The Monarchy

[Deleted member 16999]

This thread is about the Monarchy, not the Armed Forces.
Can we please get back on track.

The Monarch is the head of the Armed Forces, therefore forever linked. You’re welcome

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Re the op. I would scrap them.

I'm not overly fussed by the cost, we waste plenty as a country. The extra 70p doesn't bother me. It does however show that no matter how much we big up the tourism they bring it still doesn't offset the money they cost us.

My issue is that whilst there are a few that do great things, many more are as bad as those that end up love island or get me out of here.

I get no pride from them, I don't sing the anthem.

As to the way this thread has gone. I wish we didn't need a military, unfortunately for all the world leaders talking of peace and trade deals etc. Its human nature to want more and I fear if any superpower showed a sign of weakness then an allie would soon take advantage.

What I would say to those with military service is that you chose to protect one and all without prejudice. Those people aren't obligated to then show gratitude, you protected their right to choose.

Some are strongly against military force. Just as some are pro war, vegan, religious or not. You may not agree with any or all of their life choices, but those are their freedoms.

I suggest you read Hobbit’s post above as that seems to suggest the opposite about what they cost.

As for us choosing to serve, yes we did and we realise just how sadly we are needed, we don’t live in a perfect world, you could argue if no one broke the law we wouldn’t need the Police, but I’m not going to accuse anyone who has served in the Police of having mental problems or say they only joined the Police to drive round in fast cars and to beat people up.

I don’t need anyone to show gratitude or say anything, in fact I’m very happy for them to ignore us, but they should at least recognise that the their freedoms have been fought for by men and women in the past who were willing to serve and those serving today to protect their future.

 

[Papas1982]

I suggest you read Hobbit’s post above as that seems to suggest the opposite about what they cost.

As for us choosing to serve, yes we did and we realise just how sadly we are needed, we don’t live in a perfect world, you could argue if no one broke the law we wouldn’t need the Police, but I’m not going to accuse anyone who has served in the Police of having mental problems or say they only joined the Police to drive round in fast cars and to beat people up.

I don’t need anyone to show gratitude or say anything, in fact I’m very happy for them to ignore us, but they should at least recognise that the their freedoms have been fought for by men and women in the past who were willing to serve and those serving today to protect their future.

I wasn't condoning people saying you have mental issues if you serve, in fact I'd say most May leave with them due to what they've done that goes against human nature. If people were inclined to want the glory of war they woukdnt end up with ptsd. I agree re police too which is why accept we need the forces.

In regards to your last line, that's where we disagree slightly. Your service whilst appreciated by me is built up as a selfless act therefor there should be no expectations as to how those that haven't served react or respect your work.

Will have another look for hobbits response. But as I said, the costs weren't really a factor for my thoughts re the costs.

 

[Deleted member 1418]

Anyone fancy looking at facts, instead of opinions?

The Sovereign Grant, i.e. the money paid to the Royal Family = £82.2m
That's up 41% on last year, but includes the ongoing refurb costs for the Royal Palaces.

The Core Grant, i.e. money paid to the Royals was £49.3m

How many visitors did the Royal Palaces have last year, and how much money was generated?

7.9m visitors, generating an income of £395m..................... would as many people have visited if there wasn't the hype around royalty? I can't be 'arrised arguing the yes's and no's, especially as its subjective and opinion based.

What did the Royals do in the way of Royal engagements in the year?

3,200 Royal engagements in 223 working days. The Queen obviously didn't do all of those. And some of those engagements were over several days, e.g. visits to countries.

Further to that, the Queen has an income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is run as a business. Like any business owner she pays business tax and income tax, and she also pays NI for the employees and pension contributions. The business generated just over £20m. Charles, similarly, has significant business interests and, similarly, pays a good chunk in taxes etc.

All the Royal finances and incomes are listed, as are all the taxes they paid. I looked at it last year, when a similar argument was raging, but can't be bothered with the minute detail this year - if you're interested, go and look for it. Its an easy search.

