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			No , but thanks for asking.
Quotes that it £1.29 or the same cost as cheeseburger per person  per year are there to obscure the fact it's a staggering waste of money. Whether that's 8, 80 or 800 million.
		
Click to expand...

But it's not a waste of money. Any simple Google search will show that the royal family generates wealth for the country. It is our USP and just because you clearly don't like it doesn't mean we should abolish it.


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 21, 2022)

I'm a royalist through and through so of course would say no. I also think that there are things in life which have a value which is intangible, and for me the Monarchy is one of those. 

How do you put a price on the positive impact of the Queen's speech during Covid? Or the joyous celebration of a Jubilee or Royal Wedding which brings much of the country together...


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

DaveR said:



			But it's not a waste of money. Any simple Google search will show that the royal family generates wealth for the country. It is our USP and just because you clearly don't like it doesn't mean we should abolish it.
		
Click to expand...

Any simple Google search will say what you want it to say and everything in-between.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 21, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As each person pays a total of £1.29 a year then I think for the level of money they bring in and the level of employment they provide then £1.29 is well worth it.

I’ll take the Royal Family and King being the nations head all day long 👍
		
Click to expand...

What do they bring in? Nobody, and I mean official bodies have never been able to quantify this.

If you're talking tourism, well Versailles and the Colliseum are the biggest attractions in Europe, so maybe we should follow that lead as a way to boost income?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 21, 2022)

AmandaJR said:



*I'm a royalist* through and through so of course would say no. I also think that there are things in life which have a value which is intangible, and for me the Monarchy is one of those.

How do you put a price on the positive impact of the Queen's speech during Covid? Or the joyous celebration of a Jubilee or Royal Wedding *which brings much of the country together*...
		
Click to expand...

You're looking through those royal tinted specs, for those who are not royalists, it just emphasises the divide. Did you not notice Scotland barely touched the jubilee for eg, when england were throwing street parties left right and centre?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 21, 2022)

DaveR said:



			But it's not a waste of money. Any simple Google search will show that the royal family generates wealth for the country. It is our USP and just because you clearly don't like it doesn't mean we should abolish it.
		
Click to expand...

Show me the figures, official bodies have never been able to quantify what benefit, if any, the royals bring


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)




----------



## DaveR (Sep 21, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			What do they bring in? Nobody, and I mean official bodies have never been able to quantify this.

If you're talking tourism, well Versailles and the Colliseum are the biggest attractions in Europe, so maybe we should follow that lead as a way to boost income? 

Click to expand...

They have helped secure numerous trade deals over the years by hosting heads of state and dignitaries at royal palaces, on the royal yacht etc. Yes it's hard to quantify but they have certainly helped.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

I would like to see the detailed plans from those who would "do away with" the monarchy with regard to protecting the nation from a rogue head of state (recent examples around the world), protecting the Crown Estate from successive governments raiding it and selling off parts of it to fund electioneering promises and the various changes to the law, defence, constitution etc.
We would also have to cater for a possible return to monarchy should it democratically decided to do so.


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 21, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			You're looking through those royal tinted specs, for those who are not royalists, it just emphasises the divide. Did you not notice Scotland barely touched the jubilee for eg, when england were throwing street parties left right and centre?
		
Click to expand...

Of course I am - which is why I put it that way. No I didn't notice the lack of interest in Scotland.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			I would like to see the detailed plans from those who would "do away with" the monarchy with regard to protecting the nation from a rogue head of state (recent examples around the world), protecting the Crown Estate from successive governments raiding it and selling off parts of it to fund electioneering promises and the various changes to the law, defence, constitution etc.
We would also have to cater for a possible return to monarchy should it democratically decided to do so.
		
Click to expand...

A new head of state, if we decided we needed one, would be elected, not repeated through accident of birth. Should one go rogue we would be able to remove them democratically, or via procedures put in place. I would also expect the position, should it be needed, to be ceremonial only, with few real powers. Tell me, how do we remove Charles if he goes 'rogue' and oversteps his role?


----------



## WGCRider (Sep 21, 2022)

Beezerk said:



			Weird, Google says 17m watched the Women's Euros final on the BBC 🤔
Are you also counting streaming and other devices in your figures?
The 29m for the funeral was tv alone, no streaming etc figures were counted in that.
Either way nice try at trying to be clever.
You know what they say about empty vessels.
		
Click to expand...

Weird, your google seems to be broken

https://www.thenational.scot/news/2...ggest-people-uk-watched-euro-final-last-year/
https://inews.co.uk/culture/televis...-vs-italy-most-watch-event-uk-history-1099039
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ed-31-million-tv-audience-in-uk-diana-funeral


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 21, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Tell me, how do we remove Charles if he goes 'rogue' and oversteps his role?
		
Click to expand...

Can he actually do anything anyway? He's just a figurehead surely?


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 21, 2022)

WGCRider said:



			Weird, your google seems to be broken

https://www.thenational.scot/news/2...ggest-people-uk-watched-euro-final-last-year/
https://inews.co.uk/culture/televis...-vs-italy-most-watch-event-uk-history-1099039
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ed-31-million-tv-audience-in-uk-diana-funeral

Click to expand...

Like I said, do your research properly before posting a load of tosh.


----------



## WGCRider (Sep 21, 2022)

DaveR said:



			Any simple Google search will show that the royal family generates wealth for the country. It is our USP and just because you clearly don't like it doesn't mean we should abolish it.
		
Click to expand...

That's just not true. The number of people visiting the UK specifically because of the monarchy is about the same as the number of people visiting France specifically to see Versailles or visiting the US only to see the White House. i.e. a number close to 0.


----------



## DaveR (Sep 21, 2022)

WGCRider said:



			That's just not true. The number of people visiting the UK specifically because of the monarchy is about the same as the number of people visiting France specifically to see Versailles or visiting the US only to see the White House. i.e. a number close to 0.
		
Click to expand...

I never mentioned tourism.


----------



## Fade and Die (Sep 21, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			You're looking through those royal tinted specs, for those who are not royalists, it just emphasises the divide. Did you not notice Scotland barely touched the jubilee for eg, when england were throwing street parties left right and centre?
		
Click to expand...


So what would be your alternative and how much would it cost? Think you would be getting a President for less than £89M?


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

Fade and Die said:



			So what would be your alternative and how much would it cost? Think you would be getting a President for less than £89M?
		
Click to expand...

Yes a lot less and the true cost of the royal family is at least 3 x that


----------



## IanM (Sep 21, 2022)

I wonder what the economic benefits of the last 11 days would equate to?


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

IanM said:



			I wonder what the economic benefits of the last 11 days would equate to?
		
Click to expand...

No idea but offset against the huge cost of the funeral probably not a lot.

Even less when you factor on the lost revenues of places that felt they had to close or were arbitrarily cancelled


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2022)

Beezerk said:



			Can he actually do anything anyway? He's just a figurehead surely?
		
Click to expand...

Largely, you are right. I only used rogue because that is the word Voyager used. He can get gobby, go political, cause embarrassment though. If he does those things, what can we do about it?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 21, 2022)

Accepting that the monarchy (and whatever goes with it) will be thinned down by King Charles, I remain ambivalent about such a thinned-down monarchy. I think it would still sit on the benefit side of any cost-benefit analysis…at least for the next 30-40yrs (as such are the timescales I think would be associated with changing to a Republic were it ever to happen).

In thinking President, I look to Eire and the example of Mary Robinson…for me a perfect example of what a President can be and the leadership and vision one can provide…as from across the Irish Sea I could admire her as much as, if not more than, I might admire a monarch - especially one who must not express opinions of a political nature.


----------



## Beezerk (Sep 21, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Largely, you are right. I only used rogue because that is the word Voyager used. He can get gobby, go political, cause embarrassment though. If he does those things, what can we do about it?
		
Click to expand...

I would really hope he has better judgement, but if it ever came to that it would certainly be interesting.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			A new head of state, if we decided we needed one, would be elected, not repeated through accident of birth. Should one go rogue we would be able to remove them democratically, or via procedures put in place. I would also expect the position, should it be needed, to be ceremonial only, with few real powers. Tell me, how do we remove Charles if he goes 'rogue' and oversteps his role?
		
Click to expand...

By appointing a regent to act as monarch - in this case most likely to be his eldest son.


----------



## IanM (Sep 21, 2022)

A Monarchy isn't logical in modern times.   

Golf isn't logical either. 

Some posters on here appear to dislike both!🤣


----------



## RichA (Sep 21, 2022)

I'm largely agnostic about the monarchy. They have no bearing on my life and I've got no strong feelings for or against them.
I do find it interesting though that the majority of us Brits support this family that were supposedly anointed by a god that the majority of us don't believe exists. They are where they are because their ancestors were better at plotting and murdering than their rivals a few hundred years ago. 
For me it's a question of relevance and necessity rather than cost. 

Switzerland manage ok without a head of state.


----------



## Stuart_C (Sep 21, 2022)

I've no problem with a monarchy, i do have a problem with the hangers on who are on the take and bring nothing to the table. 

Get rid of the Lords,Prince's,Duchess's etc who are there by association for a start.

And Prince Andrew should be drop kicked out of the system. The shame he has brought on the monarchy is shocking.

Whether or not he is guilty, his continued friendship links to  Maxwell and Epstein after the conviction was abhorrent.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 21, 2022)

Without the monarchy the question comes will we still have all the cost of maintaining the properties such as Buckingham Palace the actual ownership of which is fairly vague. It is run, along with a lot of other properties, by the Crown Estate.

Is The Crown Estate public property?

The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it "the sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2022)

Beezerk said:



			I would really hope he has better judgement, but if it ever came to that it would certainly be interesting.
		
Click to expand...

I would hope so too but we always have to consider the 'what if' scenario. That is one of the key things that bothers me, the lack of control we have over this group of people.


----------



## jim8flog (Sep 21, 2022)

Doing a quick bit of simple research

How much is the Sovereign Grant 2021?

86.3 million British pounds

In 2021/22, the annual payment to the British Monarchy from the UK government, or Sovereign Grant, was *86.3 million British pounds*, compared with 85.9 million pounds in the previous financial year.8 Sept 2022

Valued at £67 Billion, the Monarchy is Britain’s Greatest Treasure  Brand Finance estimates the capital value of the UK Monarchy as a business at £67.5bn  Monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy in 2017 is £1.766bn  Annual cost per head is less than £4.50 a year, equal to just over 1p a day


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

Stuart_C said:



			I've no problem with a monarchy, i do have a problem with the hangers on who are on the take and bring nothing to the table.

Get rid of the Lords,Prince's,Duchess's etc who are there by association for a start.

And Prince Andrew should be drop kicked out of the system. The shame he has brought on the monarchy is shocking.

Whether or not he is guilty, his continued friendship links to  Maxwell and Epstein after the conviction was abhorrent.
		
Click to expand...

If Richard, who is a prince and a duke (of Gloucester) were "got rid of", how would this be done? Where would he go and what would he do?
Merely removing his titles makes no difference to his relationship with the monarch.
Peter Phillips, the eldest grandchild of our recently deceased queen, was 5th in line to the throne when he was born.
He has no royal or ducal title to his name, but he is a part of the royal family. Would he need to be "got rid of"? How? 
If yes to Duke of Gloucester, but no to Peter Phillips, Why?
I do get frustrated with the lack of details in some proposed plans.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 21, 2022)

Irrespective of whether they make or cost the country money, their very existence is a flashing beacon of privilege and inequality.


----------



## IanM (Sep 21, 2022)

WGCRider said:



			That's just not true. The number of people visiting the UK specifically because of the monarchy is about the same as the number of people visiting France specifically to see Versailles or visiting the US only to see the White House. i.e. a number close to 0.
		
Click to expand...

So, all the Yanks on the Mall this week were also here to watch Aldershot v Halifax too eh?


----------



## IanM (Sep 21, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Irrespective of whether they make or cost the country money, their very existence is a flashing beacon of privilege and inequality.
		
Click to expand...

There is something in that.    But tradition is a funny thing.  As I inferred earlier,  it isn't logical , but many folk are  ok with it.    

The rest of the argument becomes political,  so ultra vires!


----------



## Neilds (Sep 21, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Irrespective of whether they make or cost the country money, their very existence is a flashing beacon of privilege and inequality.
		
Click to expand...

Equality is rife throughout the country, some say that golf is elitist and a sign of privilege - shall we get rid of that as well?


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 21, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Equality is rife throughout the country, some say that golf is elitist and a sign of privilege - shall we get rid of that as well?
		
Click to expand...

Well no, because I think they'd be wrong. Or they'd be looking at the wrong golf clubs.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Equality is rife throughout the country, some say that golf is elitist and a sign of privilege - shall we get rid of that as well?
		
Click to expand...

Golf has gone some way to addressing that, however it could still do more.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 21, 2022)

AmandaJR said:



			Of course I am - which is why I put it that way. *No I didn't notice the lack of interest in Scotland*.
		
Click to expand...

Emphasising my point there, you've seen what you wish to see and not the reality


----------



## RichA (Sep 21, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Equality is rife throughout the country, some say that golf is elitist and a sign of privilege - shall we get rid of that as well?
		
Click to expand...

Not sure about you, but my golf club membership and equipment is paid for out of the money that I earn.
Some clubs may be elitist. Golf itself is not.


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 21, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Emphasising my point there, you've seen what you wish to see and not the reality 

Click to expand...

Ha ha - knew you'd say that


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 21, 2022)

We will see in the next year or two what King Charles thinks a slimmed-down monarchy might look like.

