Ah, I think I can see what you’ve done here; taken a highly biased report at faith value and ignored the fact that while costs are counted, they didn’t think to put anything in the benefit column. You could do a similar thing with the NHS, costs £X Billion, we should get rid of it. Benefits? never heard of such things.

There are plenty of reasonable arguments about whether a constitutional monarchy is the best system for the UK but this report is just badly done mudslinging.

How many millions are spent on the democratic process though?

@1

Aren’t we constantly told that the Royal Family make us money? Perhaps they should put pen to paper and quantify how much?

There’s certainly no benefit to the Queen that I can see, beyond alleged revenue from tourists, most of which would continue to flow even if the Queen moved out of her palace.

Falco @ 1

The Tory Party have announced that no family should recieve more than £25,000 in state handouts, isn’t fair that the Royals live under the same rules? Also housing benefits are being slashed too, they could sell of all those houses and find more modest digs?

Ianvists @ 2

She needs an incubator, not a Royal Family.

I completely agree with Falco. By using campaign group “Republic”‘s statistics, you’re automatically taking away the authority of the figures. Totally biased.

Whilst the cost of the monarchy is phenomenal, the intake in tourism and such needs to be accounted for. But just as Ciaran stated, we need to put pen to paper to figure out just how much they do bring back.

“French semi-presidential system”

Eh? Is the existence of a president at the head of the political system not quite presidential for you? Someone’s been eagerly copying wiki.

Vickycastle @ 6

the intake in tourism and such needs to be accounted for.

Why? Surely tourists will come to Britain for losts of reasons, not just because we have a Royal Family? Lots of Tourists go to France but they don’t have a Royal Family, don’t they? Ireland has no Royal Family, but they have a tourist trade.

In fact, why not get the Tourist industry to pay for the Royals?

How many times do we deride the BBC or the Daily Mail for using statistics published by a pressure group such as the TPA, or Immigration Watch, without checking the facts, and then you go and do it yourselves?

The report by campaign group Republic has revealed that the total annual cost of the British monarchy could be over £200 million, more than five times the official figure released by Buckingham Palace.

Could. So even this group of self interested twits have some shame. They admit their figure is all smoke and mirrors. But of course haters gonna hate.

It is interesting to see they are claiming that the French system is half the cost. Which means, given they are making it all up, the French President costs two and a half times when the Monarchy does.

3. Ciaran

There’s certainly no benefit to the Queen that I can see, beyond alleged revenue from tourists, most of which would continue to flow even if the Queen moved out of her palace.

Jane Jacobs once wrote about some friends of hers who bought some land with a perfect view and they would go out there and look and plan their perfect home. Eventually they got enough money and they built their perfect home – only to discover that building the house ruined the piece of land. It wasn’t perfect any more.

The same is true for much of Britain’s political system. The House of Lords is being reformed, but of course in the process destroying what made it valuable and worthwhile. People, even Labour Party members, liked hobnobbing with Dukes. Now it has all the charm of Hull’s City Council, but with better interior decoration. No one will want to join it any more. The 68 generation simply does not understand the value of heritage or tradition.

Which is a long way around to saying that in all likelihood, once the Queen is gone, the tourists won’t come. Buckingham Palace is an ugly little building really. Once it is the new home for the London Department of Transport’s cybercrime division, no one will bother. People want some magic in their lives even if it is fake. Tradition provides that. Those who want to make all of Britain a dull copy of American suburbia will never get it.

SMFS @ 11

So we need to retain corrupt, anachronistic institutions at the heart of our political system for the sake of the tourists? Well there are rock festivals all over Britain this year and hundreds of thousands will come to those from all over Europe, with or without the Royals so I think we need not worry too much.

Anyway, even if every tourist stopped coming here, wouldn’t that be a price worth paying to bring our political system into the 21st Century? Why should we beholden to a group of people, who have done fuck all in their mostly wasted lives, yet we have no way of removing their influence on the political system?

