Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Per Capita Cost of the UK Monarchy

  1. #1

    Default Per Capita Cost of the UK Monarchy

    I suggest it be ditched now before it is usurped by the POTUS next month.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-u...i-theresa-may/

    That's just one existential cost to the public. There are many more such as this, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...m-palace-works.

    The only benefit I can see for the general public is tourism. Is it worth the cost?

    I have not so far found a number that includes security costs.
    .

  2. #2
    The Crown Estate isn't public money. It's a... thing. Property of whoever the current reigning monarch is. Something like that? I'm really indifferent on whether we should be a Republic but the cost of the monarchy is piss-all compared to the scale of the overall economy, or government spending. It's not a good argument. If we had a president or a lord protector or whatever the fuck instead as head of state, you think that would magically be free? That they wouldn't need security?

    Also, Trump's not coming next month, in May: that is actually the surname of the Prime Minister. He's coming in June.

    Also, we're not changing our government just because you lot can't elect a proper president. Get his ass impeached by June if you're that bothered about it.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  3. #3
    Trump's bullshittery aside, I've always been a vicarious republican when it came to the UK. And I had an argument a while back (in which I was roundly criticized) for suggesting that the Crown Estate should actually be the property of the UK government and not the monarch. But at the end of the day, other than offending democratic sensibilities and being occasionally ludicrous, I suppose the royals don't do all that much harm - the actual budgetary outlay is relatively manageable.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  4. #4
    I'm a republican but out of principle.

    The cost argument is ludicrous, a President/whatever would cost a comparable amount. And even if we took the Crown Estate into public hands which I think it should be [though legally it is the personal property of the monarch] then we would have to pay the costs for maintaining the Palaces etc

    For what its worth I don't believe in the tourism argument either. Yes people come to stare at Buckingham Palace [and for 1 month a year can go inside], but then again people go to Paris year-round and actually go inside Versailles.

    Ultimately the cost and tourism arguments are redundant to the debate. What should matter is simply whether we want to keep the monarchy or not. And like virtually all British republicans I recognise that's not a debate worth having while QEII is alive.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  5. #5
    Sweden is also a Monarchy, I think we should ditch that too.
    I seriously have a hard time to see any advantage that would motivate it in a modern world over the principle, as to say.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,845
    I'm also Republican by principle. However, our previous queen and current king are as far as i can tell doing a pretty good job, so i don't really care that much at the moment. My main problem with royalty is that there's not much you can do if they're not good or causing problems.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  7. #7
    We're a Constitutional Monarchy. If the monarch started causing problems we could very rapidly become a republic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #8
    I'd be really disappointed if we lost our monarchy. Something that oozes so much history and tradition is interesting and kinda romantic.

    I'm a bit frustrated that I feel this way because objectively I don't really see the value they bring, but I know that I'd probably feel more regret and sadness if we got rid of them.

    Shrug.

  9. #9
    I think there's some value in the head of state being non-political. And if they're non-political, there's not a whole lot of point in electing them.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I think there's some value in the head of state being non-political. And if they're non-political, there's not a whole lot of point in electing them.
    Plenty of parliamentary democracies have non partisan presidents as head of state - and it seems to work out without a hereditary system.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  11. #11
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    5,845
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    We're a Constitutional Monarchy. If the monarch started causing problems we could very rapidly become a republic.
    That's my thoughts as well. Which in turn keeps them in line, i guess.
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Plenty of parliamentary democracies have non partisan presidents as head of state - and it seems to work out without a hereditary system.
    Sure, but it's a valid question: what is the point of electing a non partisan head of state?
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Plenty of parliamentary democracies have non partisan presidents as head of state - and it seems to work out without a hereditary system.
    They're usually "non-partisan", not non-partisan. They're either elected politicians with prior political affiliations and thus inherently partisan figures, or else appointed by parliament/the government and therefore also partisan. I'm not, like, an expert on the political history of every state that uses these parliamentary republic style systems but I don't think there's a president anywhere where the tradition of neutrality for the head of state is quite as strong as it is here: Elizabeth II doesn't seem to ever express opinions on anything publicly.

    That said, it remains to be seen how much of the tradition comes from institutions and how much comes from her personal conviction, since basically the entire modern history of the institution of the monarchy has been under her, so we'll see how her successors do with it.
    Sing in grief, a requiem, the curse of our millennium, these souls keep whispering from the river beds
    An end to all these violent means, alive in these red water dreams, their haunted burdens stirring in my head on streets still running red
    Most went in the flood, a few were martyred by the flames, yet those who unleashed the waters are still guilty all the same
    When the ignorance of puppets serves the masters larger game, they let it rain, they let it rain
    When I get the chance to rise I'll find the light in their cold eyes or lose myself and carry out revenge
    The righteous hunt has just begun, the dimming of the bleeding sun will let these waters run clear once again



  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    10,468
    That in itself should be a reason to abolish the monarchy: keeping a person in a position where he is not to express any thought on current affairs is tantamount to violation of human rights.

    Other than that I see the constitutional monarchy as a harmless relic. And as soon as it becomes a nuisance we can get rid of it.
    Greece shows us that there is a kind of politician worse than the ones that break their election promises; the ones that keep their election promises.

  14. #14
    If the monarch wants to express thoughts on current affiars they can do so. Abdication is an option.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    Being upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •