Scrap the Sovereign Grant

Signed.

The Windsors cost a lot don't they?

Royal Finances how much?

An absolute exemption for the Windsors under the freedom of information act granted by the government without going through parliament Meaning claims for information about their costs would not be met until after their deaths. What have they got to hide?

There is something deeply wrong if the public are not entitled to know where its money goes. Huge swathes of money are not even available for public disclosure. All travel expenses below £15,000 are exempt from publication and are not recorded. Security costs which account for by far the largest drain on the public finances are similarly unpublished. And Local councils often foot a heavy bill for the Windsors family days-out. Ramsey Council saw its reserve budget wiped out due to a bill £58,000 for a visit from Mrs Windsor. Transport is available to them for whatever they want. Private jet to Scotland Charles, trips to play golf Andrew, Anne to watch sport. Etc. Etc Etc

But the abohorant nature of the monarchy is only further underlined by the fact that the Windsor family see fit to steel millions of pounds of tax payers money and deliberately seek to deceive thoses tax payers, whether by omitting three-quarters of their costs from published reports or by dividing the sum by everybody in the country.

£345 million is a lot of money. Money that could be used for our public services , nurses ,doctors ,schools ,police. Instead We throw money at an institution that serves No Purpose Whatsoever

The Windsors are given tens of millions of pounds of public money simply because they happen to be members of a particular family, despite their incompetence, their casual racism, and their institutional snobbery.

Compare this to the costs of the Irish President which actually came in under budget.

www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/higgins-spends-over-300-000-on-guests-at-áras-an-uachtaráin-1.4193042

Yes that book is an eye opener speki4eyes The RF spend public money day in day out as if it's their own who else would be allowed to get away with that), on transport for their own private interests, wether it is trains cars jets, helicopters their favourite method of transport, not very environmentally friendly. Reminds me of the expenses scandal.

Its amusing to read that Elizabeth II is "using her own money". Anyone believing that delusion should read 'And What do YOU Do' by Norman Baker.

MaizieD and Anniebach I hope my precious post Fri 23-Oct-20 14:40:47 answers your questions about a presidents role

represent the nation
defend our democracy
act as referee in the political process
offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration

The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

What sort of powers would the head of state have?
In a republic all our politicians would have to obey a set of rules that are decided by the people (written down in a constitution and voted on by the public). The head of state would be able to stop the politicians from doing something if they are breaking the rules - but not just because they disagree with the politicians.

Grany names the president of Ireland as an example,

He was president of the Labour Party until he became the president, he had served as an MP , did he suddenly become
politically neutral .

We vote the government into power, can one man/woman decide to step in and rule the government is in the wrong , it’s
for the voter to decide.

Anniebach

Could a president be politically neutral ?

That's what I'm wondering, Annie.

Nor can I see how a president could oversee the constitution and 'step in' in the case of government wrongdoing.

Oh yippee another petition we are expected to sign.

What is it with some posters continually bombarding us with yet another one trying to get rid of this, ban that.

With I would say three notable exceptions (Andrew, Harry and his awful wife) I fully support the Royal family so no I won’t be signing.

Could a president be politically neutral ?

A President is an elected Head of State instead of a hereditary HoS
He or she would work represent us for our constitution, politically neutral, but step in if the government does something wrong.

Sorry, but I keep thinking of Donald Trump..

The Queen does not want to do the job of working for our constitution but still wants the trappings the luxury that goes with the job.

The Queen is in a difficult position. As per the constitution she is supposed to act on the advice of her ministers.

It will be interesting if the Internal Market Bill, with its poisonous international law breaking clause, comes to her for royal assent because she is sworn to uphold the rule of law. One would hope that would present her with a real problem...

In the meantime, I expect she just enjoys being wealthy, in the same way that many people far more wealthy than her enjoy it.

How do you, or anyone know that she 'wants the trappings'? She's enough private wealth of her own to live in 'luxury' if that's want she wants..

Yes I wondered that too specki4eyes

Kamiso could you explain why you consider that we are lucky to have them please?

Our local council foots the bill because the royal visiting as been invited .

Exception being visits to disaster areas

A president who can overrule an elected government ?

A dictator

A President is an elected Head of State instead of a hereditary HoS
He or she would work represent us for our constitution, politically neutral, but step in if the government does something wrong. The Queen does not want to do the job of working for our constitution but still wants the trappings the luxury that goes with the job.
No Jaberwok they don't charge a personal fee when on visits but our local council foots the bill each time costing many thousands.

Is a president the alternative to the Queen? The roles are clearly not comparable.
Still, despite inheriting the post, Her Majesty has managed to do the job. Not bad for a girl who didn’t go to school or sit any exams. We know that Charles, William and George will keep the RF going for a long while without us having the bother of elections. No need to defend them as nothing will change. Just don’t put them on the same footing as workers who turn out in all weathers to get to the jobs they have been interviewed for on time.

Think of having to meet and entertain Mugabe, Ceauscescu! and many others over the years!! I think the RF by and large do a sterling job and I wouldn't want it any other way. At least the don't charge a personal fee every time they cut a ribbon.

I don't know of any president, or head of state whose children, grandchildren and great grand children benefit from state funding. Have a monarch if you want but let the rest fund their own charity work from their substantial private incomes.

I respect the Queen, the Royals have their lives scrutinised and criticised just because they have been born into The Firm! How many of us could take the criticism? We know too well some have 'gone off the rails' that is so public. The Queen is worth every penny! Tourists flock to see them (outwith Covid). They are a national institute!! Let's keep them!!

The thought of having to meet and greet Trump , smile, listen to his waffle and having to accept it ? No thank you

They don't do too much the Royals hardly work at all.

I 'met' the Duke of Kent a couple of years ago (well, I was part of a huge circle of people that the poor b*gger had to go round shaking hands with). It was his 83rd birthday. It was his second 'engagement' of the day, everything timed to the minute, and after a whistlestop tour, all that handshaking and a quick bite of lunch he went off to his third 'engagement' of the day. I thought it was a bit of a punishing schedule for an 83 yr old. I wouldn't fancy it at all and I'm more than a decade younger. I understand that Princess Anne does 2 or 3 a day and she's 70. I think it all looks really exhausting and it's completely unfair to characterise it as 'not work'. Doubt if many Gnetters would fancy it...

The Republicans - what did we do to deserve italics and Capitals? . I'll take that description as a badge of honour.

I know I won't change anyone's mind here, but I'm stating my view. My sister-in-law once told me that the Royals were the best thing about the UK. I was floored, I really don't understand that attitude. But, each to their own.

Some people are for the monarchy and whatever The Republicans say/post will not change our minds ??