Is it time to become a Republic?

[dbboy]

With P. Harry's revelation this week that none of the royals wishes to be the future king or queen and they only perform their roles out of duty to the country, is it now time that the royals cease lording it up over us and we become a republic with an elected president?

And just think how much that will save the treasury from having to waste money on them and their live style. For starters when they vacate the royal palaces, they can all be used to provide refuge for the homeless.

[Louisa]

We are long overdue becoming a republic. I think it is a disgrace that a modern democracy still has a unelected head of state in the 21st century. The monarch and her family of hangovers on clinging to power without a single vote being caste in a ballot box anywhere. It really is laughable when we as a country go all over the world telling others how to live, have our symbolic head of state born into her role.

Louisa.

[KidKruger]

We can get rid of the royals as figureheads.

However, handing over palaces, castles, whatever, to anyone who has not the knowledge or resources to maintain them would be silly though, imo.

[red devil]

This is straight out of some sixth-former's guide to being a revolutionary. There are hundreds of thousands of properties lying vacant, all far more suitable. The one thing lacking is the political will to sort out homelessness.

As for saving the Treasury money, don't forget to take off all the income the Royal Family generates for the country.

I wouldn't class myself as a Royalist, but give me Prince Charles talking to his plants over a President Trump (Farage!) figure any day...

[Inbound]

If they do decide to not ascend to the throne, then an obvious real job for them is to utilise their properties and become estate managers, with the responsibility of the upkeep and for them to generate an income from having tours and the like, Buckingham Palace would make a nice hotel!!

[Loz]

I just googled it and the Royal Family cost about ?35m/year including all staff and property management.

Assuming we do what everyone else does and replace it with a presidential system, the savings will almost certainly be zero at best. And we would be left with yet another some party political muppet prancing around.

And if you think the royal palaces would ever be used to house the homeless, you've been smoking something.

The loss in tourism would be hard to quantify, but would be significant. The loss in terms of international cachet would be irreplaceable. Dinner with the Queen is up there with dinner with POTUS for international leaders (actually, given the current POTUS, she's up there on her own at the moment).

So, ask yourself the question: would a replacement actually be any better? Given the dearth of political leadership in this country, would it be a lot, lot worse? Boris? Corbyn? May? The mind boggles.

But feel free to have a referendum on the subject - the most recent polls say that a whole 9% of the country is on your side.

[uncleglen]

Hopefully if you republicans get your way then the crown estates will be preserved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

[edcam]

What Red Devil and Loz said. I'm not a royalist either but they're of significant value in their own way, as a tourist draw and as PR for the country. Our politicians have made us an international joke, so no reason to add another layer of them by becoming a republic.

[rendelharris]

I think we have to keep a monarchy for as long as the majority of the populace wants one - they overwhelmingly do so my personal view that their existence perpetuates the concept of a forelock-tugging society where everyone should know their place is irrelevant. However, the idea that the Royal family per se are a tourist attraction is false, I think. Royal heritage, for sure, royal family, no. The most popular royal-related attraction in Britain last year was the Tower of London: no royals live there, you've no chance of a glimpse of a royal if you go there, yet the tourists still flock to it. In 2015 the Tower of London was the only royalty-related location to make it into the top twenty of paid for British tourist attractions, and not one made it into the top twenty free attractions: https://www.visitbritain.org/annual-survey-visits-visitor-attractions-latest-results

Keep them, by all means, if you want, but the argument that they significantly boost our tourist economy simply doesn't stack up. I haven't noticed that Paris, Venice, Rome, Berlin, Moscow, New York etc etc do too badly on the tourist front, despite being situated in republics.

[rendelharris]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I just googled it and the Royal Family cost about

> ?35m/year including all staff and property

> management.