In my opinion, the money received by the state far, far outweighed the money paid out. And don't forget that the maintenance of the buildings would probably have occurred irrespective of whether or not there was a Royal Family. So, if you take the (core) Sovereign Grant of £49.3m, then minus the taxes etc that the Royal Family paid and minus whatever % of the £395m you feel the attraction of the Royal Family has generated ------ just what is the genuine cost to the state of the Royal Family? Are they really leeches?

The republicans and anti-monarchists will never change their mind, I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least base the argument around some facts rather than say, "the Royal Family are leeches."

Great post.

But you also forgot to add they're Germans and in-breds after "leeches"!!! 😉

 

[Papas1982]

Anyone fancy looking at facts, instead of opinions?

The Sovereign Grant, i.e. the money paid to the Royal Family = £82.2m
That's up 41% on last year, but includes the ongoing refurb costs for the Royal Palaces.

The Core Grant, i.e. money paid to the Royals was £49.3m

How many visitors did the Royal Palaces have last year, and how much money was generated?

7.9m visitors, generating an income of £395m..................... would as many people have visited if there wasn't the hype around royalty? I can't be 'arrised arguing the yes's and no's, especially as its subjective and opinion based.

What did the Royals do in the way of Royal engagements in the year?

3,200 Royal engagements in 223 working days. The Queen obviously didn't do all of those. And some of those engagements were over several days, e.g. visits to countries.

Further to that, the Queen has an income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is run as a business. Like any business owner she pays business tax and income tax, and she also pays NI for the employees and pension contributions. The business generated just over £20m. Charles, similarly, has significant business interests and, similarly, pays a good chunk in taxes etc.

All the Royal finances and incomes are listed, as are all the taxes they paid. I looked at it last year, when a similar argument was raging, but can't be bothered with the minute detail this year - if you're interested, go and look for it. Its an easy search.

In my opinion, the money received by the state far, far outweighed the money paid out. And don't forget that the maintenance of the buildings would probably have occurred irrespective of whether or not there was a Royal Family. So, if you take the (core) Sovereign Grant of £49.3m, then minus the taxes etc that the Royal Family paid and minus whatever % of the £395m you feel the attraction of the Royal Family has generated ------ just what is the genuine cost to the state of the Royal Family? Are they really leeches?

The republicans and anti-monarchists will never change their mind, I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least base the argument around some facts rather than say, "the Royal Family are leeches."

You've obviously a much better grasp of all this having looked Into it previously. Does the sovereign grant also cover the cost of protection etc, or is that seperate or covered by the family themselves.

It certainly makes a better argument to keep them on a financial basis.

 

[Hobbit]

I suggest you read Hobbit’s post above as that seems to suggest the opposite about what they cost.

As for us choosing to serve, yes we did and we realise just how sadly we are needed, we don’t live in a perfect world, you could argue if no one broke the law we wouldn’t need the Police, but I’m not going to accuse anyone who has served in the Police of having mental problems or say they only joined the Police to drive round in fast cars and to beat people up.

I don’t need anyone to show gratitude or say anything, in fact I’m very happy for them to ignore us, but they should at least recognise that the their freedoms have been fought for by men and women in the past who were willing to serve and those serving today to protect their future.

We need the Police, and perhaps stronger policing because of the crime rate. And the ills of the world require a stronger version of the Police. Imagine trying to curtail the ills of the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda with a man in a stab vest holding pepper spray. Lets be reasonable, without the armed forces to step in to hotspots, at the behest of the UN, what would be the outcome.

Does the world's politicians respond to each humanitarian crisis in the right way, or treat each hotspot with equanimity? No, and you only have to look at the response to the Saudi missile attacks compared to what goes on in Burma or northern India. But that's a separate issue.

 

[robinthehood]

Anyone fancy looking at facts, instead of opinions?

The Sovereign Grant, i.e. the money paid to the Royal Family = £82.2m
That's up 41% on last year, but includes the ongoing refurb costs for the Royal Palaces.

The Core Grant, i.e. money paid to the Royals was £49.3m

How many visitors did the Royal Palaces have last year, and how much money was generated?

7.9m visitors, generating an income of £395m..................... would as many people have visited if there wasn't the hype around royalty? I can't be 'arrised arguing the yes's and no's, especially as its subjective and opinion based.