In thinking about this and who King Charles admires from the past and might take a lead from, I picked up my much treasured and read book _A Pageant of History (1957)_ that has informed my understanding of British history for more than 50yrs…and I read this morning the following…

_The new King was a sincere, brave and well-meaning young man, but not over-bright, and very obstinate in his views. _

This was King George III about whom King Charles has expressed much admiration 🤣

Interestingly, and as an aside, I also read that King George III (and I quote from my book) _organised, largely by bribery, a party in the House of Commons on which he could depend.  These were labelled the ‘King's Friends’ amongst which the Tories were predominant, for the Tory party had now become reconciled to the Hanoverian succession._

It’s history of the mid-late 18th century and very much, almost everything, has changed since then, but it leads me to wonder how our new King might work with Parliament 🤔


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 21, 2022)

The Monarchy will always be an emotive subject 

1. Financial - it costs a lot for the monarchy but the level of finance they bring into the country I don’t think the real amount can be known. Millions around the world come to visit the Royal Family and not just to see the buildings. People visit many areas around the country for a chance to see them and that’s not just from abroad. I have no doubt that they bring more to the economy than they take out 

2. Employment - the royal family directly and indirectly employ 1000’s of people.

3. Public Relations - just look at the reaction during the jubilee celebrations, look at the last 10 days or so , watch when they visit other countries and see how people react to them - there is no figure or group of people that have that reaction - they stand head and shoulders above anyone in the world when it comes to that. 

4. Head of State - it’s mainly ceremonial, they don’t get involved in the politics , it’s not been their remit for decades , the elected parties do that for them. But just look at the message the Queen portrayed during the Covid and compare to the message portrayed by the government. 

5. Privilege - yes they are privileged by birth , but they aren’t the only ones and with that privilege comes a lot of responsibility and for the most part they shoulder it well 


Overall the monarchy aren’t going anywhere currently - they won’t be standing themselves down , no government will look for a referendum to go to a republic - and even if they did public opinion would be more than strong enough to keep them 

The Royal Family don’t cause harm to the general public and for many they are a cause for good feeling and support and they provide overall a very public image for the country 

We all pay the equivalent of £1.29 for them as a sovereign grant - for what they do for the country it’s money well spent


----------



## Oddsocks (Sep 21, 2022)

I’ve not seen a single event that has pulled our country and other countries together so tightly as the queens death, it says it all.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

We don't "pay" £1.29.

That is a figure derived from the Sovereign Grant divided by population.

The Sovereign Grant is taken from the profits of the Crown Estate. Recent report shows profits of over £300 million and a grant given back from the Treasury of around £86 million.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Monarchy will always be an emotive subject

1. Financial - it costs a lot for the monarchy but the level of finance they bring into the country I don’t think the real amount can be known. *Millions around the world come to visit the Royal Family and not just to see the buildings.* People visit many areas around the country for a chance to see them and that’s not just from abroad. I have no doubt that they bring more to the economy than they take out

2. Employment - the royal family directly and indirectly employ 1000’s of people.

3. Public Relations - just look at the reaction during the jubilee celebrations, look at the last 10 days or so , watch when they visit other countries and see how people react to them - there is no figure or group of people that have that reaction - they stand head and shoulders above anyone in the world when it comes to that.

4. Head of State - it’s mainly ceremonial, they don’t get involved in the politics , it’s not been their remit for decades , the elected parties do that for them. But just look at the message the Queen portrayed during the Covid and compare to the message portrayed by the government.

5. Privilege - yes they are privileged by birth , but they aren’t the only ones and with that privilege comes a lot of responsibility and for the most part they shoulder it well


Overall the monarchy aren’t going anywhere currently - they won’t be standing themselves down , no government will look for a referendum to go to a republic - and even if they did public opinion would be more than strong enough to keep them

The Royal Family don’t cause harm to the general public and for many they are a cause for good feeling and support and they provide overall a very public image for the country

We all pay the equivalent of £1.29 for them as a sovereign grant - for what they do for the country it’s money well spent
		
Click to expand...

How do I visit the royal family?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			How do I visit the royal family?
		
Click to expand...

https://www.royal.uk/future-engagements
Trooping the Colour and indeed any public royal event - take the Jubilee as an example and see how many visited the UK to see the Queen during the celebrations.


----------



## drdel (Sep 21, 2022)

IF the Monarchy is so economically viable then let it operate in the commercial world and pay ALL the relevant taxes and commercial rates on the properties.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



https://www.royal.uk/future-engagements
Trooping the Colour and indeed any public royal event - take the Jubilee as an example and see how many visited the UK to see the Queen during the celebrations.
		
Click to expand...

Oh you mean go and stand some distance away or maybe watch them walk by . That's not visiting by any stretch....


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

drdel said:



			IF the Monarchy is so economically viable then let it operate in the commercial world and pay ALL the relevant taxes and commercial rates on the properties.
		
Click to expand...

The Crown Estate *IS* run on commercial lines and is accountable to the treasury. There is no need to tax it as the money does not disappear to shareholders and wealthy people, but remains in the coffers of the Crown Estate which is accountable to, and audited by, the treasury. The prime minister is First Lord Of The Treasury.
If you have a better financial plan than this you should set it out. Take note of the Crown Estate Act and set out how to change it or replace it with something else and how that would work.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 21, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			I prefer our Constitutional Monarchy to a Presidential one.   I can see the case for a somewhat thinned down Royal Household though.
		
Click to expand...

Orikoru said it very well. The argument re the alternative "President " isn't valid.
There is no reason to replace the Monarch with a President.
We could have what we have now. The PM is the Head of State .
The heads of State of many countries are elected.
If our Monarchy "disbanded " or whatever term you use, this Country would continue to be governed as it is.
The "never seen" costs of the monarchy are immense. The "incidentals " that aren't on the balance sheet etc.


Voyager EMH said:



			The Crown Estate is held and audited by the treasury. *It is owned by the nation in the name of the monarch. The monarch can not sell any of it.* The Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall form part of the Crown Estate. Revenue from the estate goes to the treasury. The Sovereign Grant is 15% of that revenue, although there is currently an increase to fund repairs and renovations to Buckingham Palace. It is set to return to 15% when these are completed.

The Crown Estate, all the land therein and revenue from it, functions as a nationalised industry.

King Charles' personal wealth, which will soon include Balmoral and Sandringham, is not impressive. *He will be somewhere around the 300th wealthiest person in the UK.*

In my view, we have a very good system for keeping and funding a non-politicised head of state.
Far preferable to me than the USA, France or Germany system, where the head of state is the head of government.
		
Click to expand...

I understand the president of Germany is not the head of Government. That is the Chancellor , I believe. ( equivalent to our PM).
However. These presidents are elected and not living in as much luxury, nor are there siblings, relatives etc living for their whole lives in similar circumstances just because they are born into it.


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 21, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			Orikoru said it very well. The argument re the alternative "President " isn't valid.
There is no reason to replace the Monarch with a President.
We could have what we have now. The PM is the Head of State .
The heads of State of many countries are elected.
If our Monarchy "disbanded " or whatever term you use, this Country would continue to be governed as it is.
The "never seen" costs of the monarchy are immense. The "incidentals " that aren't on the balance sheet etc.


I understand the president of Germany is not the head of Government. That is the Chancellor , I believe. ( equivalent to our PM).
However. These presidents are elected and not living in as much luxury, nor are there siblings, relatives etc living for their whole lives in similar circumstances just because they are born into it.
		
Click to expand...

To play a bit of Devil lad advocate. What level of wealth and privilege should people be allowed to be born into?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			To play a bit of Devil lad advocate. What level of wealth and privilege should people be allowed to be born into?
		
Click to expand...

The ability to avoid inheritance tax tips things in their favour more than a tad. Perhaps even that one out to the same degree as everyone else?

Lots of people are born into money, whether old family money, passed down through time, or new money, made in the last generation. I don't begrudge anyone that money, politics of envy and all that, but I do think there should be a level playing field.


----------



## drdel (Sep 21, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			The Crown Estate *IS* run on commercial lines and is accountable to the treasury. There is no need to tax it as the money does not disappear to shareholders and wealthy people, but remains in the coffers of the Crown Estate which is accountable to, and audited by, the treasury. The prime minister is First Lord Of The Treasury.
If you have a better financial plan than this you should set it out. Take note of the Crown Estate Act and set out how to change it or replace it with something else and how that would work.
		
Click to expand...


The Crown Estate is a long long way divorced from being run as a commercial enterprise. Tax accountability is widely different for Royals and their property.


----------



## BrianM (Sep 21, 2022)

drdel said:



			The Crown Estate is a long long way divorced from being run as a commercial enterprise. Tax accountability is widely different for Royals and their property.
		
Click to expand...

Not in Scotland it’s not, it’s definitely commercial and that’s directly working with them.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			To play a bit of Devil lad advocate. What level of wealth and privilege should people be allowed to be born into?
		
Click to expand...

Good point.
Our royal family are way down the list of wealth and privilege in this country.
They are very visible and required to be responsible in civic duties.
The 300 or so wealthy people above them are mainly not visible to the public and accountable to no one but themselves with regard to their activities. Yet their wealth and privilege, handed down through generations, is rarely questioned.

I have never felt comfortable with hereditary wealth and privilege.
Creating laws which restrict this would be a very tricky business. I am not against the idea of someone trying however. Seems like a worthy cause. Why not set this out please someone?
The royal family having wealth and privilege does not concern me greatly as it is so visible and the Crown Estate finances are made public.

I do not consider myself to be a monarchist or a royalist. I am a realist.

I would advocate change only when I am completely convinced that the change is well worked out, achievable and of benefit to the country as a whole.
Our present system is currently the least worst, in my view.

It is very easy to spout simplicities with no details and gain support.
That is how Brexit was achieved.

I hope it does not happen that way with our constitutional monarchy.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 21, 2022)

I'm getting worried about all this getting rid of the monarchy   -  I'm 42,000,000 'th  inline for the throne


----------



## larmen (Sep 21, 2022)

Swinglowandslow said:



			I understand the president of Germany is not the head of Government. That is the Chancellor , I believe. ( equivalent to our PM).
However. These presidents are elected and not living in as much luxury, nor are there siblings, relatives etc living for their whole lives in similar circumstances just because they are born into it.
		
Click to expand...

The German president is elected by half parliament, half celebrities. Not sure that’s better than birth right in any way ;-)

Steinneier seems decent, Gauck was weird. Wulff was good but bullied out with a drummed up scandal that wasn’t one. There was one in between which I can’t even remember.

All he does is final signature on parliament bills, and shaking hands. 2 term limit, but nice big pension after serving a single day.

I don’t think a figure a one government is necessary in Germany.


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 21, 2022)

LP has listed the Privy Purse, which shows what the State pays the Monarchy.

However, it is worth noting what the Crown Estates generate… the Crown Estates paid around £260m to the Treasury, net after running cost. It’s worth looking at who owns the Crown Estates, and why.

Further, neither the Queen nor the, now, King are liable to pay any taxes. But both decided they should pay all taxes over 30 years ago, including Corporation taxes, income taxes, Council taxes, + NI contributions and pension payments for their staff.

Whether you’re a Royalist or a Republican, the simple (business) equation of money in ‘v’ money out suggests the U.K. Treasury does extremely well out of the Royals.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

drdel said:



			The Crown Estate is a long long way divorced from being run as a commercial enterprise. Tax accountability is widely different for Royals and their property.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 21, 2022)

My answer is a resounding No. The cost to the tax payer is peanuts on an economic scale. Sadly, individuals see a cost and compare it to how much money it is compared to their own bank account, and therefore the number does indeed seem huge.

You just need to look at how the nation has responded in the last week. I read that the global viewing audience on Monday was 4 billion, more than half the population of the world. I've no idea how accurate that figure is, but the global audience will still be ridiculously high. How many tourists will that bring into our country in decades to come, people who want to see Buckingham Palace and all things Royal first hand. The money that brings into hotels, restaurants, public transport, shops, etc.

Also, how much of the tax payers money that goes to the Royal Family is paid out in wages by people employed by the Royal Family? If property needs expensive repairs, where does that money go? Does it not simply go back into the hands of mainly British people and companies!?

The Royal Family are also incredibly powerful diplomats for the country


----------



## backwoodsman (Sep 21, 2022)

Do I believe in an inherited monarchy? Sorry, but no. Do I believe our head of state should be chosen by quirk of birth? Again, sorry, but no. Does the current monarchy generate income to the country. Undoubtedly. How much? Questionable. Do people come to the UK to see the pomp, pageantry and razzmatazz? Yes. Do they *only* come because of that? Almost certainly not. Do we need a monarchy to sustain that pomp, pageantry & razzamatazz? Hmmmmm .... ? (After all, most of it is only walking about slowly in silly clothes, sometimes with a few horses and a band thrown in). We could still do that anyway, couldn't we?. But given I  don't really know what to replace the monarchy with, I'll not commit to regicide just yet.

But can we stop banging on about the Sovereign Grant costing only £1.29 per head per year. That grant doesn't cover anywhere near all the costs of keeping the monarchy roadshow on the road..


----------



## drdel (Sep 21, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			Do I believe in an inherited monarchy? Sorry, but no. Do I believe our head of state should be chosen by quirk of birth? Again, sorry, but no. Does the current monarchy generate income to the country. Undoubtedly. How much? Questionable. Do people come to the UK to see the pomp, pageantry and razzmatazz? Yes. Do they *only* come because of that? Almost certainly not. Do we need a monarchy to sustain that pomp, pageantry & razzamatazz? Hmmmmm .... ? (After all, most of it is only walking about slowly in silly clothes, sometimes with a few horses and a band thrown in). We could still do that anyway, couldn't we?. But given I  don't really know what to replace the monarchy with, I'll not commit to regicide just yet.

