The republicanism thread.

[BoroMart]

Let’s not speculate BM, none of us know what went on really. All we can be certain of is that there’s more chance that the queen will be delivering this years Christmas speech than Britain becoming a republic

Unfortunately because of the way power conducts itself and protects itself, we MUST speculate. While freedom of information acts exist to protect the monarchs power, while they are the only people able to hide the contents of their wills, a law that was introduced to stop corruption, then there must be an element of speculation. The alternative is to keep your head buried in the sand that the monarchy is nothing but the continuation of aristocratic power.

You might be happy to do that, you might decide, nothing will change, so why bother, and that's' your right, but it's my right to challenge the status quo, and I will because silence will absolutely ensure the status quo continues, and I'm not settling for that for my children or one day grandchildren.

 

[BoroMart]

Why do they need money anyway. They surely don't pay for anything. Bet Chaz has never had a credit card declined for lack of funds. Does he even have a credit card.
What do they actually pay for that does not come from the taxpayer.

They have no need for money from us, circa 28bill in assets, yet not self sufficient? It's nonsense.

 

[Randy]

Who knows, but she was bloody happy about it

Wow.

Ok.

 

[Mr Maz]

well she certainly wasn't sad enough to tell the country when it was expected, and it took Tony Blair to point out the damage she was doing to her reputation to actually get her to say anything. Keep that head buried though

so to be clear, you don't know for a fact. You're just correlating actions based on your own bias and beliefs.

 

[SNOWBANDIT]

" Boring is adult & practical. Emotional is immature & harmful." One opines that this is perhaps a truism -however most of the wonderful baby tantrums one sees today seem to come from -let's say kindly, overly religious sorts and identity zealots.

 

[indeedido]

They have no need for money from us, circa 28bill in assets, yet not self sufficient? It's nonsense.

OK.
The Queen/King can not sell anything in the Crown Estate. They do not make decisions in the management of it. Forbes value the Crown Estate as $19.5bn, plus $0.6bn as the Crown Estate Scotland. Buck Palace and Kensington Palace are then valued at $5.5bn, but again are not owned by the Royal Family. So a lot of the perceived wealth is not theirs at all in reality.
All the surplus from managing the Crown Estate goes to the Treasury, other than the Scottish surplus which goes directly to the Scottish Govt.
John Major originally struck the arrangement that the RF did not pay income tax, or inheritance tax, but their funding (Sovereign Grant) would come as a % of the surplus on the Crown Estate. This has evolved to 25% for a decade to help fund the £370m refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.
The Sovereign Grant was £86.3m in 2021. This funds the Royal Family, but does not cover the cost of their Security.
The Monarch does actually own the Duchy of Lancaster, worth £653m. She drew income of £24m from this, on which she voluntarily paid top rate income tax, as she did on income from all her private assets.
The Monarch also had an estate worth £200m covering Balmoral and Sandringham, plus £100m Stamp collection and various other property/race horses.
The Heir to the Throne also owns the Duchy of Cornwall, an estate valued at over £1bn. He derives his income from the surplus on this estate, which he has grown to be £21m per annum, on which he has voluntarily paid 45% income tax.

So in truth, the vast majority (over 90%) of the perceived wealth of the Royal Family is Crown Estate, not theirs to do with as they please, the profits from which go to the Treasury, about a quarter of which is paid as a Grant.
In addition the monarch owns a large estate c£1bn that pays her £24m pa on which she pays top rate tax.
The Prince of Wales then owns an estate worth c£1bn that paid him £21m pa on which he pays top rate tax.

So, if we did away with them and somehow stripped them of all their private assets there would be c£2bn to fritter away and we would save a grant of c£86m per year.
In the grand scheme of things it is trivial, as the country already owns the massive Crown Estate.
Tourism is estimated at generating £106bn per annum for the UK. £86m grant is just 0.08% of the tourist revenue. I can scarcely imagine how the ongoing Monarchy can not influence the Tourist revenue by less than 0.08%.
That is if you see absolutely no other reason to retain the Monarchy.

The Security costs for a Republic would be at least the same.
If we seized their entire private assets as a country we wouldn't even feel it. They are collectively worth about a quarter of the Coates family who have made their money from internet gambling.
If we proactively sold off the Crown Estate, who to and under what controls?
We would also be c£300m a year worse off from the current Treasury income from it, net of Royal Grant.