What did the Royals do in the way of Royal engagements in the year?

3,200 Royal engagements in 223 working days. The Queen obviously didn't do all of those. And some of those engagements were over several days, e.g. visits to countries.

Further to that, the Queen has an income from the Duchy of Lancaster which is run as a business. Like any business owner she pays business tax and income tax, and she also pays NI for the employees and pension contributions. The business generated just over £20m. Charles, similarly, has significant business interests and, similarly, pays a good chunk in taxes etc.

All the Royal finances and incomes are listed, as are all the taxes they paid. I looked at it last year, when a similar argument was raging, but can't be bothered with the minute detail this year - if you're interested, go and look for it. Its an easy search.

In my opinion, the money received by the state far, far outweighed the money paid out. And don't forget that the maintenance of the buildings would probably have occurred irrespective of whether or not there was a Royal Family. So, if you take the (core) Sovereign Grant of £49.3m, then minus the taxes etc that the Royal Family paid and minus whatever % of the £395m you feel the attraction of the Royal Family has generated ------ just what is the genuine cost to the state of the Royal Family? Are they really leeches?

The republicans and anti-monarchists will never change their mind, I don't have a problem with that, but lets at least base the argument around some facts rather than say, "the Royal Family are leeches."

Missing key facts around security... when a royal stops by to open your new building who pays for the police etc ?
The true cost of supporting the the royals is more like 300 million .
Granted a small amount in overall UK budget terms , but still an eye watering amount which could be better spent elsewhere.
Thats before we even talk about if there is really a place for them at all in a modern society where it's all about equality equality equality.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I wasn't condoning people saying you have mental issues if you serve, in fact I'd say most May leave with them due to what they've done that goes against human nature. If people were inclined to want the glory of war they woukdnt end up with ptsd. I agree re police too which is why accept we need the forces.

In regards to your last line, that's where we disagree slightly. Your service whilst appreciated by me is built up as a selfless act therefor there should be no expectations as to how those that haven't served react or respect your work.

Will have another look for hobbits response. But as I said, the costs weren't really a factor for my thoughts re the costs.

Maybe it’s my fat thumbs, I’m not asking for anything in terms if selfless acts etc, I just find it weird(not you) that people go on about freedom of speech or right to say whatever, without at least recognising some of those things we enjoy today in the UK has been because people did serve their Country and some paid the ultimate price.
We all wish there were no wars etc, but as you’ll appreciate we don’t live in that world sadly.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Missing key facts around security... when a royal stops by to open your new building who pays for the police etc ?
The true cost of supporting the the royals is more like 300 million .
Granted a small amount in overall UK budget terms , but still an eye watering amount which could be better spent elsewhere.
Thats before we even talk about if there is really a place for them at all in a modern society where it's all about equality equality equality.

Good one.

 

[Backache]

I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc. WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.

 

[drdel]

I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc. WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.

I tend to agree. We've been lucky with the current Monarch, but what follows might be tricky.

 

[Hobbit]

I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc. WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.

Without resorting to an argument, don't you think that's ageist? There's younger ones amongst the Royals, e.g. Andrew, who'd be my last choice and then some to be monarch, and he's way younger than the Queen or Charles but him, no way on God's earth.

 

[clubchamp98]

Without resorting to and argument, don't you think that's ageist? There's younger ones amongst the Royals, e.g. Andrew, who'd be my last choice and then some to be monarch, and he's way younger than the Queen or Charles but him, no way on God's earth.

It might be seen as that !
But it does make a lot of sense imo.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I think we need to look a little beyond the personalities involved and look at the institution of the monarchy and the role they play in our political system.

As Far as personality goes I think Her Majesty the Queen has done a great job has been hard working diligent discreet and a great ambassador for the UK.
However I do think it is beyond time we had a rethink of the British constitution and the role the monarch plays in it. We currently have a 93 year old as head of state , potentially deciding with advice on who to choose as prime minister , whether or not parliament should be dissolve, prorogued etc. WIth the best will in the world nobody at the age of 93 has the same intellectual capacity of the same person 30 years younger. We may have a time when the monarch is not someone who is loved and respected by the majority of their people and the armed forces of this country , what happens then?
The time to change an institution and update it is when it works not when it fails and it is grabbed by the nearest chancer. We should have updated the monarchy and their role years ago saving that we should do it soon before it is too late.

