What is the Monarchy For?

OldFrill

A don't see the UK monarchy as benevolent, although extremely wealthy it takes money from even the poorest of UK citizens and has very unfair tax advantages.

How does it take money from even the poorest of UK citizens?
If you mean the small amount which taxpayers contribute for the Sovereign Grant, ie for our Head of State to fulfil their duties, ie just over £1 per person per annum, you'd have to pay at least that, probably more, for any Head of State. Plus elections every few years.

The poorest UK citizens do not pay tax anyway.

The thing is, I can see the points of view of some Republicans (not those full of hatred which we see occasionally at large) but I reject most of those.
Republicans seem unable to see anyone else's point of view

If our schools, NHS hospitals and government departments didn't pay a fortune to the monarchy's duchies it would be a huge saving, and that money could be reinvested into those public services that really need it.
The £1 figure is pie in the sky due to the monarchy's finances being shrouded in mystery, even security costs are vague estimates (and not included in the £1 guesstimate).

Anyway, it's Christmas and l hope they have a happy time. George would love a mobile phone but likely will get a horse.

OldFrill

If our schools, NHS hospitals and government departments didn't pay a fortune to the monarchy's duchies it would be a huge saving, and that money could be reinvested into those public services that really need it.
The £1 figure is pie in the sky due to the monarchy's finances being shrouded in mystery, even security costs are vague estimates (and not included in the £1 guesstimate).

Anyway, it's Christmas and l hope they have a happy time. George would love a mobile phone but likely will get a horse.

Hopefully a horse, our children had more pleasure with their horses than their phones 🏇📱

Well this is what I mean about impassioned rhetoric rather than logical argument.

The Duchies are privately owned estates, like other estates owned by wealthy individuals of many origins. So even if the Monachy was abolished , those estates would still be privately owned. Unless you’re thinking of a revolution that takes all property away from its current owners. Me and you included? Or just property over a specified amount? Anybody rich?

If you’re talking about Crown Estates the profit from those goes to the Treasury anyway. A bit cumbersome as a system, I agree. Pay out, get money back. We can call it a Nation Estate if you like instead. It would be the same thing.

Voting in a President wouldn’t make any difference to either of those scenarios.

Until the Republicans actually came up with something workable that really does look better for the nation, I’m afraid it’s just a lot of hot air to me.

I think we’ve already seen recently, with this Government, what happens when ideology that hasn’t been really thought through is put into action. It seems to be the same people who want a Republc too.🤔🙄

The Wales family ride OldFrill ? I didn’t know that

GrannyGravy13

OldFrill

If our schools, NHS hospitals and government departments didn't pay a fortune to the monarchy's duchies it would be a huge saving, and that money could be reinvested into those public services that really need it.
The £1 figure is pie in the sky due to the monarchy's finances being shrouded in mystery, even security costs are vague estimates (and not included in the £1 guesstimate).

Anyway, it's Christmas and l hope they have a happy time. George would love a mobile phone but likely will get a horse.

Hopefully a horse, our children had more pleasure with their horses than their phones 🏇📱

George would love a mobile phone but likely will get a horse.

How sensible! George's parents are probably concerned that some of the spiteful, vitriolic and often untrue comments on the internet about his family might be distressing.

If only no under 16s had access to the internet.
Australia has shown some common sense in this direction.

There's a problem to that - ie us over-16s (way over 16's) not being asked to prove we're old enough and maybe having problems getting our usual Internet access. All those proposals floating around in the wind about proving our right to continue having our access without any problems had me there thinking "Is it sufficient that I've had a Facebook account since 2007 - which obviously makes me over 16 then - or am I up for a battle to prove my access must not be censored any more than all our access already is?"

Remembering just how much perfectly normal/legal stuff got censored off the Internet during Lockdown and some still is and we get reminded at intervals by Facebook removing a post at intervals just because its censorship doesn't like it - even though it's perfectly factual etc.