I would have no problem with paying the royals a wage, as public servants, employed by the state. However, they are not public servants, they are in their very privileged positions because their ancestors were bigger bastards than the other bastards who made a claim on the throne, so many hundreds of years ago. Monarchy has nothing to do with democracy, never has, but I resist the temptation to say, never will. What are the chances of Will and Kate throwing off the trappings of monarchy, telling the courtiers to keep out of their lives and just let them do it their way? I think they could probably gather a lot of support from the public, if they made the decision to give up any so-called rights over the people, instead being actively involved with the people, showing the human side of the establishment. The current management of ‘The Firm’, Liz, Phil, ol’ jug ears and the royal aides and advisors, they are unlikely to stand aside. We should encourage them to do so, make it clear that the only way to ensure that we retain a monarchy is for the old gaurd to retire, let the youngbloods take over and bring us into the modern world. State opening of parliament? I do’nt see any good reason for the royals to play any part in the political system, they do’nt stand for election so why should they have this authority? We elect the government, we should be the ones who decide how the system works. I know the crown has far fewer powers than they once had, but we ca’nt call ourselves a true democracy while they still have some powers. A republic could be better, could be worse. Surely the best option is for the royals to assume a purely ceremonial role, be the tourist attraction they are seen as by many, leave the politics to the people, after all we are affected by it far more than the royals will ever be. And no, I do’nt think we should pay them any more than we pay other public servants, they’ve done very nicely thanks, if foriegn powers wish to invite them over, let their governments pay the bill, if we ask them to represent us, we pay the bill. If they travel for their own pleasure, THEY pay the bill.

Charles has already stated his intent on being a more “presidential” head of state should he be crowned king. I imagine that if he does Republic won’t need to work much harder to achieve their aims.

“The estimated cost presented in The ‘Value for Money Monarchy’ Myth includes security expenditure, costs of royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall”

Not to defend the monarchy, but I suspect “royal visits” fall under the heading of “things that would be carried out anyway were the monarchy disbanded, albeit by a different person in a different hat”. Ergo not money that we could save.

And yeah, I don’t trust these figures any more than I would figures published by a pro-monarchist group.

I’ve skimmed the ‘report’ and my conclusion is that Republic are attention-seeking idiots.

It’s hardly a piece of work to be anything more than chip paper. Of their alleged £200m per year,

“security” at £100m came out of an aside in an article in the Mail, and one in the Mirror.

“local authority” costs at £26m came from one visit to Romsey in 2007 at £58k x 444 engagements for the Queen in 2010. They fail to explain how the 57 of those engagements which were overseas cost British Local Authorities all that money.

They claim our Head of State costs 2x as much as the French presidency. The source for the French costs? “media and published accounts”.

Any indication that they are comparable, or include guessed costs to – for example – French local authorities? No.

Need I say more?

Morons.

Interesting that there is so much feeling that these figures cannot be true (without looking at them) due to Republic having an interest.

I’m sure those making them would never dream of citing any figures produced by the Conservative Party, the Taxpayers Alliance, the CBI or from business press releases. Or perhaps these are neutral organisations.

The figures are correct. The questions are around whether they would still exist if we moved to a presidential system (though the French and Irish figures would suggest not) and the other side of the equation ie the financial benefits of the Queen. There’s also a lot of valuable assets that could be sold to get down the national debt that Republic ignore (we must privatise all we can or else we will turn into Greece)

@ 17 Sevillista

“The figures are correct.”

I love how your post points out that we can’t trust partisan groups like the TPA then immediately goes on to put blind faith in partisan group Republic without a word of justification…

Hmmm.

From the Republic report:

Security costs account for half the figure at £100m; their quoted source:

“Cost of security is an estimate reported in the media, including The Daily Mail, May 29, 2011 and The Mirror, July 11 2010″

Presumably any Presidential replacement for the monarchy would have no need for security…

Two further comments on this one:

The Daily Mail on 15 March 2010 had an article including this passage:

“Sir Paul is involved in a fierce dispute with ministers over the estimated £50million a year cost of protecting 22 members of the Royal Family.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257866/Scotland-Yard-chiefs-fury-royal-security-Princess-Eugenie-B-list-royals.html

So is it £50m or £100m?

and the 29 May 2010 article said:

“The Earl and Countess of Wessex are to lose their team of six protection officers as part of moves to cut the £100 million cost of Royal security.”

That’s what I call intensively researched and analysed reporting…

“Cost to local councils for visits by Queen” account for another £26m; their source:

“Cost to local councils of visits by the Queen is an estimate based on cost to Romsey Council for visit by the Queen in 2007 (£58,000) multiplied by number of engagements in 2010 (444).”

Googling produces a story here:

http://www.romseyadvertiser.co.uk/news/1787203.mayor_bids_to_put_lid_on_royal_loo_row/

Interestingly, the stated £58k cost includes £30k for the policing bill alone. Do police provide security (see above)?