But can we stop banging on about the Sovereign Grant costing only £1.29 per head per year. That grant doesn't cover anywhere near all the costs of keeping the monarchy roadshow on the road..
		
Click to expand...

I'm not anti the Royals but I do think we need to be realistic and less sentimental/emotional.


----------



## WGCRider (Sep 21, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I read that the global viewing audience on Monday was 4 billion, more than half the population of the world. I've no idea how accurate that figure is,
		
Click to expand...

We don't know what it is but we do know it's nowhere near that. The most watched single TV event ever is the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics where the verifiable figure is around 1 Billion. More than half of that came from China itself.
FIFA claim an audience of 2 billion for a world cup. They define this as someone viewing for more than 3 minutes during the 4 weeks of the tournament. Most experts think that number is way too high. There is no chance a single days' TV is double that.
Almost every story along the lines of _"xxx million/billion watched the wedding/superbowl/final around the world"  _is PR guff.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 21, 2022)

WGCRider said:



			We don't know what it is but we do know it's nowhere near that. The most watched single TV event ever is the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics where the verifiable figure is around 1 Billion. More than half of that came from China itself.
FIFA claim an audience of 2 billion for a world cup. They define this as someone viewing for more than 3 minutes during the 4 weeks of the tournament. Most experts think that number is way too high. There is no chance a single days' TV is double that.
Almost every story along the lines of _"xxx million/billion watched the wedding/superbowl/final around the world"  _is PR guff.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, as I said, I've no idea how accurate that is, as it seemed ridiculously high (considering the amount of people in the world who probably don't have a TV, young kids with definitely no interest, etc). However, it'll certainly have been watched by a very large number of people outside the country live, and I'm sure many more will see selections of it as time goes on.


----------



## GB72 (Sep 21, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Yeah, as I said, I've no idea how accurate that is, as it seemed ridiculously high (considering the amount of people in the world who probably don't have a TV, young kids with definitely no interest, etc). However, it'll certainly have been watched by a very large number of people outside the country live, and I'm sure many more will see selections of it as time goes on.
		
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to know the algorythm for calculating it as, if similar is always applied, whilst you cannot get an accurate number, you can work out the size of the audience in comparison to other events.


----------



## WGCRider (Sep 21, 2022)

GB72 said:



			Would be interesting to know the algorythm for calculating it as, if similar is always applied, whilst you cannot get an accurate number, you can work out the size of the audience in comparison to other events.
		
Click to expand...

https://www.sportingintelligence.co...-2bn-because-sport-not-royalty-reigns-080501/

This for for Willy and Katie's wedding but you can see the logic here.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

Denise Coates of Bet365 paid herself a salary of £421 million and £48 million in share dividend in 2020. This brought her income to over a billion pounds in the 4 years up to 2020.
She will, of course, be paying income tax on that.
Makes the Sovereign Grant look small in comparison, though.

Her children are likely to inherit a vast fortune each as her net worth is estimated at around £7 billion.

I'm pointing this out merely to show how the wealth and income of the King and the Crown Estate compares with other wealthy people.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 21, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			Denise Coates of Bet365 paid herself a salary of £421 million and £48 million in share dividend in 2020. This brought her income to over a billion pounds in the 4 years up to 2020.
She will, of course, be paying income tax on that.
Makes the Sovereign Grant look small in comparison, though.

Her children are likely to inherit a vast fortune each as her net worth is estimated at around £7 billion.

I'm pointing this out merely to show how the wealth of the King and the Crown Estate compares with other wealthy people.
		
Click to expand...

And she wont be required to go out on a wet Wednesday in Watford to open a factory as the King or Queen has to


----------



## Oddsocks (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			How do I visit the royal family?
		
Click to expand...

Send them a email.

Canicomeforlunch@theroyals.org.uk


----------



## KenL (Sep 21, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Irrespective of whether they make or cost the country money, their very existence is a flashing beacon of privilege and inequality.
		
Click to expand...

Where's the privilege in not being able to pop to the shops or do anything without the world watching and looking to criticise?


----------



## Oddsocks (Sep 21, 2022)

KenL said:



			Where's the privilege in not being able to pop to the shops or do anything without the world watching and looking to criticise?
		
Click to expand...

100%! Look at the little prince and how he was ridiculed for pulling funny faces at Kate, further more she was slaughtered for poor parenting etc etc etc.

He’s a tot who was bored sitting there for hours, what did they actually expect?


----------



## KenL (Sep 21, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			To play a bit of Devil lad advocate. What level of wealth and privilege should people be allowed to be born into?
		
Click to expand...

Let's ask Bill Gates' kids.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

KenL said:



			Where's the privilege in not being able to pop to the shops or do anything without the world watching and looking to criticise?
		
Click to expand...

Pop to the shops 😅😅 they have a man for that.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Pop to the shops 😅😅 they have a man for that.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly. They need a man. I'd hate to have a man doing everything for me, instead of having the freedom to do things myself, as and when I wish.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 21, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Exactly. They need a man. I'd hate to have a man doing everything for me, instead of having the freedom to do things myself, as and when I wish.
		
Click to expand...

Andrew seemed to get away with it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 21, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Too costly, yes. I don't care what the cost per person is but whatever it is I'd rather it went elsewhere. There are far better uses for it.

Having a royal family in a modern democracy is an outdated nonsense that just doesn't stand up to analysis. One we are stuck with for the time being but as the generations change so may their status.
		
Click to expand...

In your opinion.  Many believe it's not an outdated nonsense and stands up well in analysis.  Of course it's their prerogative to hold that opinion just like it's yours to hold the contrary.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 21, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			A new head of state, if we decided we needed one, would be elected, not repeated through accident of birth. Should one go rogue we would be able to remove them democratically, or via procedures put in place. I would also expect the position, should it be needed, to be ceremonial only, with few real powers. Tell me, how do we remove Charles if he goes 'rogue' and oversteps his role?
		
Click to expand...

His role and powers are clear enough and in the case of going rogue I'm not sure how he could do that, other than making some political comments.   The Elected Government are the executive and as such have the power to manage any such situation.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 21, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Andrew seemed to get away with it.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he is. A lot of "normal" people get away with what he had alleged to have done. Assuming he did what is alleged, even if he gets away with it legally, he isn't getting away with it in the eyes of the public. And if he didn't do what was alleged, he is still not getting away with it in the eyes of the public, he is still guilty to many


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 21, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			If Richard, who is a prince and a duke (of Gloucester) were "got rid of", how would this be done? Where would he go and what would he do?
Merely removing his titles makes no difference to his relationship with the monarch.
Peter Phillips, the eldest grandchild of our recently deceased queen, was 5th in line to the throne when he was born.
He has no royal or ducal title to his name, but he is a part of the royal family. Would he need to be "got rid of"? How?
If yes to Duke of Gloucester, but no to Peter Phillips, Why?
I do get frustrated with the lack of details in some proposed plans.
		
Click to expand...

By thinning down I believe it only relates to how many are funded.  Their titles are irrelevant.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 21, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			In your opinion.  Many believe it's not an outdated nonsense and stands up well in analysis.  Of course it's their prerogative to hold that opinion just like it's yours to hold the contrary.
		
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise


----------



## Golfmmad (Sep 21, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			The Monarchy will always be an emotive subject

1. Financial - it costs a lot for the monarchy but the level of finance they bring into the country I don’t think the real amount can be known. Millions around the world come to visit the Royal Family and not just to see the buildings. People visit many areas around the country for a chance to see them and that’s not just from abroad. I have no doubt that they bring more to the economy than they take out

2. Employment - the royal family directly and indirectly employ 1000’s of people.

3. Public Relations - just look at the reaction during the jubilee celebrations, look at the last 10 days or so , watch when they visit other countries and see how people react to them - there is no figure or group of people that have that reaction - they stand head and shoulders above anyone in the world when it comes to that.

4. Head of State - it’s mainly ceremonial, they don’t get involved in the politics , it’s not been their remit for decades , the elected parties do that for them. But just look at the message the Queen portrayed during the Covid and compare to the message portrayed by the government.

5. Privilege - yes they are privileged by birth , but they aren’t the only ones and with that privilege comes a lot of responsibility and for the most part they shoulder it well


Overall the monarchy aren’t going anywhere currently - they won’t be standing themselves down , no government will look for a referendum to go to a republic - and even if they did public opinion would be more than strong enough to keep them

The Royal Family don’t cause harm to the general public and for many they are a cause for good feeling and support and they provide overall a very public image for the country

We all pay the equivalent of £1.29 for them as a sovereign grant - for what they do for the country it’s money well spent
		
Click to expand...

Well said Phil. 👍


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 21, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			By thinning down I believe it only relates to how many are funded.  Their titles are irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

I was responding to post#93 (https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...chy-too-costly-for-the-uk.113137/post-2549173) where the poster used the phrase "got rid of" not "thinning down".
What "getting rid of" a prince or a duke entails in the mind of the poster, I do not know.
As for "thinning down" I imagine that happens when someone dies or ceases royal duties. But then new ones come along like William and Kate's kids who will eventually become working royals unless they "do a Harry".
Who does and does not perform royal duties is a matter I'm sure we will be able to see occur as it happens.
I am not sure who, if anyone, has any influence or power to direct the monarch with regard to having fewer personnel performing these tasks and what difference this makes to the amount of the Sovereign Grant. It might not amount to much that will make any significant difference to any of us citizens.

Compared with Denise Coates £421 million salary or even Rishi Sunak's wife's £10 million a year share dividend payouts, the Sovereign Grant does not amount to much for me to get too concerned about. I can see where it comes from and where it goes. None of it goes into accounts in Panama or the British Virgin Islands, as far as I know.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 21, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			To play a bit of Devil lad advocate. What level of wealth and privilege should people be allowed to be born into?
		
Click to expand...

But the wealth they are born into is *our *wealth😀


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 21, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			I was responding to post#93 (https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...chy-too-costly-for-the-uk.113137/post-2549173) where the poster used the phrase "got rid of" not "thinning down".
What "getting rid of" a prince or a duke entails in the mind of the poster, I do not know.
As for "thinning down" I imagine that happens when someone dies or ceases royal duties. But then new ones come along like William and Kate's kids who will eventually become working royals unless they "do a Harry".
Who does and does not perform royal duties is a matter I'm sure we will be able to see occur as it happens.
I am not sure who, if anyone, has any influence or power to direct the monarch with regard to having fewer personnel performing these tasks and what difference this makes to the amount of the Sovereign Grant. It might not amount to much that will make any significant difference to any of us citizens.

Compared with Denise Coates £421 million salary or even Rishi Sunak's wife's £10 million a year share dividend payouts, the Sovereign Grant does not amount to much for me to get too concerned about. I can see where it comes from and where it goes. None of it goes into accounts in Panama or the British Virgin Islands, as far as I know.
		
Click to expand...

 The issue with the size of the royal establishment isn't just a matter of cost, it's also one of public perception.   I would guess the Majority are comfortable with the Monarch, their immediate heirs and partners but support for the Sovereign Grant beyond this starts to quickly thin out along with the acceptance of the status minor royals receive.   I have no problems with the Royal Core household but would be quite happy to see the back of the lesser Royals.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			The issue with the size of the royal establishment isn't just a matter of cost, it's also one of public perception.   I would guess the Majority are comfortable with the Monarch, their immediate heirs and partners but support for the Sovereign Grant beyond this starts to quickly thin out along with the acceptance of the status minor royals receive.   I have no problems with the Royal Core household but would be quite happy to see the back of the lesser Royals.
		
Click to expand...

"See the back of" is similar to "got rid of" and "thinning down". These are the spouted simplicities I mentioned earlier. They lack clarity and details.
I asked the question earlier in this thread. Exactly who are we talking about and how would you like to see their roles changing and why? The Crown Estate will continue to generate revenue and if the Sovereign Grant can be reduced, the extra amount remaining in the treasury will not amount to much that can make much of a difference to us citizens. Perhaps it could be spent on the essential repairs and maintenance of the parliament buildings?
The "Royal Core household" that you mention has automatically been reduced ("thinned out" maybe) from the Monarch, 4 children and 8 grandchildren to a new Monarch 2 children and 5 grandchildren. Harry and his household are not in receipt of any Sovereign Grant money.
So who else, other than William and Kate, would you find acceptable to perform royal duties? Of those who already perform these duties, would you rather that they did nothing at all? Edward and Michael of Kent, the Duke of Gloucester and the King's sister are all well past retirement age. Personally, I'm OK with them performing some functions when Charles and William are not available or can not be in two places at one time. Not allowing them any role at all at any time, will not affect the Sovereign Grant.

I am finding it difficult to understand what exactly some people mean on this thread when their postulations lack clarity or detail.


----------



## backwoodsman (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			"See the back of" is similar to "got rid of" and "thinning down". These are the spouted simplicities I mentioned earlier. They lack clarity and details.
I asked the question earlier in this thread. Exactly who are we talking about and how would you like to see their roles changing and why? The Crown Estate will continue to generate revenue and if the Sovereign Grant can be reduced, the extra amount remaining in the treasury will not amount to much that can make much of a difference to us citizens. Perhaps it could be spent on the essential repairs and maintenance of the parliament buildings?
The "Royal Core household" that you mention has automatically been reduced ("thinned out" maybe) from the Monarch, 4 children and 8 grandchildren to a new Monarch 2 children and 5 grandchildren. Harry and his household are not in receipt of any Sovereign Grant money.
*So who else, other than William and Kate, would you find acceptable to perform royal duties? *Of those who already perform these duties, would you rather that they did nothing at all? Edward and Michael of Kent, the Duke of Gloucester and the King's sister are all well past retirement age. Personally, I'm OK with them performing some functions when Charles and William are not available or can not be in two places at one time. Not allowing them any role at all at any time, will not affect the Sovereign Grant.

