Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

[theoneandonly]

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.

Andrew seemed to get away with it.

 

[SocketRocket]

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Having a royal family in a modern democracy is an outdated nonsense that just doesn't stand up to analysis.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.

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 Many believe it's not an outdated nonsense and stands up well in analysis.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]

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?

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]

Andrew seemed to get away with it.

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]

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.

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

 

[Lord Tyrion]

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.

I never said otherwise

 

[Golfmmad]

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

Well said Phil. ?

 

[Voyager EMH]

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

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]

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

But the wealth they are born into is our wealth?

 

[SocketRocket]

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.

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]

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.

"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]

"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.

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

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

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]

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.

 

[PJ87]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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