@19

The one I like is that the 444 engagements for the Q included 57 which were abroad, all of which Republic seem to think cost a local authority £58k each.

As I say – morons, not worth any more waste of time.

Well the proof of te pooding is in the eating. So with that in mind why not simply give the Royals the 50 million quid or so and that is it. They for everything else. Not a single penny more from any other source. If their own figures are accurate, they have nothing to fear. If the money runs out, well we know they have been lying.

Since Buckingham Palace have accounts and Republic have guesswork (clearly based on the Daily Mail making up big round figures for costs – interesting to see folk like Jim relying on the Daily Mail as a source when it suits them…) I think it would be smarter to assume the Palace accounts are more likely correct.

Of course, if you are going to argue that the head of state should be chosen on the basis of cost, we could start having a reverse auction (there’s a proper name for that…) for head of state, with the lowest bidder getting power?

Or just sod it and have no head of state at all. That would be so much cheaper.

Why are the Royals exempt from FoI requests?

S.Pill,

Why are the Royals exempt from FoI requests?

Are they? Surely the amount paid to them by government is not exempt, or the amount of any particular policing cost. Obviously household costs are, in the same way as anyone else’s (the law should not be in the habit of making exceptions), but since that will be private income (they do actually own all that land you know…) plus government spending, we should be able to find what they are paid and what they cost.

If not, another law is not working properly (no surprise there…).

Down in the south west some councilors are suggesting a tourist tax. Arrrrrgh those dam foreigners are costing us a fortune urrrrrrr, they were herd to murmer.
There are surly so many variables as to make calculations hard even for Deep Blue. Why not say what we think – hate the b******s get rid of the lot of ‘em. Now that Mr Lennin had some good ideas.

@24

From the OP “Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act” which I suppose would fall under your “Obviously household costs are, in the same way as anyone else’s (the law should not be in the habit of making exceptions)“… I think however that a state-funded royal family should open its books the same way if I want to claim housing benefit or JSA I have to list all my assets and income etc.
On the monarchy itself I’ve said it a thousand times on this blog alone, let the queen etc stand for election & draw a salary. Hell I’d probably vote for her myself.

The great thing about the Royal wedding and now Cameron having the Queen and her mad husband to lunch is that the so called “non political” monarchy has been revealed to be a sham.

As those of us who have said for years that the Monarchy is political it is proof of what we already knew. The Monarchy is a tory institution. Always has been and always will be.

@sally #27:

“The great thing about the Royal wedding and now Cameron having the Queen and her mad husband to lunch is that the so called “non political” monarchy has been revealed to be a sham. ”

Sorry? Could you run that “reasoning” past me again?

@sally contd:

You were aware, were you not, that Tony and Cherie had Mr & Mrs Windsor for lunch in 2002? Does that make the monarchy a Nulabour institution (granted, of course, that that isn’t that much different to your claim)?

You can spin it like the grovelling ,toe curling Monarchist all you like.

The two previous labour prime Ministers were not invited to the Wedding. All the spin and bullshit in the world can’t cover up the real reason. Yet a host of tory hangers on, and tory arse lickers where invited.

I am delighted that the Blair’s where not invited. It was another example of the folly of New Labour. They sucked up to the Royal family and the bankers and they got screwed over by both of them. HA HA HA

@Chaise

I’ve looked at the figures – they’re all from good sources and plausible as the cost of the Royal Family.

However, as I said, being an interest group, Republic haven’t looked at the other side of the equation.

Don’t seem to remember any similar challenge to TPA stats fro
right-wingers here…

I honestly think the “it costs money” argument is a bit of a sideshow from the fact that the monarchy is – as the name implies – undemocratic, and it is living in the past to have a head of state based purely and solely on which womb you came out of.

The monarchy could save us millions and it would still be a fundamentally bad institution.

@sally #30:

I’m aware of the arguments over the wedding; it was this bit

“and now Cameron having the Queen and her mad husband to lunch is that the so called “non political” monarchy has been revealed to be a sham. ”

that seemed not to follow. Any comment?

@Sevillista #31:

“I’ve looked at the figures – they’re all from good sources”

Really? You have to be kidding. Look at the “sources” referred to in my earlier post; for example an article from a paper that normally we’d not believe if they say the sun is hot and the sky blue giving an unattributed “estimate” for the cost of security; when that same paper had given a previous estimate half the size.

