Is it time to ditch the Royal Family?

Question

The royal family are incredibly rich and we (the British tax payer) still subsidise them. It is time to strip them of their assets and flog them or build wind farms or something.

The monarch can keep one or two crowns, a flat in Buck' house and some soldiers for the tourists. Everything else is redistributed. The rest of them (Philip, Princess of Kent, etc) are out on their ear with the same rights to council housing, job seekers allowance, state pensions, etc as the rest of us plebs.

Also while I am dreaming Harry gets his DNA tested to see if he is the fruit of that ginger soldier...

A few points.

It is not high treason to discuss the remuneration and role of the Royal Family. The UK is not tsarist Russia and this is my right thank you very much!

Secondly the British Tax payer DOES subsidise the monarchy. The Crown holds assets for the nation and these assets are not the property of the monarch. This income should therefore not be compared with the Civil list. The Royal Family also receives considerable income from the Duchy of Cornwall and the like. These assets should also be managed for the benefit of the nation (i.e. brought into the crown estate) and the civil list should be revoked.

Regarding the incorporation of the Dutchy of Cornwall into the Crown Estate this would not be theft as the monarchy part and parcel of the British Nation and all assets were accrued by this association. Therefore benefits from these assets should logically benefit the nation.

And to the ch
The Royal Family

..ap who made the comment about sour grapes. I am not denigrating the grapes that I cannot attain. Rather I am saying the grapes are sweet I would very like to try one! In fact we could all have one or two.. even Charlie and the others. Its just not right that the Battenburgs get the whole lot.

Answer 1

Why not, they are little more than quaint tourist attractions. It is certainly time we had a proper constitution and replaced the House of Lords with an elected body, so the royals might as well go as well.

Of course the question then is what do you replace the Queen with as Premier? Certainly not Tony Blair. He has already proved he is unfit to be Prime Minister.

I foresee a written constitution, and an elected two chamber government and an independent supreme court, somewhat like the US system . There will be a Prime Minister and a President. The PM will probably be chosen much as he is today. The President could either be the head of the upper house or directly elected. For day to day matters the PM will still be the head of government, but the president will have the power to veto his decisions.

A politician should not be able to become president directly after serving as a minister. At least 2 general elections will have to pass first.

The lower house could instead be split into regional assemblies for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, thus also solving the 'East Lothian Question'.

Answer 2

I am giving an objective view, from elsewhere.
Even though "the Crown" is an outmoded institution, I 'd give it some respect. They are to the country like a great grand parent to a family.
Maybe they too have to change their ways. That is another Q altogether.
But even if you rid of them, you will still have to pay for another Titular head of govt. and State in a Parliamentary Democracy. Or change the whole system . Change the Constitution, which is a great strain anyway.

I am not sure of details, but rest must be a part of the House of Lords and that is why they enjoy privileges. At least they have some background qualifications to sit in the Parliament. See some of the modern governments and what type of people rule.

A taxpayer pays for many things in any case.

Answer 3

The Royal Family, being hereditary rather than appointees or elected representatives, provide the people of this country with the final protection against abuse by a rogue government.
This government has removed more liberty from the people than any other modern peacetime administration. If Blair is successful in populating the House of Lords with a large percentage of appointees (lackeys), only HM's ability to dissolve Parliament will prevent this government from suspending elections and prolonging its tenure ad infinitum.
As for the finances of the Royal Family, much of their wealth of privately held and the Civil List is paid as compensation for the Crown Estates that were handed to the country by the Royal Family in the eighteenth century.

Answer 4

Bzzzz!

Minus ten points for stating something widely believed to be true despite it being totally false.

The UK taxpayer does NOT subsidise the Royal Family. They subsidise the Treasury. All the revenues from the Crown Estates go to the Treasury. This amount far far FAR outweighs any money paid on the Civil List.

Try again!

Answer 5

I think you may be confusing the payment made by the treasury (called the civil list) with "subsidies" like official residences, travel etc. The Queen receives the lion's share of the Civil List payment but has to pay from that all the salaries of her staff, the running costs of Buckingham Palace & other official pads (unless a State occassion is hosted in which case the treasury pays separately) and so on. In return we receive unlimited PR which in tourist terms only is incalculable.

Answer 6

I bet if they DNA tested everyone in Britain they would find that there are loads of plebs who are more entitled to be royal than the royals, you know how naughty they used to be with them milkmaids in years gone by....

That said, I agree with the whole financial problem the royals create, they own far too much land and certainly should not be subsidised. But I would like to keep them, they are our history, and they do bring in a bit of revenue from holiday makers.

I have always found it hard to place events in history in a logical way in my head, that was until I read up about the kings and queens of Britain. Now I have a time line in my head that makes it very easy to place these events in order, so, I would like to see them cost less and see their assets stripped a bit, but I would like to keep them. In a world of chaos they are something that has been constant.

Answer 7

enable's settle for it. no human being is going to the united kingdom for the elements. British history attracts tens of millions of vacationers each and every year. they arrive to work out the castles, the replacing of the Guards and, in the adventure that they are fortunate, capture a glimpse of a few one from the Royal kinfolk. i do not realize why, when you're literally not a British tax payer, you look so hung up about it. vacationer gross sales brings in a hell of a lot more effective than the Royals value.

Answer 8

The royality need to know what real life is. Let them try a wage job for a change. I would love to see how they would survive.
I couldn't take the type of life they lead. I love being able to go whereever I want to go when I want. I don't want to have to have a guard. I love going to Walmart. I love the idea of having financial security though.
I never knew the origin of the Royality's money. I figured that it went through generation to generation.
Just yesterday I was checking out the surname of these people. I didn't think that Prince could actually be on the ID.

Answer 9

Sour grapes often leave a bad taste in the mouth. The world has never been fair, but I believe the royals are an important tool in our so-called democracy. Just look at the multi-BILLIONS wasted by New Labour. Could go on but no point.

Answer 10

Wow! You really are anti-royal!
Generally, I sympathise with what you are saying. Take our young 'Royals'. Young people will go out clubbing, of course. But when I see Prince Harry going from club to club 'till to two in the morning, I cannot help but think "I'm being taxed out of my brains, and here's this guy having a ball with MY money! It may be a little irrational, but you know what I mean!