Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

[backwoodsman]

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

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]

[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]

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.

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

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I think we mostly agree with you mate.

Long live the King.

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]

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.

Sigh ...

 

[Hobbit]

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]

Sigh ...

 

[PJ87]

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?

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

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

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

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]

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?

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

 

[Blue in Munich]

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.

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]

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!"?

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]

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

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]

"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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

"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?

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]

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

 

[PJ87]

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.

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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.