There may or may not be an argument against the monarchy on financial grounds; but this collection of cobbled together half-truths and WAGs certainly isn’t it.

@ 31. Sevillista

“I’ve looked at the figures – they’re all from good sources and plausible as the cost of the Royal Family.

However, as I said, being an interest group, Republic haven’t looked at the other side of the equation. ”

As far as I know, the source IS Republic. Which for obvious reasons is not a reliable source. If you know that the figures come from a better source, cool, but please specify. Believe me, I’m biased in favour of getting rid of the royals.

“Don’t seem to remember any similar challenge to TPA stats from
right-wingers here…”

Yeah, but that’s whataboutery. I’ve stopped even bothering to confirm TPA claims, because they invariably turn out to be bullshit one way or the other. Nevertheless, pointing out that right-wingers are clumsy with sources doesn’t excuse you and I being equally clumsy.

“lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, ”

That’s a fun one. There are three estates. Cornwall, Lancaster and the Crown Estates. We do get the revenues from one (Crown) and don’t from the other two. So if we’re to count as losses the revenues we don’t get from those two then we really should be counting the revenues we do get from the Crown.

Just from memory, £800 million a year.

So, actually headline is “Royals make us £700 million a year”.

Or, if we don’t want to do that then we should exclude the revenues “lost” from Cornwall and Lancaster.

As people have already pointed out, Republic’s “report” – how grand! – is a blatant scrap of agitprop that preys on ignorance and hopes that people don’t investigate the actual contents…

-The figure for security is a huge – and strangely rounded – £100 million, half of the monarchy’s alleged cost. They got this figure from “a media estimate”… I doubt that would stand an audit. Maybe Republic figured a number from the lefty Mirror and the righty Mail would interpolate to acceptability?

-Look up how they calculated the cost to local councils in the sources page… it’s imaginary!

-The claims of increasing costs to the Civil List are disingenuous at best; the monarchy draws from a flat reserve, and they also omit that over three-fifths of the money are staff salaries.

-Their opinion on the status of the royal duchies is questionable – and indeed, later on they demand that they “be transferred into public ownership”, a tacit admission that they know they’re wrong but are trying to change it after the fact. They also omit that the Queen and Prince Charles both pay income tax on the profits.

-The report complains that “taxpayers are kept in the dark” – but what specific figures they do have all come from the financial reports on royal websites!

-How do the costs of the presidencies break down? Are they comparable by category? Has any allowance been made for the different size of each country?

The whole thing is mendacious misinformation.

“they also omit that over three-fifths of the money are staff salaries.”

Yes, actually, I’ve often wondered about that. The usual leftie view is that government cuts are bad because they lead to job losses, but when the job losses are among the royal staff, suddenly they’re all in favour.

12. Jim

So we need to retain corrupt, anachronistic institutions at the heart of our political system for the sake of the tourists? Well there are rock festivals all over Britain this year and hundreds of thousands will come to those from all over Europe, with or without the Royals so I think we need not worry too much.

No. We should retain it because it works. Because it is old. Because it is British and uniquely ours. Because otherwise the world continues down the path of Tesco-isation where everywhere looks exactly like suburban Peoria.

i>Anyway, even if every tourist stopped coming here, wouldn’t that be a price worth paying to bring our political system into the 21st Century?

No. Because “bringing our political system” into the Century of the Fruit Bat is not a valid goal in and of itself. What matters is what works. We wrote a lot of lovely shiny Constitutions for our colonies. Most of them did not work. France has been writing new ones every 60 years or so since the Revolution. They did not work. Finding a system that works is hard and having one it is moronic to get rid of it precisely because it works. It is like saying Stonehenge is a little old so we ought to knock it down to make way for a freeway and some off ramp petrol stations. Very 21st century I am sure you will agree.

Why should we beholden to a group of people, who have done fuck all in their mostly wasted lives, yet we have no way of removing their influence on the political system?

Britain’s whole constitutional history is one of removing their influence. They have virtually none left now and if we wanted to remove that we could. The Queen has not done f*ck all with her life, nor has she wasted it. Unlike, say, the Millibands or most other politicians. Nor are we beholden to them. They do a good job and there is simply no sane reason to change.

Tim @ 36

Surely we could just privatise the crown estates in some fashion? You are not suggesting that there are reasons that the Crown Estates ‘need’ Royalty to run them?

SMFS @ 39

Er, you are suggesting that a Monarchy works? By what criteria? You say France ‘doesn’t work’, well are you sure about that? It seems to work perfectly well by any account I have ever seen.