I actually fully understand the ethical arguments against a monarchy. In line with the Irish directions quip, "Well you wouldn't start from here".
But here is where we are and I can not see another country in the world I'd swap with.
Conceptual debates are fine, but when looking at the facts:
1. The Monarchy does not cost this country a great deal at all and is almost certainly self funding.
2. The assets are already over 90% state owned and generate a big income for the Treasury.
3. There is absolutely no clear vision of what a better solution is, or how we would move to it.
4. 62% of the population are in favour of the current Monarchy and only 21% favour a Republic, whatever that looks like.

Noisy people who post lots on social media will toss this around forever but will die in our Monarchy.

There can be political reform without going Republican.

 

[Muttley]

Conceptual debates are fine, but when looking at the facts:
1. The Monarchy does not cost this country a great deal at all and is almost certainly self funding.
2. The assets are already over 90% state owned and generate a big income for the Treasury.
3. There is absolutely no clear vision of what a better solution is, or how we would move to it.
4. 62% of the population are in favour of the current Monarchy and only 21% favour a Republic, whatever that looks like.

Facts eh?

1. "almost certainly"...

2. The assets would continue to generate income for the Treasury at very likely the same rate and yet we would not have to hand 25% of it back to Chuck and co.

3. There are plenty of better solutions, pick one. Elected second house and selected "President", independently elected "President" or "Head Of State", etc. The debacle around Johnson's proroguing of Parliament demonstrated that we did not have a functional Head Of State when we actually needed one.

4. Not sure where you got that number from? Hey ho. Mail? Whatever, I have always said that King Chuck is likely to do more for the cause of Republicanism than any number of advocates here and elsewhere. Liz2 was a fine lady, her father G6 similarly an exemplar of dutiful service, had he not abdicated E8 would likely have been a very different monarch (big chum of Adolf, vociferous racist, etc.), and this is where we are all in thrall to the vagaries of genetics. We have been blessed with two GOOD Monarchs and perhaps Chuck will do OK but it is never guaranteed. What do we do if we end up with a nutter?

But my main objection to the institution of "The Monarchy" is that it legitimizes hereditary privilege. The Eton - politics pathway, the number of High Court judges that have followed a similar path, the places at the best Universities and the old chums' networks. we are a nation of some 68 million, but we hand such advantage to less than 1% how can we possibly make best use of our intellectual resources when we fail to educate everyone to the highest standard that they can attain? It is also cruel to the people within it, look at what "our press" have done to Harry because he had the poor taste to marry a slightly "dusky" lady...

The Monarchy is not fit for purpose and holds this country back.

 

[indeedido]

Facts eh?

1. "almost certainly"...

2. The assets would continue to generate income for the Treasury at very likely the same rate and yet we would not have to hand 25% of it back to Chuck and co.

3. There are plenty of better solutions, pick one. Elected second house and selected "President", independently elected "President" or "Head Of State", etc. The debacle around Johnson's proroguing of Parliament demonstrated that we did not have a functional Head Of State when we actually needed one.

4. Not sure where you got that number from? Hey ho. Mail? Whatever, I have always said that King Chuck is likely to do more for the cause of Republicanism than any number of advocates here and elsewhere. Liz2 was a fine lady, her father G6 similarly an exemplar of dutiful service, had he not abdicated E8 would likely have been a very different monarch (big chum of Adolf, vociferous racist, etc.), and this is where we are all in thrall to the vagaries of genetics. We have been blessed with two GOOD Monarchs and perhaps Chuck will do OK but it is never guaranteed. What do we do if we end up with a nutter?

But my main objection to the institution of "The Monarchy" is that it legitimizes hereditary privilege. The Eton - politics pathway, the number of High Court judges that have followed a similar path, the places at the best Universities and the old chums' networks. we are a nation of some 68 million, but we hand such advantage to less than 1% how can we possibly make best use of our intellectual resources when we fail to educate everyone to the highest standard that they can attain? It is also cruel to the people within it, look at what "our press" have done to Harry because he had the poor taste to marry a slightly "dusky" lady...

The Monarchy is not fit for purpose and holds this country back.

So here we go,
1. I said almost certainly, only a pedant would dispute it, just look at the numbers i posted again.
2. The only funding they get is this 25% of surplus from The Crown estate, so heads back to point 1.
3. No, you choose one and explain how we move to it and how much better it will actually be. You have to convince the majority why we need to change. Crack on.
4. It is the latest YouGov poll, nothing to do with Daily Mail, which I don't read because they don't drink from the same political pool as me.

The Monarchy doesn't hold our country back in the slightest.
And I'll take no lessons on decency or morality from someone who accused the current Heir of "pegging" without a single piece of evidence, only very recently.