I am finding it difficult to understand what exactly some people mean on this thread when their postulations lack clarity or detail.
		
Click to expand...

Does anyone need to perform 'royal duties'? What do they do that could not be performed by someone 'non-royal'?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 22, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			Does anyone need to perform 'royal duties'? What do they do that could not be performed by someone 'non-royal'?
		
Click to expand...

Indeed could…though you’d need at least half dozen ‘anyones’ (significant and well-known anyones at that) to cover all the bases currently covered by the Working Royals.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

They're a relic from age long since past and quite rightly people question their relevance in a modern society.  However you dress it up they also cost a staggering amount of money which could be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			They're a relic from age long since past and quite rightly people question their relevance in a modern society.  However you dress it up they also cost a staggering amount of money which could be better spent elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

thats the thing though. the money wont be better spent .. 

the royals do a good job for the money, they represent the country internationally and do fantastic charity work

take them away the money just goes in the pot and is wasted further.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			They're a relic from age long since past and quite rightly people question their relevance in a modern society.  However you dress it up they also cost a staggering amount of money which could be better spent elsewhere.
		
Click to expand...

Hardly, the Royal Family is alive to this day. They were on display on TV on Monday if you want the evidence.

I accept that individual people may not be supporters of the Royal Family. However, they should probably learn to accept that millions of people do support them. All the debates have been made on this thread, from the money they attract to the country to the diplomacy they offer. 

They perform Royal duties as there is a demand for them to do so. If it wasn't for the Royals, who else would people suggest could do them? Politicians? Sports stars? Movie stars? Whoever it is, there will be plenty who do not support them as well.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			thats the thing though. the money wont be better spent .. 

the royals do a good job for the money, they represent the country internationally and do fantastic charity work

take them away the money just goes in the pot and is wasted further.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly my thoughts. The Royal Family seems to be a stable investment, like investing in gold.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 22, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			thats the thing though. the money wont be better spent ..

the royals do a good job for the money, they represent the country internationally and do fantastic charity work

take them away the money just goes in the pot and is wasted further.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed...the country is pretty good at spaffing money up a wall (to misquote the well known phrase or saying).  The cost to the country of the RF is not significant in the overall scheme of things.  Maybe we look to the energy, oil and gas corporates to sponsor the RF as they appear to be swimming in dosh from their excess profits.🙄

One problem I have with the RF comes the feeling I had on Monday when at one point— I think it was at Wellington Arch - when I was thinking the grandeur and pomp was splendid…I stood back and thought…this is actually complete Game of Thrones nonsense and indeed a load of flummery, and I almost laughed.

Do we really want part of our democracy to be viewed by the main source of income to the country (tourism) in such a light.  I’m not so sure.  I remain ambivalent.


----------



## backwoodsman (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Hardly, the Royal Family is alive to this day. They were on display on TV on Monday if you want the evidence.

*I accept that individual people may not be supporters of the Royal Family. However, they should probably learn to accept that millions of people do support them*. All the debates have been made on this thread, from the money they attract to the country to the diplomacy they offer.

They perform Royal duties as there is a demand for them to do so. If it wasn't for the Royals, who else would people suggest could do them? Politicians? Sports stars? Movie stars? Whoever it is, there will be plenty who do not support them as well.
		
Click to expand...

But also we have to accept that there are millions who don't  support them. What we don't really know is what's the numbers/proportions of the two.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			But also we have to accept that there are millions who don't  support them. What we don't really know is what's the numbers/proportions of the two.
		
Click to expand...

Depends who you ask. Oldies on the whole worship them, the young are much less interested.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Exactly my thoughts. The Royal Family seems to be a stable investment, like investing in gold.
		
Click to expand...

I can sell investments for a profit. Hopefully..... Not sure what I get from the RF, what tangible return do I get for my investment?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 22, 2022)

Oddsocks said:



			I’ve not seen a single event that has pulled our country and other countries together so tightly as the queens death, it says it all.
		
Click to expand...

Like Amanda, you've clearly only seen what you want to see.


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 22, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Like Amanda, you've clearly only seen what you want to see.
		
Click to expand...

The same goes for both sides of the argument.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 22, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Like Amanda, you've clearly only seen what you want to see.
		
Click to expand...

Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Sep 22, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. *On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy*

Click to expand...

Replace someone they have little chance to remove with someone they have little chance to remove? I'm not sure Russia was the best option to use there


----------



## GreiginFife (Sep 22, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they tried that... didn't like it very much.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy
		
Click to expand...

😂😂 Probably not. Nick ii and that lot weren't exactly popular.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			I can sell investments for a profit. Hopefully..... Not sure what I get from the RF, what tangible return do I get for my investment?
		
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the economic benefits of the Royal Family have already been discussed? Are you only considering money that you can see go directly into your own bank account, and ignoring the money generated within the economy as a whole as a result of the existence of the Royal Family.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I'm pretty sure the economic benefits of the Royal Family have already been discussed? Are you only considering money that you can see go directly into your own bank account, and ignoring the money generated within the economy as a whole as a result of the existence of the Royal Family.
		
Click to expand...

Can anyone send him £5 a year and be done with it

Infact there enough of us to chip in to make it less than 50p


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I'm pretty sure the economic benefits of the Royal Family have already been discussed? Are you only considering money that you can see go directly into your own bank account, and ignoring the money generated within the economy as a whole as a result of the existence of the Royal Family.
		
Click to expand...

How much money do they generate?


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			Can anyone send him £5 a year and be done with it

Infact there enough of us to chip in to make it less than 50p
		
Click to expand...

It was £1.29 the other day. Make your mind up.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			How much money do they generate?
		
Click to expand...

Loads


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 22, 2022)

I consider the £1.29 the monarchy cost me as money well spent, given the sort of people that seem to be annoyed by them being there.

In the grand scheme of things they are a minor distraction. If you give the subject more than a few seconds thought you need to find yourself something more worthwhile to worry about.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Loads
		
Click to expand...

You can't answer then. Great .


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			I consider the £1.29 the monarchy cost me as money well spent, given the sort of people that seem to be annoyed by them being there.

In the grand scheme of things they are a minor distraction. If you give the subject more than a few seconds thought you need to find yourself something more worthwhile to worry about.
		
Click to expand...

The sort of people , oh deary me.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			You can't answer then. Great .
		
Click to expand...

Why do I need to. You are clearly the expert in this area, so why don't you give us the complete financial break down.

You can split it into various categories, such as:

1. How many tourists come to the country due to the Royal Family (and would not have done otherwise), and how much money do they spend it total

2. How many other tourists visit the country, and how much of their spend was due to the Royal Family (e.g money spent due to prolonging their visit like hotels, food, transport, along with money spent directly on Royal Family activities)

3. How much do we spend on tax for the upkeep of the Royal Family

4. How much of the money we spend, is then put straight back into the economy by employing staff and buying stuff

I'd imagine Questions 1 and 2 are impossible to answer with accuracy, unless someone out there has done extremely accurate surveys? Again, your attitude suggests you have all this detail at your finger tips?


----------



## chrisd (Sep 22, 2022)

Lord Tyrion said:



			Replace someone they have little chance to remove with someone they have little chance to remove? I'm not sure Russia was the best option to use there 

Click to expand...

I think it was perfectly ok to use that as a comparison. Would a King be empowered to "press the button" , I doubt it .


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			It was £1.29 the other day. Make your mind up.
		
Click to expand...

Keep up. I did the fag packet maths and if you go extreme the most cost it can be is £5 a year 

So enjoy your £5


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			"See the back of" is similar to "got rid of" and "thinning down". These are the spouted simplicities I mentioned earlier. They lack clarity and details.
I asked the question earlier in this thread. Exactly who are we talking about and how would you like to see their roles changing and why? The Crown Estate will continue to generate revenue and if the Sovereign Grant can be reduced, the extra amount remaining in the treasury will not amount to much that can make much of a difference to us citizens. Perhaps it could be spent on the essential repairs and maintenance of the parliament buildings?
The "Royal Core household" that you mention has automatically been reduced ("thinned out" maybe) from the Monarch, 4 children and 8 grandchildren to a new Monarch 2 children and 5 grandchildren. Harry and his household are not in receipt of any Sovereign Grant money.
So who else, other than William and Kate, would you find acceptable to perform royal duties? Of those who already perform these duties, would you rather that they did nothing at all? Edward and Michael of Kent, the Duke of Gloucester and the King's sister are all well past retirement age. Personally, I'm OK with them performing some functions when Charles and William are not available or can not be in two places at one time. Not allowing them any role at all at any time, will not affect the Sovereign Grant.

I am finding it difficult to understand what exactly some people mean on this thread when their postulations lack clarity or detail.
		
Click to expand...

Please read my post again, I made it clear who I believed should be retained and who should go.

When making comments like 'Get rid of' or 'See the back of' it obviously doesn't mean killing them off or putting them into exile, they just need retiring and not replacing.

As I explained it's not just a matter of cost, it's the public perception of people who have achieved nothing much by example representing the establishment.   These people look and often act as if they are pompous and privileged, there are more worthy people to carry out minor public ceremony than the likes of the Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester etc.

I reiterate, the core Royal Family are OK with me but I see no useful point in retaining these lesser Royals.


----------



## backwoodsman (Sep 22, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			I consider *the £1.29 the monarchy cost me *as money well spent, given the sort of people that seem to be annoyed by them being there.

In the grand scheme of things they are a minor distraction. If you give the subject more than a few seconds thought you need to find yourself something more worthwhile to worry about.
		
Click to expand...

The £1.29 is only the per capita cost of the Sovereign Grant. The sovereign grant doesn't cover the costs of keeping the Royal Family on the road.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Please read my post again, I made it clear who I believed should be retained and who should go.

When making comments like 'Get rid of' or 'See the back of' it obviously doesn't mean killing them off or putting them into exile, they just need retiring and not replacing.

As I explained it's not just a matter of cost, it's the public perception of people who have achieved nothing much by example representing the establishment.   These people look and often act as if they are *pompous and privileged*, there are more worthy people to carry out minor public ceremony than the likes of the Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester etc.

I reiterate, the core Royal Family are OK with me but I see no useful point in retaining these lesser Royals.
		
Click to expand...

Isn't that just life? If we are talking about the money people have and the houses they live in, then there is absolutely no doubt they are privileged compared to us normal folks. Although, if people look at us from other countries, then suddenly we all look privileged compared to them. After all, what makes us deserve to earn as much as we do, live in the houses we do and enjoy the holidays we do, when other great and good people in other countries live in a shanty town and are exposed to all sorts of disease and violence? There are plenty of people within our own country who could consider many us us as privileged, as we were born in an environment that gave us more money, a better education and better prospects when getting a career. I bet the very fact most of us are members. Most of us are probably members of a golf club, how many people consider us privileged and potentially pompous? 

If there are more worthy people about to carry out a minor public ceremony, then what is stopping getting those people in now to do it anyway? The Royal Family do not have a monopoly on this, where they have demanded they are the only ones to carry out such duties. Unless I am missing something? The organisers could were always free to get these more worthy people involved. In fact, I am sure non-Royal Family members have been involved plenty in these sorts of situations. Yet, clearly there is still a big demand for getting Royal Family members in for these things. Their profile and what they represent must obviously still be a huge advantage for these sorts of things, compared to many of these other worthy people that are spoken of.


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 22, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			The £1.29 is only the per capita cost of the Sovereign Grant. The sovereign grant doesn't cover the costs of keeping the Royal Family on the road.
		
Click to expand...

Call it a tenner than. Still worth it.

In my opinion there are many things we spend/waste money on that need addressing before the cost of the monarchy is looked at.


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 22, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			Call it a tenner than. Still worth it.

In my opinion there are many things we spend/waste money on that need addressing before the cost of the monarchy is looked at.
		
Click to expand...

Call it £5 a month it would be worth it!

Considering my tax bill I see much more of were the royals spend the money for whatever it is yet I don't see a great return for the many £1000s more in year that's taken off me


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Why do I need to. You are clearly the expert in this area, so why don't you give us the complete financial break down.

You can split it into various categories, such as:

1. How many tourists come to the country due to the Royal Family (and would not have done otherwise), and how much money do they spend it total

2. How many other tourists visit the country, and how much of their spend was due to the Royal Family (e.g money spent due to prolonging their visit like hotels, food, transport, along with money spent directly on Royal Family activities)

3. How much do we spend on tax for the upkeep of the Royal Family

4. How much of the money we spend, is then put straight back into the economy by employing staff and buying stuff

I'd imagine Questions 1 and 2 are impossible to answer with accuracy, unless someone out there has done extremely accurate surveys? Again, your attitude suggests you have all this detail at your finger tips?
		
Click to expand...

Me ? Not at all. They're a relic that we don't need. Everyone keeps telling me they're cheap and we'll worth it , they bring in billions and stuff. 
Irrespective of the money , why on earth should I show someone deference just because you tell me to. They are not special , just another random family.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Me ? Not at all. They're a relic that we don't need. Everyone keeps telling me they're cheap and we'll worth it , they bring in billions and stuff.
Irrespective of the money , why on earth should I show someone deference just because you tell me to. They are not special , just another random family.
		
Click to expand...

Equally, why on earth should I agree they are a waste of money because you tell me they are? You asked me for a break down of costs, presumably because you wanted me to justify why they were good value for money. Yet, when you tell us they are not good value for money, you do not have the full economic costs to tell us how you came to that conclusion. So, I guess it is stalemate. I've made an educated estimate that they are great for our economy (and diplomacy) based on the information at hand, and the factors discussed. You can't come to the same conclusion, for whatever reason.