You say the Queen hasn’t done fuck all with her life, well perhaps that is or isn’t true, but at least if we want to get rid of Milliband, all we need is a ballot box.

“Surely we could just privatise the crown estates in some fashion? You are not suggesting that there are reasons that the Crown Estates ‘need’ Royalty to run them?”

The Crown Estate isn’t run by a royal: hasn’t been since the time of George III. It’s pretty much a govt department and profits flow into the Treasury.

Lancaster and Cornwall are, respectively, the private property of the Monarch and of the Duke of Cornwall (ie, heir to the throne).

Sure, we can go around taking peoples’ private porperty, it’s been done often enough elsewhere.

The results don’t seem all that good though.

@39

“We should retain it [...] Because it is old.”

Erm, something being old does not make it worthy of keeping. Sorry, but that argument died a long time ago.

“It is like saying Stonehenge is a little old so we ought to knock it down to make way for a freeway and some off ramp petrol stations. ”

Nope. Your argument is more like saying Stonehenge should’ve been kept for the ritual sacrifice of virgins, or whatever Stonehenge was originally used for. Times change, the world moves on – we can keep – say – the crown jewels on display and Buckingham Palace as a tourist resort without having to have the institution of the monarchy behind it.

“They have virtually none left now and if we wanted to remove that we could.”

So let the monarchy stand for election. Honestly, it’s weird how monarchists tell us how amazing the monarchy are but refuse to allow them the democratic right to stand for election. Hell, I’m probably more pro-monarchy in that respect. Why do monarchists hate democracy? Straw-man argument, perhaps, but it does seem mighty suspicious…

Tim @ 41

So it is less of a question of

So, actually headline is “Royals make us £700 million a year’

More of a question of

So, actually headline is “Government Department make us £700 million a year’

So, all this Royals actually ‘making’ money is so much hot air?

@Jim #43:

“So, actually headline is “Government Department make us £700 million a year’

So, all this Royals actually ‘making’ money is so much hot air?”

Hardly – since the Crown Estates are just that. If the monarchy had simply been high aristocracy, the Crown Estates would have become the personal property of the reigning monarch from time to time with the abolition of all forms of entails in 1925. You want to treat them as non-monarchs – give the Crown Estates back and renegotiate the deal on them every succession. At the moment, the deal turns the Treasury a handy profit.

Robin Levett @ 44

But it is not ‘the Royals’ that are making the money, it is the people that run crown estates on their behalf, this idea that ‘the Royals’ make us money is a pretty sick joke, isn’t it?

@Jim #45:

“But it is not ‘the Royals’ that are making the money, it is the people that run crown estates on their behalf, this idea that ‘the Royals’ make us money is a pretty sick joke, isn’t it?”

The people that run the Crown Estates on their behalf are making the money out of their property (in right of monarchy). If I own a factory and put managers in, do the managers get to keep the profits earned?

40. Jim

Er, you are suggesting that a Monarchy works? By what criteria? You say France ‘doesn’t work’, well are you sure about that? It seems to work perfectly well by any account I have ever seen.

By the obvious criteria that you and I may disagree but we are not trying to disembowel each other. I would have thought that was a pretty major political achievement. And one most countries have not managed to get right.

Over the long term, France has not found a stable political system. Which means they regularly have Revolutions and military coups. You know, that whole disemboweling thing?

42. Mr S. Pill

Erm, something being old does not make it worthy of keeping. Sorry, but that argument died a long time ago.

No it didn’t. The argument is valid on both aesthetic grounds (just ask for permission to bulldoze Stonehenge) and on political grounds (whatever is old clearly works). What does not is the argument that because something is old we must destroy it and replace it with something new. Even if we have no idea how that will work out. It is moronic.

Nope. Your argument is more like saying Stonehenge should’ve been kept for the ritual sacrifice of virgins, or whatever Stonehenge was originally used for.

Absolutely. Had I been alive at the time I would have argued strongly in favour of retaining the ritual sacrifices of virgins. You have to admit it has been more or less all down hill since then. Especially since all these f**king illegals arrived from lower Germany.

Times change, the world moves on – we can keep – say – the crown jewels on display and Buckingham Palace as a tourist resort without having to have the institution of the monarchy behind it.

No, times do not change, nor does the world move on. People do. The monarch has been around for a while. It works. Pythagorus’ Theorem has been around much longer. That works too. I see no reason to replace it just because it is old.

