Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

Neilds

Assistant Pro
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
3,750
Location
Wiltshire
Visit site
Irrespective of whether they make or cost the country money, their very existence is a flashing beacon of privilege and inequality.
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?
 

SwingsitlikeHogan

Major Champion
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
32,456
Visit site
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 ?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 15344

Guest
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
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
5,390
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
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

Blackballed
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
1,018
Location
Here there and everywhere
Visit site
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
How do I visit the royal family?
 

Voyager EMH

Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Joined
Mar 14, 2021
Messages
5,390
Location
Leicestershire
Visit site
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.
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

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 19, 2018
Messages
2,724
Visit site
I prefer our Constitutional Monarchy to a Presidential one. I can see the case for a somewhat thinned down Royal Household though.

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.
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.

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

LIV Bot, (But Not As Big As Mel) ?
Joined
Oct 9, 2020
Messages
6,634
Visit site
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.

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

Lord Tyrion

Money List Winner
Moderator
Joined
Sep 9, 2014
Messages
27,152
Location
Northumberland
Visit site
To play a bit of Devil lad advocate. What level of wealth and privilege should people be allowed to be born into?
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

Tour Rookie
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
4,374
Visit site
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.


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

Head Pro
Moderator
Joined
Oct 29, 2013
Messages
5,028
Location
Inverness
Visit site
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.

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