----------



## Wabinez (Sep 22, 2022)

The good thing about this thread, is that it brings about the characters that can be set to ignore as they don't bring any value to conversations.

Watching someone who can't justify any stance apart from a stamp of the feet and a whine that the Royals are relics is pretty funny.


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 22, 2022)

Wabinez said:



			The good thing about this thread, is that it brings about the characters that can be set to ignore as they don't bring any value to conversations.

Watching someone who can't justify any stance apart from a stamp of the feet and a whine that the Royals are relics is pretty funny.
		
Click to expand...

It's funny how similar this debate is to most of the golf-related debates we get here.
"I like it because it's traditional."
"I don't like it because it's outdated and stupid."
And repeat.

The problem here when you talk about the money aspect is that it's unquantifiable anyway. It's always mentioned about tourism they apparently bring in, but you can't put a number on that when you don't know how many people would still visit the UK regardless. So we're just back to I like it, I don't like it.

All threads go the same way. Just check the LIV thread. 350 pages of I like it, I don't like it.


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			It's funny how similar this debate is to most of the golf-related debates we get here.
"I like it because it's traditional."
"I don't like it because outdated and stupid."
And repeat.

The problem here when you talk about the money aspect is that it's unquantifiable anyway. It's always mentioned about tourism they apparently bring in, *but you can't put a number on that when you don't know how many people would still visit the UK regardless*. So we're just back to I like it, I don't like it.

All threads go the same way. Just check the LIV thread. 350 pages of I like it, I don't like it.
		
Click to expand...

No, you cannot put a number on it. However, that does not mean the conclusive answer, in terms of probability, it 50% either way. Taking a completely objective and logical approach, it is probably possible to come up with a very strong case on what their value, or lack of value is to the economy. Most of us are users of a Golf Forum, and despite what some say, I'd be surprised if anyone had any actual expertise on the subject. People search Google, read papers and possibly form opinions based on the communities they are in.

I'm certainly no expert, but when we talk about their cost to the British people, I'm still confident they are great value. When some criticise the money we spend on them, and indicate what a waste it is, they struggle to quantify that. At best, they seem to tell us how much the Royal Family directly costs the tax payer. However, even when they do, it is not a lot of money. Whether you look at it per capita, or even if you look at it as an overall figure, and compare to how much the tax payer spends on other things, or what the super wealthy earn. 

However, even when people use the argument about how much it costs the British tax payer, they do not tell us where that money goes directly. It doesn't all go into a black hole, never to be seen again. It does not all get shipped out to other countries. How much of this money is spent on wages, payment to individuals and companies? In other words, how much of that money is directly fed back into the economy? Then there is the money it generates. There will be direct income they generate that I am sure are measured and out there for all to see? Then there is the unknown incomes that others benefit from, simply by tourists by being there.

To me, it seems obvious that they are vastly beneficial to the country economically, even if the entire Royal Family sat on their backsides and played PlayStation all day. But, clearly they do not do that.


----------



## Bdill93 (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			No, you cannot put a number on it. However, that does not mean the conclusive answer, in terms of probability, it 50% either way. Taking a completely objective and logical approach, it is probably possible to come up with a very strong case on what their value, or lack of value is to the economy. Most of us are users of a Golf Forum, and despite what some say, I'd be surprised if anyone had any actual expertise on the subject. People search Google, read papers and possibly form opinions based on the communities they are in.

I'm certainly no expert, but when we talk about their cost to the British people, I'm still confident they are great value. When some criticise the money we spend on them, and indicate what a waste it is, they struggle to quantify that. At best, they seem to tell us how much the Royal Family directly costs the tax payer. However, even when they do, it is not a lot of money. Whether you look at it per capita, or even if you look at it as an overall figure, and compare to how much the tax payer spends on other things, or what the super wealthy earn.

However, even when people use the argument about how much it costs the British tax payer, they do not tell us where that money goes directly. It doesn't all go into a black hole, never to be seen again. It does not all get shipped out to other countries. How much of this money is spent on wages, payment to individuals and companies? In other words, how much of that money is directly fed back into the economy? Then there is the money it generates. There will be direct income they generate that I am sure are measured and out there for all to see? Then there is the unknown incomes that others benefit from, simply by tourists by being there.

To me, it seems obvious that they are vastly beneficial to the country economically, even if the entire Royal Family sat on their backsides and played PlayStation all day. But, clearly they do not do that.
		
Click to expand...

I think we mostly agree with you mate.

Long live the King.


----------



## Piece (Sep 22, 2022)

How do you put a price on history and world standing?

Remove the Monarchy and overnight we become an insignificant, vanilla, irrelevant nation. IMHO. If that's what some want, then that's what you'll get. If we're extra lucky, we'll get a lovely President in a grey suit or grey dress.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 22, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			The same goes for both sides of the argument.
		
Click to expand...

Really? You think we've missed the last two weeks of MournHub?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 22, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see.
		
Click to expand...

That makes no sense


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			Does anyone need to perform 'royal duties'? What do they do that could not be performed by someone 'non-royal'?
		
Click to expand...

They need to be there representing the monarch by agreement with the monarch.
Such as presenting people with OBEs etc.


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 22, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Really? You think we've missed the last two weeks of MournHub?
		
Click to expand...

No, I think you’ve probably gone looking for it so you can be extra offended by it.

My Mrs has watched loads of it. Other than walking past newspapers and the odd bit on TV that has been on whilst I was in the room. I’ve seen very little of it. In fact most of what I’ve encountered about the whole thing has been the discussion on here.

It was fairly easy to avoid if you wanted to.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			Please read my post again, I made it clear who I believed should be retained and who should go.

When making comments like 'Get rid of' or 'See the back of' it obviously doesn't mean killing them off or putting them into exile, they just need retiring and not replacing.

As I explained it's not just a matter of cost, it's the public perception of people who have achieved nothing much by example representing the establishment.   These people look and often act as if they are pompous and privileged, there are more worthy people to carry out minor public ceremony than the likes of the Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester etc.

I reiterate, the core Royal Family are OK with me but I see no useful point in retaining these lesser Royals.
		
Click to expand...

But if the King believes the qualified architect Duke of Gloucester is the most worthy and appropriate person to represent him opening a civic building, who will tell the King, "No!"?


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			But if the King believes the qualified architect Duke of Gloucester is the most worthy and appropriate person to represent him opening a civic building, who will tell the King, "No!"?
		
Click to expand...

The people it effects? If it is clear nobody wants a certain person their to perform such a gesture, then I guess nobody would really turn up? Does the King want to send an individual to do something to an empty crowd?

However, I'm guessing if the Duke of Gloucester is involved in such things, people come along for the occasion. Now, maybe many more would prefer it if David Beckham, Graham Norton, Gary Lineker or Mo Farah came along and performed the same duty. However, it is unlikely that such people would do this unless they were very directly involved in it, or were paid a whopping big fee. And, maybe there is a "nobody" who could do the same thing. However, although they might be a great person, if they are a nobody then pretty much by definition, nobody else will really care, if they do not know who the person is. At any rate, the attraction of a Royal Family member is less about who they are individually (albeit that will still be an attraction for the high profile ones), but what they represent. They are living representatives of what Britain means to a lot of people, that includes the cultural / historic element


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			The people it effects? If it is clear nobody wants a certain person their to perform such a gesture, then I guess nobody would really turn up? Does the King want to send an individual to do something to an empty crowd?

However, I'm guessing if the Duke of Gloucester is involved in such things, people come along for the occasion. Now, maybe many more would prefer it if David Beckham, Graham Norton, Gary Lineker or Mo Farah came along and performed the same duty. However, it is unlikely that such people would do this unless they were very directly involved in it, or were paid a whopping big fee. And, maybe there is a "nobody" who could do the same thing. However, although they might be a great person, if they are a nobody then pretty much by definition, nobody else will really care, if they do not know who the person is. At any rate, the attraction of a Royal Family member is less about who they are individually (albeit that will still be an attraction for the high profile ones), but what they represent. They are living representatives of what Britain means to a lot of people, that includes the cultural / historic element
		
Click to expand...

But the opening of a civic building has little or nothing to do with drawing a large crowd of onlookers. It is a royal recognition of the work that has been done building it and those who will make use of it. Given that the King and the Duke of Gloucester both have a huge interest in the built environment how can anyone say someone else would be more appropriate to give royal recognition to the work done?


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			But the opening of a civic building has little or nothing to do with drawing a large crowd of onlookers. It is a royal recognition of the work that has been done building it and those who will make use of it. Given that the King and the Duke of Gloucester both have a huge interest in the built environment how can anyone say someone else would be more appropriate to give royal recognition to the work done?
		
Click to expand...

Apologies, I misread the context of your post. 

You are right, who should tell the King No? Maybe Banchory Buddha or theoneandonly would be best placed to do that?


----------



## chrisd (Sep 22, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			That makes no sense
		
Click to expand...

Try reading it


----------



## Crumplezone (Sep 22, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			Call it £5 a month it would be worth it!

Considering my tax bill I see much more of were the royals spend the money for whatever it is yet I don't see a great return for the many £1000s more in year that's taken off me
		
Click to expand...

I'm not bothered about them either way, but as far as I can tell, the royal family are self financing.  Their income comes from royal estates which they pay to the government who gives them 25% back. So in effect, they monarch pays 75% income tax.  Couple this with the money they bring in through tourism and souvenirs etc, at most they cost us nowt and at best actually contribute financially.  Even when the stuff the government pays for is taken into account.  However the question is how they came to possess said royal estates in the first place. Though they don't actually own it as they can't sell any of it.


----------



## backwoodsman (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			They need to be there representing the monarch by agreement with the monarch.
Such as presenting people with OBEs etc.
		
Click to expand...

I fear you miss my point.  Why does anyone need to represent the 'monarch'? Why does an award need to be presented by a 'monarch', or any representative thereof? (Regardless of whether one thinks the current honours system is both anachronistic & corrupt.)


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

[QUOTE="backwoodsman, post: 2549691, member: 1002"*]I fear you miss my point.  Why does anyone need to represent the 'monarch'? *Why does an award need to be presented by a 'monarch', or any representative thereof? (Regardless of whether one thinks the current honours system is both anachronistic & corrupt.)[/QUOTE]
No fear. I do not miss your point.
These awards are given in the name of the monarch. That is what they are.
I am not saying I approve of these awards and the way they are given, but I do know the reality of what they are.
Often it will be the monarch awarding them in person. On other occasions they will be presented by someone representing he monarch with the agreement of the monarch.
That is why someone is needed to represent the monarch.
Before the late Queen's children were old enough, the alternatives were her husband, mother and sister.
If the King is not available to present these awards, likely alternatives will be his wife, eldest son, sister and youngest brother.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Crumplezone said:



			I'm not bothered about them either way, but as far as I can tell, the royal family are self financing.  Their income comes from royal estates which they pay to the government who gives them 25% back. So in effect, they monarch pays 75% income tax.  Couple this with the money they bring in through tourism and souvenirs etc, at most they cost us nowt and at best actually contribute financially.  Even when the stuff the government pays for is taken into account.  *However the question is how they came to possess said royal estates in the first place. Though they don't actually own it as they can't sell any of it.*

Click to expand...

Nowhere out of the ordinary, money from exploiting entire countries both resources and people.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Sep 22, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			I think we mostly agree with you mate.

Long live the King.
		
Click to expand...

I am always suspicious of folk who sat 'we all agree'.

In golf that generally means me and my fourball.
In politics it means me and half of my party.
And at home it means my parents and I when talking about your partner


----------



## backwoodsman (Sep 22, 2022)

No fear. I do not miss your point.
These awards are given in the name of the monarch. That is what they are.
I am not saying I approve of these awards and the way they are given, but I do know the reality of what they are.
Often it will be the monarch awarding them in person. On other occasions they will be presented by someone representing he monarch with the agreement of the monarch.
That is why someone is needed to represent the monarch.
Before the late Queen's children were old enough, the alternatives were her husband, mother and sister.
If the King is not available to present these awards, likely alternatives will be his wife, eldest son, sister and youngest brother.
		
Click to expand...

Sigh ...


----------



## Hobbit (Sep 22, 2022)

*Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK*

The above is the initial question posed.

Sovereign Grant circa £130m.

Return from the Crown Estate, up from £269m to £313m this year.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for the Platinum Jubilee, £80m.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for William and Kate’s wedding, £35m.

Even Harry & Meghan generated an extra £200,000 in tourist revenue on Anglesey, in 1 week, where they had part of their honeymoon.

Are they too costly?

If the discussion is about a Republic ‘v’ a Monarchy, whatever, there won’t be an agreement between republicans and Royalists.

But are they too costly?


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			Sigh ...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 22, 2022)

Hobbit said:



*Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK*

The above is the initial question posed.

Sovereign Grant circa £130m.

Return from the Crown Estate, up from £269m to £313m this year.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for the Platinum Jubilee, £80m.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for William and Kate’s wedding, £35m.

Even Harry & Meghan generated an extra £200,000 in tourist revenue on Anglesey, in 1 week, where they had part of their honeymoon.

Are they too costly?

If the discussion is about a Republic ‘v’ a Monarchy, whatever, there won’t be an agreement between republicans and Royalists.

But are they too costly?
		
Click to expand...

Well put, if you agree with them or not the figures stack up


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 22, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Like Amanda, you've clearly only seen what you want to see.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed.  What we have seen is a great show of respect from many for the late Queen - and for King Charles from those physically present and meeting him.  Such respect does not necessarily translate into support for the Monarchy, as neither does liking most, if not all, of the immediate RF.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Hobbit said:



*Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK*

The above is the initial question posed.