Tourists won’t come to what is after all a boring building unless there is some purpose to it.

So let the monarchy stand for election. Honestly, it’s weird how monarchists tell us how amazing the monarchy are but refuse to allow them the democratic right to stand for election. Hell, I’m probably more pro-monarchy in that respect. Why do monarchists hate democracy? Straw-man argument, perhaps, but it does seem mighty suspicious…

That misses the point – monarchy only works if it is above party politics. If you let them stand for election you may as well choose Blair. It is odd you think that monarchists hate democracy when monarchy is the only system which has allowed democracy in the long run. The odd exception like the US aside. The countries with the longest record of internal peace usually have a monarch, those with the longest record of democracy invariably do. Sweden for instance.

@47

“No it didn’t. ”

Yes it did. Your turn. In fact you already make the argument yourself – what matters if it works, for one thing. I’d add what also matters is democracy. I’m sure societies that flourished via slavery thought they had it pretty wrapped up too. (The Ancient Egyptians, for example). Not sure why you keep mentioning Stonehenge as it is a fantastic example of what pro-democracy types like myself have in mind for the bells and whistles of the monarchy. No republican I know is calling for Buckingham Palace to be torn down, after all.

“No, times do not change, nor does the world move on. People do.”

Nit-picking, you know exactly what I mean. & I’m not saying the monarchy should be abolished because it is old, merely that it being old does not automatically mean we should keep it. Two different things.

“Tourists won’t come to what is after all a boring building unless there is some purpose to it. ”

So we give it a new purpose. Like, oh I don’t know, a museum celebrating our proud heritage or somesuch nonsense to placate fools like yourself. It’s not beyond the wit of man to *gasp* change the purpose of a building.

“That misses the point – monarchy only works if it is above party politics. If you let them stand for election you may as well choose Blair. ”

At least Blair was elected. That’s the actual point, you see. Democracy. People choosing who represents them at the power-wielding level. What’s so special about having a monarch “above” party politics? Do you really believe that the monarchy don’t have political views? And why deny them the right to exercise those views? The US, France etc have all done quite nicely out of having an elected President rather than a monarch. And the Americans and French have that splendid thing, the legal means to remove their head of state if they so desire. We, on the other hand, do not.

SMFS @ 47

No, no disembowling then, but that is not because the Queen stops us, is it? No answerphone message on my phone from HRH reminding me that I must leave my flail alone. Nothing to do with the Queen I am afraid.

Robin Levett @ 46

If I own a factory and put managers in, do the managers get to keep the profits earned?

If the man who built the company dies and his son inherits the shares (and the factory), he may put a CEO into the business. Some people would claim that ‘junior’ was doing a fine job, but those of us in the know would have to admit that it wasn’t ‘junior’ that was running a successful business’ it was the CEO. No matter how much a waster Junior becomes, few of us will be fooled into thinking that he is a successful businessman.

“So, all this Royals actually ‘making’ money is so much hot air?”

The Crown Estates are made up of things like Regent Street.

So, in theory…..recall, there’s an awful lot of the British Constitution which is still “in theory” this is the personal possession of the Crown (ie, whoever is Monarch regnant).

Now, out of this they’re also supposed to pay for all of government (yes, that really is the deal).

However, the deal we’ve struck is that the Monarch hands over all the lolly from those personal possessions and then we raises taxes from the population to run government. We also kick a bit of tax money back to keep the palaces running etc etc. (“The Civil List”).

Now as it happens, I’d be entirely happy to see the end of that Crown Estate arrangement. Let the Monarch keep the income: then tell them to pay for government out of it.

I’d just *love* to see government getting by on £800 million a year.

@ 48:

“At least Blair was elected. That’s the actual point, you see. Democracy. People choosing who represents them at the power-wielding level.”

Erm, why is it the point? Surely the point is creating a reasonably tolerable and effective government. If democracy is what achieves that best, then I’ll be among the first to argue for it. But you’ve got to prove that democracy would actually work better than what we have now. Just saying “It’s democratic” isn’t a convincing argument.

@Jim #49 :

“If the man who built the company dies and his son inherits the shares (and the factory), he may put a CEO into the business. Some people would claim that ‘junior’ was doing a fine job, but those of us in the know would have to admit that it wasn’t ‘junior’ that was running a successful business’ it was the CEO. No matter how much a waster Junior becomes, few of us will be fooled into thinking that he is a successful businessman.”

