The Monarchy, is there another way?

almostelderly you said -

Princess Sofia of Sweden is volunteering at a hospital during the coronavírus outbreak. Elizabeth 11 has made a speech from isolation in Windsor Castle.

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge trained and worked as an Air Ambulance helicopter pilot. Surely he also should be admired for that? The Prince of Orange (now king) isn't the only one to have a proper responsible job, but curiously he is admired, our Prince clearly not!

I was simply making an observation on the varying attitudes of monarchies in Europe. I also have a technical question. I am new to the site. I followed the instructions for posting messages but they purple when posted. Could someone offer me guidance on how to post? Thanks.

Hi and Welcome. almost elderly Thanks for your comment Agree our RF have an easy life compared to other monarchies.

Our messages turn pink or purple when we post so we can see them better I think.

Jabberwok P William gave up that job pretty quick just a member of the firm now.

A huge amount of our money is spent on them

www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances

Julia Hartley-Brewer talks to Graham on another Pod Cast

republic.cast.rocks

Prince William was a well liked, respected and valued member of the air ambulance team. He had to give it up in order to take on more royal duties as the Queen and Prince Phillip retired from public life. You know this perfectly well Grany, but of course you have to denigrate his efforts as you would anything any of the RF do.

Katherine Kent stopped royal duties years ago, she became a
music teacher .

When she was carrying out royal duties she also did so much
work for charities privately.

She was a volunteer with The Samaritans, delivered meals
on wheels.

I am amused by - estimated costs of the royal family, estimated by republicans !

How is the monarchy funded?
The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend.

Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses.

All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £76.1m for 2017/2018.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £345m annually.

Royal finances reform charter
Republic's royal finances reform charter proposes the following simple reforms, to improve accountability, transparency and fairness in royal finances and to appropriately assign public funds to the Treasury.

Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy - including an annual salary for the Queen - to be managed and reported on by a government department, not Buckingham Palace.
All security costs to be made transparent and accountable.
All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities.
The institution of the monarchy, and all members of the royal household, to be required to abide by the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals.
The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to be fully investigated by parliament with a view to transferring them into public ownership, with all revenue going to the Treasury.
The Crown Estate to be renamed 'the National Estate' and its status clarified through amendment of the Crown Estate Act.

I am also amused that theres someone who says/believes they're a socialist yet supports the gross inequality of a hereditary monarchy.Maybe the resident "socialist" could tell me HOW that works?

Meghan's way might have worked quite well. I love Queen Elizabeth and even she who has worked faithfully all her life will see the monarchy need to be modernised by cutting out all the hangers-on. Obviously Kate and Princess Anne are good workers too, but on the other hand Prince Andrew's daughters and former wife not so.

Paddyanne, a socialist extracts inherited wealth from landed aristoctracy by inheritance tax, I think.

More importantly a socialist closes all the ' public' schools and provides for free tertiary education for all. In this way the aristocrats don't go a la lanterne but are gently sidelined as they individually might merit.

They are not funded by the sovereigns grant. Prince Charles ended this some years ago, much to the fury of Prince Andrew! Of course the RF needs to be modernised which William and Katherine are successfully doing. Just a pity Harry and Meghan aren't around to help.

I don't believe that Eugenie and Beatrice receive a royal allowance. Difficult to ascertain accurately, as every piece of information on websites now appears to come in the form of newspaper articles.

I can understand Australia not wanting to be part of the Monarchy----it's so bloomin' far away for a start and they've got their own rules and regulations, besides that it's a comparatively " young " country/continent where most inhabitants now aren't interested in pomp and ceremony as their grandparents once were.

When I had republican feelings in the past, I only had to think of Tony Blair as President, with Cherie as First Lady, for a speedy cure.
Plenty of similar cures come to mind now, whenever needed.

Who is the resident socialist paddyanne ?

Are you still receiving bookings to photograph the royal family ?

There are some dyed in the wool Nationalists on here, that's for sure and also monarchists who will have nothing said against our Royals.
I was surprised when NZ voted to keep their constitutional monarchy and the union jack! There are more true monarchists in the former colonies than there are here.

I am intrigued by the way Continental Europeans who have been republics for years are fascinated by our Royals or any Royals.

I was in Denmark at the time of their Royal Wedding and believe me, everyone stopped to watch. She is Australian of Scottish descent.

www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/gallery/2018051469127/relive-prince-frederik-and-mary-royal-wedding/1/

So. like it or not, P Beatrice has a point

Jabberwok George Osbourne brought in the Sovereign Grant in 2013 An extremely generous amount, their money given goes up never down.

I am a republican, and don't believe we can't be a true democracy with an unelected head of state.
I think the institution of the Monarchy, and its expensive trappings, is archaic and helps to maintain our class ridden society.
I would exchange the small benefits that the monarchy brings for a system in keeping with values of the 21st century.
If there was a vote tomorrow, the monarchists would undoubtedly win because the Queen enjoys a great deal of respect and popularity, and and imbues a feeling of security and continuity in the country, especially during difficult times.
I don't think this will be the case after the queen goes.
The tabloids would probably disappear too, they'd have nothing to write about

Well Said Greeneyedgirl

ExD is spot on.

The monarchy really doesn't bother me in the slightest. £345million a year isn't particularly expensive when you look at in relation to the many £billions in the national budget every year. Even the infamous £350 million a week boiled down to less than 2% of the national budget. Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to how much a President would cost us each year? I just cannot get wound up about the money that the nation's figurehead gets, particularly as the monarch has little or no influence on the government of the country.

What bothers me far, far more is the corruption in party politics and government which arises from very wealthy people buying access to ministers and funding lobbying campaigns at rates far beyond what the 'man in the street' could possible afford. Theoretically they have equal access to our legislatures, but in practice the money talks every time.

And if we're going to be bothered about the monarch and the heir taking income from what are, in theory, their private landholdings, the two Duchies, are we also concerned about the 'ownership' of vast tracts of 'our' land by other individuals and the income they get from that?

It has no power – it's just for decoration
The Queen certainly does have power, including the power to sign international treaties and deploy British troops abroad. It's true that most of these "royal prerogative powers" are today exercised by government, but that in itself is a serious problem. These powers have been transferred directly from the monarch to the prime minister and don't need the approval of parliament, effectively shutting out the British people from important decisions. That is fundamentally anti-democratic – and it can only happen because we have a monarchy.

The Queen and Prince Charles also have the power to veto bills that affect their private interests. Official legal advice makes clear that Queen's and Prince's Consent (as the "royal veto" is officially known) is not a mere formality. The process by which consent is obtained provides a clear opportunity for the Queen and the Prince of Wales to influence the shape and content of a bill before it reaches Parliament.

Then there's the problem of parliamentary sovereignty. At one point all the power in the land was held by the king or queen. Over time that power moved to parliament and is now held collectively by 650 MPs. However, the fundamental nature of that power hasn't changed – parliament can make or scrap any law it likes, just as the monarch could in the past. This means our freedoms are never really guaranteed because parliament can always decide to remove them. Again, this a direct result of having a monarchy.

If parliament doesn’t make or scrap laws who will grany, put everything to a public vote ?

So do you want to radically change the constitution as well as abolish the monarchy?

While you detail the monarch's theoretical powers do you have evidence that the royal veto is used to influence 'the shape and content' of bills 'before they reach Parliament? That one surprises me a great deal because I wasn't aware that the monarch had a sight of draft bills before they are laid before parliament.

Do you have a link to your information source?