Sovereign Grant circa £130m.

Return from the Crown Estate, up from £269m to £313m this year.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for the Platinum Jubilee, £80m.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for William and Kate’s wedding, £35m.

Even Harry & Meghan generated an extra £200,000 in tourist revenue on Anglesey, in 1 week, where they had part of their honeymoon.

Are they too costly?

If the discussion is about a Republic ‘v’ a Monarchy, whatever, there won’t be an agreement between republicans and Royalists.

But are they too costly?
		
Click to expand...

How much does security cost ? Seeing as it's not covered by the grant.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 22, 2022)

Wabinez said:



*The good thing about this thread, is that it brings about the characters that can be set to ignore as they don't bring any value to conversations.*

Watching someone who can't justify any stance apart from a stamp of the feet and a whine that the Royals are relics is pretty funny.
		
Click to expand...

The bad thing about it is that they have posted that much  the thread becomes pretty much unreadable.  Which considering what is posted may actually be a good thing...


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			But if the King believes the qualified architect Duke of Gloucester is the most worthy and appropriate person to represent him opening a civic building, who will tell the King, "No!"?
		
Click to expand...

The elected Government.  

If the Duke of Gloucester is removed from the role then he can't be selected.  The King has to work within the framework available to him and cannot make decisions outside his prerogatives.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			How much does security cost ? Seeing as it's not covered by the grant.
		
Click to expand...

This is another one that is difficult to put a meaningful figure to. It seems to me that many here like to have simplicities that they can latch onto and spout repeatedly.

There exists state funded security and security paid for by the privy purse. It depends on who is being protected and what they are doing at the time.
When police are in attendance for a specific event, then a monetary figure is often required for accounting purposes.
But the persons and officers allocated would have been doing something else, and not nothing else, if they were not there. Maybe a little saving in overtime could be made - dunno.
When they were younger, Prince Andrew's daughters would have state funded security. Now they arrange and pay for their own. I'm mentioning this merely as one example of how it can change from time to time.
The policing of sporting events is a good parallel example. Some is state funded and some is paid for by the sporting bodies themselves.
Putting a yearly figure on the state funded part of royal's security is something I'm not severely troubled by compared with the cost of housing 78,000 people in our prisons.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 22, 2022)

"During this parliament, my government will introduce a bill that will enable the Home Secretary to instruct me who I may and may not have to represent me for royal functions and duties."

Is that how it would be done?


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			This is another one that is difficult to put a meaningful figure to. It seems to me that many here like to have simplicities that they can latch onto and spout repeatedly.

There exists state funded security and security paid for by the privy purse. It depends on who is being protected and what they are doing at the time.
When police are in attendance for a specific event, then a monetary figure is often required for accounting purposes.
*But the persons and officers allocated would have been doing something else*, and not nothing else, if they were not there. Maybe a little saving in overtime could be made - dunno.
When they were younger, Prince Andrew's daughters would have state funded security. Now they arrange and pay for their own. I'm mentioning this merely as one example of how it can change from time to time.
The policing of sporting events is a good parallel example. Some is state funded and some is paid for by the sporting bodies themselves.
Putting a yearly figure on the state funded part of royal's security is something I'm not severely troubled by compared with the cost of housing 78,000 people in our prisons.
		
Click to expand...

Not necessarily; officers pulled in for events like this would often have been on days off, and that day off is re-rostered so that they then perform the aid duty.  Some may be taken off core duties if they are well above minimum strength, but I would be very surprised if the majority on the recent events weren't on cancelled leave days.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			This is another one that is difficult to put a meaningful figure to. It seems to me that many here like to have simplicities that they can latch onto and spout repeatedly.

There exists state funded security and security paid for by the privy purse. It depends on who is being protected and what they are doing at the time.
When police are in attendance for a specific event, then a monetary figure is often required for accounting purposes.
But the persons and officers allocated would have been doing something else, and not nothing else, if they were not there. Maybe a little saving in overtime could be made - dunno.
When they were younger, Prince Andrew's daughters would have state funded security. Now they arrange and pay for their own. I'm mentioning this merely as one example of how it can change from time to time.
The policing of sporting events is a good parallel example. Some is state funded and some is paid for by the sporting bodies themselves.
Putting a yearly figure on the state funded part of royal's security is something I'm not severely troubled by compared with the cost of housing 78,000 people in our prisons.
		
Click to expand...

You like this gets spouted as some kind of gospel ?

https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...chy-too-costly-for-the-uk.113137/post-2549716

If youre happy to be ruled and look up to a bunch of chancers who's fortunes came from such things as slavery then you go for it.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 22, 2022)

Voyager EMH said:



			"During this parliament, my government will introduce a bill that will enable the Home Secretary to instruct me who I may and may not have to represent me for royal functions and duties."

Is that how it would be done?
		
Click to expand...

No and you know it.

The King himself is in favour of reducing the size of the the active Royal household.

I am not sure but I doubt if there needs to be a change in Law to reduce the number of the Royal Household.  I imagine these things would be considered and recommended by a Parliamentary Committee, probably by the upper house ( Who ironically need a good culling IMO). 

Opening of Civic Centres can be carried out by local dignitaries like Mayors or Aldermen who have been involved in the project.


----------



## 4LEX (Sep 22, 2022)

To think some would get rid of the monarchy for the cost per year of a half a Titleist TruSoft is mind boggling


----------



## pauljames87 (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			You like this gets spouted as some kind of gospel ?

https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...chy-too-costly-for-the-uk.113137/post-2549716

If youre happy to be ruled and look up to a bunch of chancers who's fortunes came from such things as slavery then you go for it.
		
Click to expand...

The direct line to the Thrown are all very respectable people,

Charles does his bit for charity and the planet 

William did his service for search and rescue 

Then let's look at the other options, elected leaders 

Mixed bag 

Obama, brilliant respectable man 
Trump awful human being 

Boris awful human being
Truss robot 

At least the future kings and queens are brought up respectful and represent the country well rather than brought up to crave power and abuse it.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 22, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			You like this gets spouted as some kind of gospel ?

https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...chy-too-costly-for-the-uk.113137/post-2549716

If youre happy to be ruled and look up to a bunch of chancers who's fortunes came from such things as slavery then you go for it.
		
Click to expand...

Many of them will prob do more for the country and it’s people than people like you ever will do - and that includes going into warzones , being part of search and rescue and saving lives.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Many of them will prob do more for the country and it’s people than people like you ever will do - and that includes going into warzones , being part of search and rescue and saving lives.
		
Click to expand...

People like me? Who are people like me?
You think I'm the only person in the country who doesn't care for the royals? I'm sure you post will still garner the likes you crave though .


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 22, 2022)

4LEX said:



			To think some would get rid of the monarchy for the cost per year of a half a Titleist TruSoft is mind boggling 

Click to expand...

But it’s not that cheap is it? I I don’t know how much more than £1.29 it is as none of those opposed to keeping them appear to be able to tell us how much they really cost, but it’s definitely more… 😉


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

pauljames87 said:



			The direct line to the Thrown are all very respectable people,

Charles does his bit for charity and the planet

William did his service for search and rescue

Then let's look at the other options, elected leaders

Mixed bag

Obama, brilliant respectable man
Trump awful human being

Boris awful human being
Truss robot

At least the future kings and queens are brought up respectful and represent the country well rather than brought up to crave power and abuse it.
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't change where the riches came from, but nice words.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 22, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			But it’s not that cheap is it? I I don’t know how much more than £1.29 it is as none of those opposed to keeping them appear to be able to tell us how much they really cost, but it’s definitely more… 😉
		
Click to expand...

That's because security costs are not published , as it could well compromise their security, but I'm sure you all know that.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 22, 2022)

Is being historically hysterical a thing?


----------



## WGCRider (Sep 22, 2022)

Hobbit said:



*Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK*

The above is the initial question posed.

Sovereign Grant circa £130m.

Return from the Crown Estate, up from £269m to £313m this year.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for the Platinum Jubilee, £80m.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for William and Kate’s wedding, £35m.

Even Harry & Meghan generated an extra £200,000 in tourist revenue on Anglesey, in 1 week, where they had part of their honeymoon.

Are they too costly?

If the discussion is about a Republic ‘v’ a Monarchy, whatever, there won’t be an agreement between republicans and Royalists.

But are they too costly?
		
Click to expand...

Those are some quality made up numbers! 

Maybe all those instagram influencers asking for free stuff for "exposure" really are value for money.


----------



## KenL (Sep 22, 2022)

Hopefully this thread is about to burn itself out......yawnsville.😃


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 23, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			No and you know it.

The King himself is in favour of reducing the size of the the active Royal household.

I am not sure but I doubt if there needs to be a change in Law to reduce the number of the Royal Household.  I imagine these things would be considered and recommended by a Parliamentary Committee, probably by the upper house ( Who ironically need a good culling IMO).

*Opening of Civic Centres can be carried out by local dignitaries like Mayors or Aldermen who have been involved in the project*.
		
Click to expand...

Yes they can. But I doubt anyone involved in the project would pass on the opportunity for royal recognition and they would rail against being told not to seek it.


----------



## oxymoron (Sep 23, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			You like this gets spouted as some kind of gospel ?

https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...chy-too-costly-for-the-uk.113137/post-2549716

If youre happy to be ruled and look up to a bunch of chancers who's* fortunes came from such things as slavery* then you go for it.
		
Click to expand...

It does make me laugh when the "fortunes from slavery" line is trotted out , i read recently an American chat show host was talking about the RF
paying compensation for their involvement in slavery until another expert\correspondent suggested we begin by looking at the local African chief's of the day who were actively rounding up their
subjects and selling them to european slavers , the conversation was shut down rather quickly .Ok the royals probably did profit but so did many others and this was in an era when we did not know better .
i think their charitable activities are at least going in the right direction .
I would rather my tax money go to the upkeep of the RF who in turn bring something to our table than it go in to the overseas grant pot that always looks like it disappears in to the pockets of local politicians .
Will probably be called racist for this but hey ho .


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 23, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Doesn't change where the riches came from, but nice words.
		
Click to expand...

The lifestyle we all enjoy came from exploiting people from less well off countries. Which is still the case today.

Are you doing anything about it?


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 23, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



*The lifestyle we all enjoy came from exploiting people from less well off countries*. Which is still the case today.

Are you doing anything about it?
		
Click to expand...

This is undoubtedly true.
But also is true that the lifestyle of many wealthy people mostly came from exploiting less well off people from our own country. And so it continues.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 23, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			The lifestyle we all enjoy came from exploiting people from less well off countries. Which is still the case today.

Are you doing anything about it?
		
Click to expand...

Nothing and I'm also doing exploratory fracking wells in my garden.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 23, 2022)

Back to the original question.
No great reshuffle of residences apart from the King and possibly William, Kate and children.
The rest are staying put, as far as I know.
The land owned by the Royal family is mainly in the Crown Estate which is used to create an income. All profits go directly to the Treasury. Some is paid back out as The Sovereign Grant and the majority is kept by the Treasury to be used in the same way as tax revenue. The taxes we citizen pay are not needed to fund the monarchy.

I am not ill-at-ease with the way this works. It is all very visible and accountable. I am comfortable with the concept of the Crown Estate and how it operates as a nationalised industry. I would not like to see it, or parts of it, sold off to other wealthy people to make more money for themselves. All proceeds go directly to the Treasury and that is fine with me. I would also be comfortable with more such nationalisation where all profits go directly to the Treasury rather than only a small proportion of tax on those profits.

Now then, the Duke of Westminster's (non-royal duke) vast wealth and property empire with its links to Canada, Bermuda and Panama, and the small proportion of tax this contributes to the Treasury is a far more interesting subject than this thread.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 23, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Try reading it
		
Click to expand...

I did. And i's the opposite, you've been spoon fed the whole UK has been lapping up MournHub, folks here saying the same, when all they're seeing is what they've been fed by two weeks of propoganda. Now that we have official viewing figures for the UK for eg, we can see that it wasn;t even the most watched event in British history, that's despite every channel being fixed to the funeral, folks still gave it a swerve. The issue with propoganda is that those falling for it don't realise they've fallen for it


----------



## Swango1980 (Sep 23, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I did. And i's the opposite, you've been spoon fed the whole UK has been lapping up MournHub, folks here saying the same, when all they're seeing is what they've been fed by two weeks of propoganda. Now that we have official viewing figures for the UK for eg, we can see that it wasn;t even the most watched event in British history, that's despite every channel being fixed to the funeral, folks still gave it a swerve. The issue with propoganda is that those falling for it don't realise they've fallen for it
		
Click to expand...

Don't worry, you'll catch on one day I'm sure


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 23, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Indeed.  What we have seen is a great show of respect from many for the late Queen - and for King Charles from those physically present and meeting him.  Such respect does not necessarily translate into support for the Monarchy, as neither does liking most, if not all, of the immediate RF.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, one does not equal the other.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 23, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			The issue with propoganda is that those falling for it don't realise they've fallen for it
		
Click to expand...

That's obviously because we royalists are all idiots, and you are far too clever to fall for it.


Or could it be the other way round ?


----------



## Stuart_C (Sep 23, 2022)

Getting rid of the Monarchy will not eradicate the elitism that its built on. 

Eltism will continue to exist without the Monarchy.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 23, 2022)

chrisd said:



			That's obviously because we royalists are all idiots, and you are far too clever to fall for it.


Or could it be the other way round ?
		
Click to expand...