Where on earth did you get that figure from? Her Majesty alone received ?45M from the government last year (I know the figures are from that rabid republican leftwing rag the Telegraph, but still: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/queens-income-rises-again-as-cost-of-royal-family-is-62p-per-per/ )

Furthermore the monarchy pays no costs for the massive security surrounding them, that comes out of police/army funds, nor do they contribute anything bar their presence to events celebrating them, for example Trooping the Colour - again, defence budget. Costs of royal visits around the country fall on local authorities and police forces, again no contribution from the royals themselves. When royals travel overseas on state business* that's funded by the Foreign Office, despite absurd extravagance (e.g. when Charles flew to Nelson Mandela's funeral he refused to fly first class at a cost of around ?10,000, instead insisting on a private jet costing ?246,000). Her Maj doesn't pay for all royal buildings either, she recently received a large boost in funding, to be continued until 2026, for the rewiring, replumbing etc of Buckingham Palace.

If you want to keep them and the majority of the country agree, fine, but at least be honest about what they cost.

*ETA and not such official business, e.g. airmiles Andy getting a private helicopter to play golf at St.Andrews and having the taxpayer fund the ?23K cost by making a short and pointless speech to local businessmen when he's there.

[Loz]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > I just googled it and the Royal Family cost about

> > ?35m/year including all staff and property management.

>

> Where on earth did you get that figure from? Her

> Majesty alone received ?45M from the government

> last year (I know the figures are from that rabid

> republican leftwing rag the Telegraph, but still)

I have to admit, I was in a bit of a hurry and did a quick lookup on "how much does the royal family cost" and didn't really do any thorough discovery work. Looking it up again, that seems to be the Sovereign Grant figure for 2014. Looks like you have the latest figure. Seems that number is tied to the profits of the Crown Estate.

Whatever it is, I think we can guess that any president would run up similar associated costs.

[KidKruger]

there'll be loads of hidden costs. I used to be indifferent but now I prefer no Royals. it just seems so illogical and unneccessary.

[Blah Blah]

But the money given to the Royal Family is a proportion of the money made by the Crown Estate, with the treasury keeping most of it. So while the Queen gets ?40 million, the treasury gets ?285 million. It's a myth that the money paid to the Monarchy is tax payers money. It is not.

[rendelharris]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But the money given to the Royal Family is a

> proportion of the money made by the Crown Estate,

> with the treasury keeping most of it. So while the

> Queen gets ?40 million, the treasury gets ?285

> million. It's a myth that the money paid to the

> Monarchy is tax payers money. It is not.

Yes it is - under the agreement made by George III (mainly so he wouldn't be responsible for his debts) all revenues from the Crown Estate go to the state, which then makes provision for the monarchy from those funds. This used to be the civil list, but in a typical act of brown-nosing Blair gave into the demands of the royals that it was too embarrassing to have the civil list debated every ten years, so he agreed that HMQ would get a 15% cut - something which, incidentally, will in the fullness of time make her massively rich, as part of the Crown Estate is the licensing rights to the seabed, which means all offshore wind developments have to pay the estate. Nonetheless all revenue from the Crown Estate belongs to the government and by extension the taxpayer, out of which payment is made to the monarchy. So it's not a myth, it is our money and has been since 1760.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes. London should secede from the rest of the UK.

[JohnL]

We need some elected power to match the HOC

[adonirum]

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We are long overdue becoming a republic. I think

> it is a disgrace that a modern democracy still has

> a unelected head of state in the 21st century.

> The monarch and her family of hangovers on

> clinging to power without a single vote being

> caste in a ballot box anywhere. It really is

> laughable when we as a country go all over the

> world telling others how to live, have our

> symbolic head of state born into her role.

>

Louisa, this country is not a democracy but a plutocracy (whichever political party is in office/government) and that is why we have a privileged unelected "head of state".

[dbboy]

If and when she goes and the royals cease in their current roles (what will they do??, and who will wipe ones nose??), then who should be elected president?

[Alan Medic]

A president would just be replacing one figurehead with another even if elected.

[miga]

Would make for great reality tv - following the fortunes of the unemployed royals.

[Jeremy]

People say that Harry is the "normal" one, and "grounded", etc. But the things he's said show how out of touch he really is with regular people. None of them want to be king? They're doing it for the greater good of the people? What heroes for bearing such a burden!

How about showing some gratitude for leading such a privileged existence?