That’s hardly relevant. It’s junior’s property that’s producing the income; not the CEO’s.

@51

“Surely the point is creating a reasonably tolerable and effective government. ”

How does 1930s Italy sound to you? Just askin’…

The point is empowering the demos to set their own destiny and not have it in the hands of an elite, since you ask. Even if that elite think they know best. Sorry if that doesn’t fit in with your pseudofascist viewpoint but I happen to be quite fond of human beings and their capabilities. That’s an unfashionable viewpoint with right-wingers, of course.

A hereditary head of state is anachronistic and counter-democratic: why should someone become head of state simply because of a lucky sperm/egg combo?

The great thing is history is on my side. When Charles becomes King republican sentiment will increase massively and the monarchy will look like an even more ridiculous idea. These arguments and nitpicking, point-scoring etc will look as stupid as the arguments anti-suffrage campaigners used in the early years of the last century.

re:my post @53

I use the term “pseudofascist” not as abuse but a statement of fact – our chums who think that pragmatism should ride over everything including the will of the people puts themselves firmly in that murky camp, I’m afraid.

@ 53:

“How does 1930s Italy sound to you? Just askin’…”

I don’t really know enough to comment, although from what little I do know, I think I’d rather live somewhere else.

Out of interest, how does fifth-century Athens or Revolutionary France sound to you?

“A hereditary head of state is anachronistic”

I fail to see why modernity is inherently good so that not being modern is such a bad thing. Either constitutional monarchy is a good system of government, or it isn’t; the fact that it is currently out of fashion doesn’t tell us much.

“The great thing is history is on my side.”

That may well be the case, but again it doesn’t tell us much. In the 1920s and ’30s it seemed that history was on the side of the anti-democrats, whether fascist or communist, but presumably you wouldn’t have supported communism or fascism had you lived in that period.

@ 54:

“I use the term “pseudofascist” not as abuse but a statement of fact – our chums who think that pragmatism should ride over everything including the will of the people puts themselves firmly in that murky camp, I’m afraid.”

First of all, fascism doesn’t usually work, so any pragmatist would have to be an anti-fascist. Secondly, those who let vague ideological buzz-words (“Empowerment! Democracy! Modernity!”) over-ride practicality aren’t much better, as the history of most revolutions will show you.

The British people demand a Republic.

We know this because more of them went to London to cheer Kate and Wills than nationally voted for AV.

48. Mr S. Pill

Yes it did. Your turn. In fact you already make the argument yourself – what matters if it works, for one thing.

Well no. You have not managed to understand what I said.

I’d add what also matters is democracy.

And all over the world democracy is strongly associated with monarchy.

Nit-picking, you know exactly what I mean. & I’m not saying the monarchy should be abolished because it is old, merely that it being old does not automatically mean we should keep it. Two different things.

I know precisely what you mean and I am not nit picking. You are suffering from a fundamentally flawed concept of historical inevitability – a big point as your entire argument boils down to the claim that abolition is inevitable. I agree that merely being old is not enough – although it is a weak reason on its own – but the fact that it is old and it works really well is a clincher.

So we give it a new purpose. Like, oh I don’t know, a museum celebrating our proud heritage or somesuch nonsense to placate fools like yourself. It’s not beyond the wit of man to *gasp* change the purpose of a building.

Sure. And then people won’t come. Because it is, as you say, nonsense.

At least Blair was elected. That’s the actual point, you see. Democracy. People choosing who represents them at the power-wielding level.

How did that work out for you? The point is that we do elect people at the power welding level. We don’t at the Pointless Ceremony That Brings Us Together and Creates This Complex Fabric We Call Britain level.

What’s so special about having a monarch “above” party politics? Do you really believe that the monarchy don’t have political views? And why deny them the right to exercise those views? The US, France etc have all done quite nicely out of having an elected President rather than a monarch. And the Americans and French have that splendid thing, the legal means to remove their head of state if they so desire. We, on the other hand, do not.

We would have an inevitable conflict between the House and the President. Which would mean moving to a more American-style system. The Americans have done well out of it. The French have not. Their constitution is younger than most of the people I know. We do have a legal means to remove our head. We have done so at least twice. Charles I and that whole dreadful American woman thing in the 1930s. We can do so again. There is nothing to stop us except there is no point.

53. Mr S. Pill

How does 1930s Italy sound to you? Just askin’…

Well certainly not as effective. What’s your point?