The other way around? Pray tell where the coverage of republican views was this last fortnight eh?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 23, 2022)

Stuart_C said:



			Getting rid of the Monarchy will not eradicate the elitism that its built on.

Eltism will continue to exist without the Monarchy.
		
Click to expand...

It will help greatly, cut off the head of the snake. The UK is far too beholden to people with a "posh voice", they don;t get posher than Mogg, and he's as dim as the victorian streets he's so desperate to bring back


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 23, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Funny enough we don't live in Russia where we have to be told what we can see. On that note I wonder whether the Russian residents would rather have a monarchy
		
Click to expand...

Well, they sure as hell didn't like the last one!😀


----------



## chrisd (Sep 23, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			The other way around? Pray tell where the coverage of republican views was this last fortnight eh?
		
Click to expand...

I saw one interviewed on TV during the week


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 23, 2022)

chrisd said:



			I saw one interviewed on TV during the week
		
Click to expand...

Could be the same republican we have on here 🤔😳👍


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 23, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			Could be the same republican we have on here 🤔😳👍
		
Click to expand...

Plenty on here have voiced they don't see the point of the monarchy, probably just staying away as can't be bothered as the bile being spouted by some of those in favour.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 23, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Plenty on here have voiced they don't see the point of the monarchy, probably just staying away as can't be bothered as the bile being spouted by some of those in favour.
		
Click to expand...

And plenty more have spoken in favour of the monarchy- which if going by polls is the general feeling of the monarchy 

That many change over the years with more being in favour of removing the monarchy or go the other way - that will depend on what happens in between. 

But right now - we aren’t anywhere near removing the monarchy , and we won’t be for a long time. 

But those that aren’t in favour they can work on jubilee days , weddings , bank holidays for the royal and just ignore any celebration.


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 23, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Plenty on here have voiced they don't see the point of the monarchy, probably just staying away as can't be bothered as the bile being spouted by some of those in favour.
		
Click to expand...

Personally I am for royalty, but in the same sense I understand why some are against it. I am of the opinion that discussion on the GM forum won’t change peoples minds Either way, so am just happy to read along.


----------



## GB72 (Sep 23, 2022)

Tashyboy said:



			Personally I am for royalty, but in the same sense I understand why some are against it. I am of the opinion that discussion on the GM forum won’t change peoples minds Either way, so am just happy to read along.
		
Click to expand...

This is the issue with any matter on here. There is no debate, not acceptance of well crafted argument and concession of points, it is always 2 imoveable opinions banging against each other until one or both sides get bored or they find something else to argue about.


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 23, 2022)

GB72 said:



			This is the issue with any matter on here. There is no debate, not acceptance of well crafted argument and concession of points, it is always 2 imoveable opinions banging against each other until one or both sides get bored or they find something else to argue about.
		
Click to expand...

True. Plus those that are just downright rude about the idiots spouting bile that they disagree with. I don't understand why it's necessary to insult those with an opposing opinion. Whatever happened to agree to disagree...


----------



## Tashyboy (Sep 23, 2022)

GB72 said:



			This is the issue with any matter on here. There is no debate, not acceptance of well crafted argument and concession of points, it is always 2 imoveable opinions banging against each other until one or both sides get bored or they find something else to argue about.
		
Click to expand...

I think you could post that on most topics on here 👍


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 23, 2022)

For me there is a huge difference between my liking and/or respecting the King and his immediate family - or not as the case may be - and my view on the role and funding by the public purse of the Monarchy as a constitutional institution with a remit that includes aspects of our democracy.  I should and can completely separate the two.


----------



## Slime (Sep 23, 2022)




----------



## drdel (Sep 23, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			For me there is a huge difference between my liking and/or respecting the King and his immediate family - or not as the case may be - and my view on the role and funding by the public purse of the Monarchy as a constitutional institution with a remit that includes aspects of our democracy.  I should and can completely separate the two.
		
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. I think we need to look beyond the Privy purse and consider if the vast land and property assets are truly giving a good RoI. Much of the property and land lies underutilised when compared to real commercial farming and the leisure industries, for example.

Take Buckingham Palace as a case of a property very poorly utilised in any commercial sense. 

The Crown Estate is where senior exmilitary officers pretend their 'managing' a business: it's not the 'real' world by any stretch of the imagination. 

There is a massive opportunity cost to the UK of maintaining the monarchy in its current form.


----------



## RichA (Sep 23, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Plenty on here have voiced they don't see the point of the monarchy, probably just staying away as can't be bothered as the bile being spouted by some of those in favour.
		
Click to expand...

I'm one of those that can't see the point, but I'm a moderate and find the bile being spouted on your side pretty tiresome too.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 23, 2022)

RichA said:



			I'm one of those that can't see the point, but I'm a moderate and find the bile being spouted on your side pretty tiresome too.
		
Click to expand...

Don't read the thread. It's pretty easy .


----------



## RichA (Sep 23, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Don't read the thread. It's pretty easy .
		
Click to expand...

I'll probably carrying on doing as I choose actually. Good advice though.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 24, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Don't read the thread. It's pretty easy .
		
Click to expand...

Doctor, cure yourself.


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 24, 2022)

drdel said:



			I tend to agree. I think we need to look beyond the Privy purse and consider if the vast land and property assets are truly giving a good RoI. Much of the property and land lies underutilised when compared to real commercial farming and the leisure industries, for example.

Take Buckingham Palace as a case of a property very poorly utilised in any commercial sense.

The Crown Estate is where senior exmilitary officers pretend their 'managing' a business: it's not the 'real' world by any stretch of the imagination.

There is a massive opportunity cost to the UK of maintaining the monarchy in its current form.
		
Click to expand...

As the crown estate is very profitable and more than covers crown expenditure why do you believe it compares badly with commercial farming, which by and large is not managing too well.

Please can you give some facts and figures to support your view.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 24, 2022)

drdel said:



			I tend to agree. I think we need to look beyond the Privy purse and consider if the vast land and property assets are truly giving a good RoI. Much of the property and land lies underutilised when compared to real commercial farming and the leisure industries, for example.

Take Buckingham Palace as a case of a property very poorly utilised in any commercial sense.

The Crown Estate is where senior exmilitary officers pretend their 'managing' a business: it's not the 'real' world by any stretch of the imagination.

There is a *massive opportunity cost *to the UK of maintaining the monarchy in its current form.
		
Click to expand...

Not massive at all, but very very tiny when compared with the stored wealth of the wealthiest 200 people in this country. That is the greatest opportunity for this country, if that wealth could be put to more beneficial effect for the country. Getting het-up about the royals' wealth is way out of proportion. Abolishing the monarchy would not produce any noticeable increase in standard of living for its citizens.
I have never considered myself a royalist or a monarchist, but I see no benefit in abolishing our constitutional monarchy any time soon.
The issue of where the wealth lies in this country and what is done with that wealth concerns me greatly. Royal wealth, which is mostly merely custodianship on behalf of the nation, is an almost negligible part of that concern for me. I believe I have this concern in its correct proportion.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 24, 2022)

chrisd said:



			And she wont be required to go out on a wet Wednesday in Watford to open a factory as the King or Queen has to
		
Click to expand...

If anybody goes out on a "wet Wednesday in Watford"  and *guaranteed doesn't* get wet, it is the Monarch on official business.😉😂


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 24, 2022)

chrisd said:



			I saw one interviewed on TV during the week
		
Click to expand...

woooo, amazing. One eh. And where was the BBC's usual "balance" for the last fortnight, we got one side on TV constantly. As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.


----------



## RichA (Sep 24, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			woooo, amazing. One eh. And where was the BBC's usual "balance" for the last fortnight, we got one side on TV constantly. As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.
		
Click to expand...

The coverage was a bit much, but it was a hugely historic event. 
The time and place for the opposing views is probably in the run up to the coronation of the new monarch, rather than the funeral of the one that's just died.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 24, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			woooo, amazing. One eh. And where was the BBC's usual "balance" for the last fortnight, we got one side on TV constantly. As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.
		
Click to expand...

How do you know that wasn't " the balance", one anti monarchist to dozens of monarchists interviewed seems about the right numbers to me.

Also I haven't dipped a toe on the " propoganda road"  - I dont see "it" because I believe a monarchy is infinitely better than the alternative, that's my view and has always been. Possibly you're so anti, you cant see the wood for the trees


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 24, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.
		
Click to expand...

That's so ironic it's hilarious 😂


----------



## 2blue (Sep 24, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:
As I said, you're so far down the propaganda road you can't even see it, because it aligns with your views.



SocketRocket said:



*That's so ironic it's hilarious *😂
		
Click to expand...

As BB is absolutely correct....... that's even funnier


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 24, 2022)

2blue said:



Banchory Buddha said:
As I said, you're so far down the propaganda road you can't even see it, because it aligns with your views.



As BB is absolutely correct....... that's even funnier 

Click to expand...

Ooof!


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 24, 2022)

Here’s a radical idea 

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?


----------



## Slime (Sep 24, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Here’s a radical idea

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?
		
Click to expand...

Give the antis time, they'll realise they're wrong ......................... but probably won't admit it!


----------



## chrisd (Sep 24, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Here’s a radical idea

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe have a poll, and when we royalists pulverise the naysayers they all get blackballed?


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 24, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			That's so ironic it's hilarious 😂
		
Click to expand...

You know BB is the sort of chap that believes he is immune to marketing and advertising.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 24, 2022)

…strikes me that the answer to the op question is

‘it depends upon what you want the Monarchy to do, and whether you consider that the Monarchy = the RF’

I consider the Monarchy and the RF as separate, and having said that I could feel uncomfortable that the RF are becoming considered as a commodity - indeed verging upon being a bit of a British ‘show pony’.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 24, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Or maybe have a poll, and when we royalists pulverise the naysayers they all get blackballed?
		
Click to expand...

Or maybe just be more accepting of other views and drop the labels.


----------



## chrisd (Sep 24, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			Or maybe just be more accepting of other views and drop the labels.
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant idea, maybe you should try it 👍


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 24, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Brilliant idea, maybe you should try it 👍
		
Click to expand...

No issue with me, Its the aggressive and rude posting that's disgusting and in the name of the king/queen too. Embarrassing


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2022)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Here’s a radical idea

If nobody replies, then the antis will have nuffin to talk about , we have 2 sets of entrenched views that are never ever going to change, so why bother ?
		
Click to expand...

This is where I must beg to differ.
I am not pro-monarchy or pro-royal family. But neither am I "anti". I consider myself to be a realist and a fact-finder.
I addressed my comments to the question of whether *the monarchy is too costly for the nation.*
I am willing to be persuaded that an alternative to the monarchy would be better.
But I've listened to 50 years of grumblings and nothing has yet persuaded me.
I do not believe my views are "entrenched".
This has been an interesting debate.
But I would find a debate on the wealth of the nation, where it is and what is done with it, much more interesting.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 25, 2022)

I see a few articles in the media suggesting KCIII is looking to slim down the monarchy  with just a small group of "working" royals.  I don't suppose that means much in real life, like removing titles etc.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			I see a few articles in the media suggesting KCIII is looking to slim down the monarchy  with just a small group of "working" royals.  I don't suppose that means much in real life, like removing titles etc.
		
Click to expand...

The key words there are, "media suggesting" and "small group".

The "slimming down" will occur naturally as Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Royal are knocking-on a bit and will probably be seen to be doing less and less of the "working royal" role as the next ten years go by. Some time after that, the three children of William and Kate may be seen to be taking on royal duties and functions. This will be the opposite of "slimming down". This has been the way of things for a very long time and I do not foresee any of it changing in any dramatic way as a result of enforced changes.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 25, 2022)

They're my words so not key at all, better off to get out there and read for yourself.


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 25, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			They're my words so not key at all, better off to get out there and read for yourself.
		
Click to expand...

I do a great deal of reading thank you.


----------



## drdel (Sep 25, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			…strikes me that the answer to the op question is

‘it depends upon what you want the Monarchy to do, and whether you consider that the Monarchy = the RF’

I consider the Monarchy and the RF as separate, and having said that I could feel uncomfortable that the RF are becoming considered as a commodity - indeed verging upon being a bit of a British ‘show pony’.
		
Click to expand...

I agree.  It's a pity that some responders seem unable to separate the two. Criticism of the economic issue of affordability is NOT a criticism of the Royals as people. 

Centuries ago the Government adopted the Kingdom's cost because the King was getting into debt.

In posing the question I was not knocking the individuals. We ought to be able to  have a grown up debate.


----------



## IanM (Sep 25, 2022)

Crikey,  you mean people can have a grown up debate on an internet forum?😁


----------



## IanM (Sep 26, 2022)

In the news this morning I read it was necessary to hand out the printed words to the National Anthem at an event this week.  

Some pretending going on, or did they actually not know it?


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 26, 2022)

I remember a certain secretary of state for Wales doing a bit of pretending with the words to the National Anthem. Gave us all a good laugh though.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Sep 26, 2022)

IanM said:



			In the news this morning I read it was necessary to hand out the printed words to the National Anthem at an event this week. 

Some pretending going on, or did they actually not know it?
		
Click to expand...

Depends on whether they just did the first verse , not that many know the other verses, but most should know the main one


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 26, 2022)

chrisd said:



*How do you know that wasn't " the balance", one anti monarchist to dozens of monarchists interviewed seems about the right numbers to me*.

Also I haven't dipped a toe on the " propoganda road"  - I dont see "it" because I believe a monarchy is infinitely better than the alternative, that's my view and has always been. Possibly you're so anti, you cant see the wood for the trees
		
Click to expand...

Rabbit hole. Again.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 26, 2022)

SocketRocket said:



			That's so ironic it's hilarious 😂
		
Click to expand...