Now trying to think if I've actually seen any "spiteful, vitriolic, untrue" comments about that royal family on the Internet....errrm....there are a few little mini-videos saying someone has abdicated or is about to when they haven't ...but that is all I've seen myself. Plus some very useful body language interpretation videos - often focused on Me-egan (that is such an apt name for Megan imo) and I thought I knew quite a bit about body language - but there's certainly one commentator up there who goes into absolutely forensic detail about body language interpretations (and I'm learning quite a lot from that for interpreting body language generally).

Anniebach

The Wales family ride OldFrill ? I didn’t know that

It's reported that the children love riding, although their mother is allergic to horses.

Lathyrus3

Well this is what I mean about impassioned rhetoric rather than logical argument.

The Duchies are privately owned estates, like other estates owned by wealthy individuals of many origins. So even if the Monachy was abolished , those estates would still be privately owned. Unless you’re thinking of a revolution that takes all property away from its current owners. Me and you included? Or just property over a specified amount? Anybody rich?

If you’re talking about Crown Estates the profit from those goes to the Treasury anyway. A bit cumbersome as a system, I agree. Pay out, get money back. We can call it a Nation Estate if you like instead. It would be the same thing.

Voting in a President wouldn’t make any difference to either of those scenarios.

Until the Republicans actually came up with something workable that really does look better for the nation, I’m afraid it’s just a lot of hot air to me.

I think we’ve already seen recently, with this Government, what happens when ideology that hasn’t been really thought through is put into action. It seems to be the same people who want a Republc too.🤔🙄

The duchies are not privately owned estates, this is a misconception excellently promoted by the monarchy. They are quite unlike privately owned estates run by wealthy individuals.

Constitutionally it would be quite straightforward to take the duchy estates into national ownership.

The duchies are not privately owned estates, this is a misconception excellently promoted by the monarchy.

How do you work that out?

But you haven’t addressed any of the problems I’ve pointed out that occur in a Republic, Oldfrill.

It’s this head in the sand, everything will be wonderful ( I’m not going to talk about that) that’s so frustrating and counterproductive.

If there is change it should be based on sound reasons and clear thought, not any of the posts we’ve seen so far.

Hi 👋 is this clear thought sound reasons

What is a Republic/ Presidents role compared to Monarchy.

A president would have a main role which is to uphold our constitutional laws. A monarchy/ Charles can't do that, remember Boris porogued parliament QE agreed to it.

Charles can only do what PM government asks, giving a PM too much power.

Other roles of a president would be.meeting Heads of State, and speak on important issues of the day.

He/she would have one official home and an office. He/she would be paid and we would know how much.

We can choose another president every 7 years.

It would be a parliamentary/constiuional president, not like America.

The monarchy is the most expensive in Europe £510 million, includes SGrant, Security, Councils pays for RF visits, money from the two duchies which belong to the state.

Ditch the Duchies want Charles and William to not have that money it should be for the benefit of the people. At the moment Charles and William each get over £50 million between them, it's our land not theirs.

As to cost you see monarchy is expensive as an example our nearest newly elected president of Ireland Catherine Connolly costs £5 million.

We can have/put on parades do spectacle too, as other republics can do.

I am a republican. I cannot see the point of monarchy

There is not a good argument for monarchy.

A new book Royal Mint National Debt by former MP Norman Baker says RF never pay for anything!

fancythat

^The duchies are not privately owned estates, this is a misconception excellently promoted by the monarchy. ^

How do you work that out?

The duchies come with the position of monarch and heir, they aren't owned by the persons but the state.
If the King no longer has the title he doesn't keep the duchies.

Lathyrus3

But you haven’t addressed any of the problems I’ve pointed out that occur in a Republic, Oldfrill.

It’s this head in the sand, everything will be wonderful ( I’m not going to talk about that) that’s so frustrating and counterproductive.

If there is change it should be based on sound reasons and clear thought, not any of the posts we’ve seen so far.

I'm not in the least interested in a republic.

OldFrill

fancythat

The duchies are not privately owned estates, this is a misconception excellently promoted by the monarchy.

How do you work that out?