The point is empowering the demos to set their own destiny and not have it in the hands of an elite, since you ask. Even if that elite think they know best. Sorry if that doesn’t fit in with your pseudofascist viewpoint but I happen to be quite fond of human beings and their capabilities. That’s an unfashionable viewpoint with right-wingers, of course.

OK. But have you thought this through? The elites in Britain who have a chance at power are not the fading relics of our feudal past – as much as some Marxists are unable to get past the 18th century. The new elites are the urban, highly educated lower middle classes. It is no coincidence that under all the rhetoric of the politics of the 20th century, Marxist, Fascist or even Islamist, have been strong demands by this class that they should have power. This is why it is precisely this class – made up of school teachers mostly – is so in favour of things like the EU. That involves taking power from poor people and rich people alike and giving it to them. Or why so many of them like Communism – again that means taking massive amounts of power from everyone else and giving it to their class.

What you are demanding is not that the people should be empowered but that people like you should control all the levers of power in society. The Queen is not a member of this class and so you resent her. This is precisely why the working class in Australia rejected a Republic there while the urban middle classes voted for it – each group voted for one of their own to be head of state. And the Royals are so very blue collar.

A hereditary head of state is anachronistic and counter-democratic: why should someone become head of state simply because of a lucky sperm/egg combo?

Why should I be so handsome and intelligent because of a lucky sperm/egg combination? Life is just like that. Do you stay awake at night because your combination was not so fortunate? That’s a little sad don’t you think? Both of us won the lottery of life when we were born British. That disparity is vastly greater when compared to someone else born, say, Nigerian. Do you care?

The great thing is history is on my side. When Charles becomes King republican sentiment will increase massively and the monarchy will look like an even more ridiculous idea. These arguments and nitpicking, point-scoring etc will look as stupid as the arguments anti-suffrage campaigners used in the early years of the last century.

So you’re admitting you have no argument, no way to convincing other people, you’re just hoping in the inevitable tide of history?

Great.

You may be right. I don’t believe that Britain has a democratic future. It may well have a monarchical one but probably not with the Windsors. Either way, when we destroy something that is old and works well because it is naff to support it, we will get something else that may or may not work. No one will be able to say that it is anyone else’s fault but our own for being so stupid.

@ S Pill #48:

“The US, France etc have all done quite nicely out of having an elected President rather than a monarch.”

I find myself in the extremely uncomfortable position of having to agree to some extent with SMFS.

What we have at the moment largely works. While the principle by which our head of state is selected is hardly democratic, the head of state has a largely ceremonial role. The monarch does not get in the way of the expression of the democratic will of the people through the House of Commons. The House itself could do with some reforms, which sadly we have lost the opportunity to introduce, to improve its responsiveness to that will.

If we abolish the monarchy, it would seem that you are in favour of replacement by an elected President. If so, which model would you prefer; the USA executive model, the French semi-executive model, or the Italian/Israeli largely ceremonial model?

The US model is of course alien to our own, with the three branches of government separated to a far greater degree than here. The high officers of state are accountable to no-one but the President; who himself is accountable to no-one save the electoral college every 4 years. The judiciary has the power to strike down primary legislation for unconstitutionality. At the moment the US are learning how unworkable their system is when one of the branches (the legislature) isn’t interested in making it work.

The French are on their second Republic since the war; their system, if imported here, would involve the President choosing a Prime Minister and Cabinet from the House of Commons and sharign executive power with them. Again, by the way, the judiciary has the power to declare primary legislation unenforceable because unconstitutional.

Leaving us with the Israeli/Italian model, which is not dissimilar to our own, save that the President is party political, whereas the monarch isn’t (visiting one’s Prime Minister for lunch on the occasion of one’s golden jubilee, or one’s consort’s 90th birthday is not a party political act, whatever sally may think).

I’m not ideologically committed to monarchy. I would though want to be sure that we’d get something that worked at least as well before moving to an elected president. Again, I really can’t see any Prime Minister of any political stripe agreeing to the diminution of his power involved in that move. Nor, by the way, can I see any elected presidential system being any cheaper than the monarchy.

@ 45:

“But it is not ‘the Royals’ that are making the money, it is the people that run crown estates on their behalf, this idea that ‘the Royals’ make us money is a pretty sick joke, isn’t it?”

If by “the Royals” you mean “the individual people in the Royal Family”, then no, they’re not. If by “the Royals” you mean “the monarchy as an institution”, then yes, they are.