Yes we're absolutely flooded with republican thoughts, especially the last two weeks. Jesus talk about detached from reality


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 26, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			You know BB is the sort of chap that believes he is immune to marketing and advertising.
		
Click to expand...

Really? Go on then, where was the equality of republican ideas being aired the last fortnight? The rocket thinks it was there in equal measure, absolutely detached from reality


----------



## chrisd (Sep 26, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Rabbit hole. Again.
		
Click to expand...

Just because it doesn't fit your agenda


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 26, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Really? Go on then, where was the equality of republican ideas being aired the last fortnight? The rocket thinks it was there in equal measure, absolutely detached from reality
		
Click to expand...

I couldn’t tell you where to your republican ideas were broadcast because I didn’t watch any of it. 

I also couldn’t care less if we had a monarchy or not. Of all the things in the world to worry about, it’s inconsequential to me.


----------



## Neilds (Sep 26, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Really? Go on then, where was the equality of republican ideas being aired the last fortnight? The rocket thinks it was there in equal measure, absolutely detached from reality
		
Click to expand...

Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that the time for the media to discuss the future of the monarchy is when they are preparing to bury the Queen?
That might be a good reason why there maybe wasn't as much Republican coverage as you seem to have wanted.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Sep 26, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that the time for the media to discuss the future of the monarchy is *when they are preparing to bury the Queen*?
That might be a good reason why there maybe wasn't as much Republican coverage as you seem to have wanted.
		
Click to expand...

I think they did that last Monday…or was I dreaming of eagles and swans; longbows and halberds.

Ah…you are talking of before…😖


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 26, 2022)

chrisd said:



			Just because it doesn't fit your agenda
		
Click to expand...

Because polls show that those who want rid of the monarchy and those who want to keep them are roughly the same, with a whole swathe of undecideds, so one v dozens is not in any way representative, as i'm sure you know. You're clearly just trolling now so no thanks, and goodbye


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 26, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that the time for the media to discuss the future of the monarchy is when they are preparing to bury the Queen?
That might be a good reason why there maybe wasn't as much Republican coverage as you seem to have wanted.
		
Click to expand...

Yes I can. They had hours and hours and days and weeks to fill, with a handover occuring, what better time was there? It was the perfect opportunity to say, is time up?  Ah but of course, we were in full Mournhub mode for a fortnight. Strange though, you seem to be completely contradicting ChrisD.


----------



## Swinglowandslow (Sep 26, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes I can. They had hours and hours and days and weeks to fill, with a handover occuring, what better time was there? It was the perfect opportunity to say, is time up?  Ah but of course, we were in full Mournhub mode for a fortnight. Strange though, you seem to be completely contradicting ChrisD.
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, BB I'm a republican, but you are wrong about this.  It was not the time for discussion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 26, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



*Because polls show that those who want rid of the monarchy and those who want to keep them are roughly the same, *with a whole swathe of undecideds, so one v dozens is not in any way representative, as i'm sure you know. You're clearly just trolling now so no thanks, and goodbye
		
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that ?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...onarchy-sees-minor-improvement-public-opinion

“*
Do Britons want to keep the monarchy?
Two thirds of Britons (67%) say they think the UK should continue to have a monarchy, up five points since the Platinum Jubilee in May. Only 20% say we should have an elected head of state instead.*”


----------



## BiMGuy (Sep 26, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Are you sure about that ?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...onarchy-sees-minor-improvement-public-opinion

“
*Do Britons want to keep the monarchy?
Two thirds of Britons (67%) say they think the UK should continue to have a monarchy, up five points since the Platinum Jubilee in May. Only 20% say we should have an elected head of state instead.*”
		
Click to expand...

The poll was made up of his usual 4 ball.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 26, 2022)

No surprises in those stats, the old love the monarchy, the young not so much


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Can you honestly, hand on heart, say that the time for the media to discuss the future of the monarchy is when they are preparing to bury the Queen?
That might be a good reason why there maybe wasn't as much Republican coverage as you seem to have wanted.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 26, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			woooo, amazing. One eh. And where was the BBC's usual "balance" for the last fortnight, we got one side on TV constantly. As I said, you're so far down the propoganda road you can't even see it, ebcause it aligns with your views.
		
Click to expand...

You just don't want to understand it. It was the Queen's funeral, did you really expect the media to be debating the need for a Monarchy.  Really!  And as I've previously explained that the irony of your post is hilarious when you accuse someone else of having a fixated view when your own is so blinkered.



Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes we're absolutely flooded with republican thoughts, especially the last two weeks. Jesus talk about detached from reality
		
Click to expand...

Again the irony, oh! The irony.
Are you suggesting 'Reality' can only be what you choose it to be. You don't seem able to discuss a subject without making out all contrary views are delusional.


----------



## KenL (Sep 26, 2022)

theoneandonly said:



			No surprises in those stats, the old love the monarchy, the young not so much
		
Click to expand...

I'm not old. 😉


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 26, 2022)

KenL said:



			I'm not old. 😉
		
Click to expand...

No and I'm not especially young🤣


----------



## chrisd (Sep 26, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Because polls show that those who want rid of the monarchy and those who want to keep them are roughly the same, with a whole swathe of undecideds, so one v dozens is not in any way representative, as i'm sure you know. You're clearly just trolling now so no thanks, and goodbye
		
Click to expand...

Would you like to show these polls?

If LP's poll on #294 is correct my guess wasn't too far out


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 28, 2022)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...d-classmate-father-king-better-watch-out.html

Says it all. Little twerp deserves a slap.


----------



## IanM (Sep 28, 2022)

Orikoru said:



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...d-classmate-father-king-better-watch-out.html

Says it all. Little twerp deserves a slap.
		
Click to expand...

Wonder what it was in response to?  Pretty decent "my dad is bigger than your dad" retort!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 28, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			The poll was made up of his usual 4 ball.
		
Click to expand...

You add nothing to this discussion with this drivel


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Are you sure about that ?

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politic...onarchy-sees-minor-improvement-public-opinion

“
*Do Britons want to keep the monarchy?
Two thirds of Britons (67%) say they think the UK should continue to have a monarchy, up five points since the Platinum Jubilee in May. Only 20% say we should have an elected head of state instead.*”
		
Click to expand...

Not british mate https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...support-for-monarchy-falls-to-45-poll-reveals


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2022)

Orikoru said:



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...d-classmate-father-king-better-watch-out.html

Says it all. Little twerp deserves a slap.
		
Click to expand...

He is 9 years old 🤦‍♂️

You are due to have your first child soon - they are going to say silly things at times 

I would hope no one would judge on what a 9 year old says in the playground 


Banchory Buddha said:



			Not british mate https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...support-for-monarchy-falls-to-45-poll-reveals

Click to expand...

well you are British 👍


----------



## Orikoru (Sep 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			He is 9 years old 🤦‍♂️

You are due to have your first child soon - they are going to say silly things at times

I would hope no one would judge on what a 9 year old says in the playground


well you are British 👍
		
Click to expand...

Only 9 and been brought up to believe he's superior to the other children already.


----------



## theoneandonly (Sep 28, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Only 9 and been brought up to believe he's superior to the other children already.
		
Click to expand...

He is shhhhh 😂


----------



## Voyager EMH (Sep 28, 2022)

When I was 9, I believed I would captain England just like Bobby Moore.

When a certain ex-Prime Minister was a boy, he wanted to be World King.

The young prince may have been unfortunately pompous, but he has a grip on reality at least.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Only 9 and been brought up to believe he's superior to the other children already.
		
Click to expand...

Seriously? You really think that’s what is happening ? 

You are going to get a shock soon enough


----------



## IanM (Sep 28, 2022)

I'd worry about any 9 year old who didn't know what his dads job was.

....unless he was an actuary!


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 28, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			You add nothing to this discussion with this drivel
		
Click to expand...

😂


----------



## GreiginFife (Sep 28, 2022)

Orikoru said:



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...d-classmate-father-king-better-watch-out.html

Says it all. Little twerp deserves a slap.
		
Click to expand...

Surely this is just the posh school version of “my dad’s bigger than your dad” or “my dad will batter your dad”…


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Sep 28, 2022)

Liverpoolphil said:



			He is 9 years old 🤦‍♂️

You are due to have your first child soon - they are going to say silly things at times

I would hope no one would judge on what a 9 year old says in the playground


well you are British 👍
		
Click to expand...

Regardless of your mis-naming, my point of reference was correct regarding unpopularity of the monarchy.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Sep 28, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Regardless of your mis-naming, my point of reference was correct regarding unpopularity of the monarchy.
		
Click to expand...

Can you confirm in this post where you were just talking about Scotland in isolation ?



Banchory Buddha said:



			Because polls show that those who want rid of the monarchy and those who want to keep them are roughly the same, with a whole swathe of undecideds, so one v dozens is not in any way representative, as i'm sure you know. You're clearly just trolling now so no thanks, and goodbye
		
Click to expand...


----------



## SteveW86 (Sep 28, 2022)

Orikoru said:



			Only 9 and been brought up to believe he's superior to the other children already.
		
Click to expand...


Think we need a "stupid stuff my kids have said" thread.

Personally I wouldn't read into that article too much


----------



## AmandaJR (Sep 28, 2022)

Orikoru said:



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...d-classmate-father-king-better-watch-out.html

Says it all. Little twerp deserves a slap.
		
Click to expand...

Claimed by an author trying to sell her book? Please...


----------



## Blue in Munich (Sep 28, 2022)

SteveW86 said:



*Think we need a "stupid stuff my kids have said" thread.*

Personally I wouldn't read into that article too much
		
Click to expand...

Maybe a “Stupid stuff in the Daily Mail that grown ups take as gospel” thread as well?


----------



## 2blue (Sep 30, 2022)

Blue in Munich said:



			Maybe a “Stupid stuff in the Daily Mail that grown ups take as gospel” thread as well?
		
Click to expand...

No need....  we have it here!!


----------



## SocketRocket (Sep 30, 2022)

2blue said:



			No need....  we have it here!! 

Click to expand...

Got a nerve, did it 😄


----------



## Neilds (Oct 3, 2022)

Wonder if Banchory Buddha has any comments on the great welcome for King Charles today in Dunfermline? And maybe he can also think about the booing for Ms Sturgeon at the same event?

Maybe he isn’t the official spokesman for all things Scottish after all?


----------



## Tashyboy (Oct 3, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Wonder if Banchory Buddha has any comments on the great welcome for King Charles today in Dunfermline? And maybe he can also think about the booing for Ms Sturgeon at the same event?

Maybe he isn’t the official spokesman for all things Scottish after all?
		
Click to expand...

😂👍


----------



## GreiginFife (Oct 3, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Wonder if Banchory Buddha has any comments on the great welcome for King Charles today in Dunfermline? And maybe he can also think about the booing for Ms Sturgeon at the same event?

Maybe he isn’t the official spokesman for all things Scottish after all?
		
Click to expand...

Not sure I would use Dunfermline as a barometer for the will of the country. 

They’d turn out in force and cheer the opening of a letter here.


----------



## Neilds (Oct 3, 2022)

GreiginFife said:



			Not sure I would use Dunfermline as a barometer for the will of the country.

They’d turn out in force and cheer the opening of a letter here.
		
Click to expand...

But it must be great, it's a city now


----------



## GreiginFife (Oct 3, 2022)

Neilds said:



			But it must be great, it's a city now 

Click to expand...

So is Sheffield 🤷


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Oct 3, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Wonder if Banchory Buddha has any comments on the great welcome for King Charles today in Dunfermline? And maybe he can also think about the booing for Ms Sturgeon at the same event?

Maybe he isn’t the official spokesman for all things Scottish after all?
		
Click to expand...

You can be against something but still be polite. I don't want a monarchy but if Charles came to my town I wouldn't demonstrate against him or boo him. I just wouldn't go to see him. 

Having a few hundred people supporting him, or the opposite, doesn't mean anything either way.


----------



## backwoodsman (Oct 3, 2022)

Neilds said:



			Wonder if Banchory Buddha has any comments on the great welcome for King Charles today in Dunfermline? And maybe he can also think about the booing for Ms Sturgeon at the same event?

Maybe he isn’t the official spokesman for all things Scottish after all?
		
Click to expand...

Those support him will go to see him. Those that don't, won't.  Therefore hardly a surprise that the crowd were cheering?


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 3, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			Those support him will go to see him. Those that don't, won't.  Therefore hardly a surprise that the crowd were cheering?
		
Click to expand...

Bit like a Cliff Richards Gig.


----------



## theoneandonly (Oct 4, 2022)

Get cracking CR3 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63120481


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 4, 2022)

backwoodsman said:



			Those support him will go to see him. Those that don't, won't.  Therefore hardly a surprise that the crowd were cheering?
		
Click to expand...

Exactly, a proportion of a crowd who go to cheer a British King is most likely going to boo a Scottish First Minister who want's independence.
Unionist grasping at straws as usual.
Desperate to see another King Billy followed by a King Dod.


----------



## D-S (Oct 4, 2022)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Exactly, a proportion of a crowd who go to cheer a British King is most likely going to boo a Scottish First Minister who want's independence.
Unionist grasping at straws as usual.
Desperate to see another King Billy followed by a King Dod. 

Click to expand...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Oct 4, 2022)

D-S said:









Click to expand...

Hopefully to the UK but I think/hope we shall still keep our King of Scots.


----------



## SocketRocket (Oct 4, 2022)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Hopefully to the UK but I think/hope we shall still keep our King of Scots.
		
Click to expand...

You can have Queen Jimmy I 😄


----------



## KenL (Oct 4, 2022)

Ooh, politics. 😃


----------