The duchies come with the position of monarch and heir, they aren't owned by the persons but the state.
If the King no longer has the title he doesn't keep the duchies.

Ooh. Not sure that is strictly true. I will delve deeper some other time.

Here is part, of full Report on Duchies explains ownership.

The two Duchies are not the private property of the Windsor
family. They never have been. Yet they provide Charles and
William personal incomes in excess of £23m a year each.
£27.4m for Charles in 2024.
That’s as much as six times the
combined salaries of all elected heads of state in Europe for
William, and again for Charles. Charles’s income was one
hundred and fifty-nine times that of the prime minister.
While the royals continue to refer to them as private estates,
the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall both belong to the
Crown, a state institution. The King was not allowed to own
private property until 1800, hundreds of years after the
Duchies were formed. The analysis below shows clearly the
weight of evidence that shows unequivocally the state
ownership of both Duchies.
The 1337 Charter which established the Duchy of Cornwall was
clear from the outset that it was only for the use of the heir
who was also the eldest son of the monarch. It wasn’t the
personal property of the monarch’s son but held by the Crown
for heirs of the future. It was indivisible from the Crown, not
from the man on the throne or the current duke.

Likewise, when Edward VIII was forced to abdicate, in part
due to his sympathies with the Nazis, he did not retain
personal ownership of the Duchy of Lancaster. The revenue
was paid instead to his brother, the new king, while the Duchy
of Cornwall reverted to the Crown as the new king had no sons.

Samwam

It would give some context and be incredibly helpful if you had given the source of your post above which is, in fact, taken from a propaganda booklet by Republic which also states in that report:
"Republic is committed to the abolition of the Monarchy".

😁

I was very much against the monarchy until I thought of who they would get as head of state instead. Not the PM, horrible thought. I think they should not be the king or queen of my country, they are not part of it and never will be . Stick to the UK, it is nice visiting and looking at all the pomp and ceremony stuff for visitors. It should definitely be slimmed down, though . Just the immediate family, no brothers and sisters and cousins.

Allira

The source comes from Republic website a Report PDF thoroughly researched and factual.

I respect that some people like the monarchy. I find it odd that this unelected family sits in the way of proper democracy, with power, privilege, no accountability.

Andrew as trade envoy was meeting all sorts of dodgy people and doing deals for his own benefit and apart from his association with Epstein. Not a good ambassador for this country, he did this as a representative of this country, which didn't give a good impression.

The late queen who most people said never put a foot wrong was told about Andrew’s dealings and didn't want to know.

Nanna8

Who would they get instead, do you know?

What you get is someone who wants to be a President and acquire power, influence, wealth and a degree of invulnerability for themselves and their relatives.

Personally I don’t see the difference having a Republic would make

Except that with every new election the new Head of State has to learn all the protocols and nuances of dealing with public occasions and contacts with other countries.

And each new election brings in another individual and set of hangers on who will use their term to acquire personal wealth and influence for themselves.

I haven’t yet seen a Republic that has addressed his to deal with this.

The source comes from Republic website a Report PDF thoroughly researched and factual.

I know, Samwam.
However, as I said already, it would have provided some context and clarity had you quoted your source material.

Thank you.

Who would they get instead, do you know?

I presume an elected Head of State.

Many Australians do not have British ancestry, indeed in some areas the numbers are extremely low.

Lathyrus3

You are describing what the monarchy is it's a corrupt institution with power King's Consent, lobbying no accountability, power and private gain.

An elected president would have a defined role upholding the laws of our 'newly written' constitution. Meeting other Heads of State and to make speeches on important matters of the day. And given a salary for this important job. It would be a parliamentary/constiuional republic.

The only ones acquiring personal wealth and influence are Charles and William. Charles is a billionaire how did he aquire that.

Still if people are monarchist no point in arguing about it.

Still if people are monarchist no point in arguing about it

We listen to the arguments of course but are able to refute them in favour of the status quo because the alternative would seem to be worse.
I thought the subject of discussion was the Monarchy, not the extended family.

Andrew Windsor is not the Monarch and never will be.