Do you really think the role of the queen in regards politics is anything more than ceremonial these days and it’s the same with being the head of the armed forces. That won’t change when Charles steps up then William - they aren’t going to do anything to rock the boat - even though at times I suspect of lot of people wished our current head of state might have stopped the current PM

 

[Hobbit]

It might be seen as that !
But it does make a lot of sense imo.

I half agree with being able to connect with the younger generation. I know I felt in my last few years at work it was getting harder to create that connection and a synergy with the younger generation. However, bearing in mind how succession occurs, how do you establish the right criteria for when to takeover? Do you pick an arbitrary date and say all monarchs should retire at x age? What happens if you've got one that's totally switched on, or one that loses life's thread at 60? If you're going to go down the route of retiring them do you do it with a competency test, like the US President is supposed to undergo?

You could switch it around and say when the next in-line reaches 40??? they step in. But what happens if they are rubbish at 40? There is no ideal time to either step down or step up. Is 93 too old? Is 60 too old?

I don't think I can pick the right time, but I would say that a decent PM would guide the monarch... oh well, never mind. And where are we now with proroguing

 

[SocketRocket]

Do you really think the role of the queen in regards politics is anything more than ceremonial these days and it’s the same with being the head of the armed forces. That won’t change when Charles steps up then William - they aren’t going to do anything to rock the boat - even though at times I suspect of lot of people wished our current head of state might have stopped the current PM

And a lot prefer her not to. I guess that's your personal opinion, why not just say so or is it a joke 🙄

 

[SocketRocket]

I half agree with being able to connect with the younger generation. I know I felt in my last few years at work it was getting harder to create that connection and a synergy with the younger generation. However, bearing in mind how succession occurs, how do you establish the right criteria for when to takeover? Do you pick an arbitrary date and say all monarchs should retire at x age? What happens if you've got one that's totally switched on, or one that loses life's thread at 60? If you're going to go down the route of retiring them do you do it with a competency test, like the US President is supposed to undergo?

You could switch it around and say when the next in-line reaches 40??? they step in. But what happens if they are rubbish at 40? There is no ideal time to either step down or step up. Is 93 too old? Is 60 too old?

I don't think I can pick the right time, but I would say that a decent PM would guide the monarch... oh well, never mind. And where are we now with proroguing

Its so difficult to set a rule for them to retire. It seemed to me the time for the Queen was when her Mother died so that Charles could take over before he was too old. As an arbitiry number I would suggest 70 was a reasonable age to consider, this would have given Charles 20 years and William around 40..

 

[User62651]

The Monarch is the head of the Armed Forces, therefore forever linked. You’re welcome

Armed forces number 190,000 or so including reservists, in a country of 67 million that's around 0.3%. Just saying.

 

[clubchamp98]

I half agree with being able to connect with the younger generation. I know I felt in my last few years at work it was getting harder to create that connection and a synergy with the younger generation. However, bearing in mind how succession occurs, how do you establish the right criteria for when to takeover? Do you pick an arbitrary date and say all monarchs should retire at x age? What happens if you've got one that's totally switched on, or one that loses life's thread at 60? If you're going to go down the route of retiring them do you do it with a competency test, like the US President is supposed to undergo?

You could switch it around and say when the next in-line reaches 40??? they step in. But what happens if they are rubbish at 40? There is no ideal time to either step down or step up. Is 93 too old? Is 60 too old?

I don't think I can pick the right time, but I would say that a decent PM would guide the monarch... oh well, never mind. And where are we now with proroguing

Not sure I just think the Monarch would be better out of politics altogether.
It’s just pomp and ceremony anyway .

 

[Tashyboy]

Armed forces number 190,000 or so including reservists, in a country of 67 million that's around 0.3%. Just saying.

Am sure theres a point to that but am not getting it 😳