 

[asredastheycome]

OK.
The Queen/King can not sell anything in the Crown Estate. They do not make decisions in the management of it. Forbes value the Crown Estate as $19.5bn, plus $0.6bn as the Crown Estate Scotland. Buck Palace and Kensington Palace are then valued at $5.5bn, but again are not owned by the Royal Family. So a lot of the perceived wealth is not theirs at all in reality.
All the surplus from managing the Crown Estate goes to the Treasury, other than the Scottish surplus which goes directly to the Scottish Govt.
John Major originally struck the arrangement that the RF did not pay income tax, or inheritance tax, but their funding (Sovereign Grant) would come as a % of the surplus on the Crown Estate. This has evolved to 25% for a decade to help fund the £370m refurbishment of Buckingham Palace.
The Sovereign Grant was £86.3m in 2021. This funds the Royal Family, but does not cover the cost of their Security.
The Monarch does actually own the Duchy of Lancaster, worth £653m. She drew income of £24m from this, on which she voluntarily paid top rate income tax, as she did on income from all her private assets.
The Monarch also had an estate worth £200m covering Balmoral and Sandringham, plus £100m Stamp collection and various other property/race horses.
The Heir to the Throne also owns the Duchy of Cornwall, an estate valued at over £1bn. He derives his income from the surplus on this estate, which he has grown to be £21m per annum, on which he has voluntarily paid 45% income tax.

So in truth, the vast majority (over 90%) of the perceived wealth of the Royal Family is Crown Estate, not theirs to do with as they please, the profits from which go to the Treasury, about a quarter of which is paid as a Grant.
In addition the monarch owns a large estate c£1bn that pays her £24m pa on which she pays top rate tax.
The Prince of Wales then owns an estate worth c£1bn that paid him £21m pa on which he pays top rate tax.

So, if we did away with them and somehow stripped them of all their private assets there would be c£2bn to fritter away and we would save a grant of c£86m per year.
In the grand scheme of things it is trivial, as the country already owns the massive Crown Estate.
Tourism is estimated at generating £106bn per annum for the UK. £86m grant is just 0.08% of the tourist revenue. I can scarcely imagine how the ongoing Monarchy can not influence the Tourist revenue by less than 0.08%.
That is if you see absolutely no other reason to retain the Monarchy.

The Security costs for a Republic would be at least the same.
If we seized their entire private assets as a country we wouldn't even feel it. They are collectively worth about a quarter of the Coates family who have made their money from internet gambling.
If we proactively sold off the Crown Estate, who to and under what controls?
We would also be c£300m a year worse off from the current Treasury income from it, net of Royal Grant.

I actually fully understand the ethical arguments against a monarchy. In line with the Irish directions quip, "Well you wouldn't start from here".
But here is where we are and I can not see another country in the world I'd swap with.
Conceptual debates are fine, but when looking at the facts:
1. The Monarchy does not cost this country a great deal at all and is almost certainly self funding.
2. The assets are already over 90% state owned and generate a big income for the Treasury.
3. There is absolutely no clear vision of what a better solution is, or how we would move to it.
4. 62% of the population are in favour of the current Monarchy and only 21% favour a Republic, whatever that looks like.

Noisy people who post lots on social media will toss this around forever but will die in our Monarchy.

There can be political reform without going Republican.

Aah so they are virtually on the ones of their Royal @rses then.

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

Aah so they are virtually on the ones of their Royal @rses then.

Ironically for years I thought your username was arsedastheycome, which I never understood

 

[indeedido]

Aah so they are virtually on the ones of their Royal @rses then.

No, but do they have to be for things to be ok with you?

 

[Muttley]

So here we go,
1. I said almost certainly, only a pedant would dispute it, just look at the numbers i posted again.
2. The only funding they get is this 25% of surplus from The Crown estate, so heads back to point 1.
3. No, you choose one and explain how we move to it and how much better it will actually be. You have to convince the majority why we need to change. Crack on.
4. It is the latest YouGov poll, nothing to do with Daily Mail, which I don't read because they don't drink from the same political pool as me.

The Monarchy doesn't hold our country back in the slightest.
And I'll take no lessons on decency or morality from someone who accused the current Heir of "pegging" without a single piece of evidence, only very recently.

Combining points 1 and 2 demonstrate by your own figures that the Monarchy DOES cost us money.

We could argue whether YouGov is impartial or biased. My point was that I accept that currently if we were to have a referendum that the majority would favour retention of the Monarchy.

The Monarchy doesn't hold our country back in the slightest.

OK, you think that being a "subject" rather than a "citizen" is OK? You keep on deferring to your betters, try not to think too hard about anything. I clearly stated how IN MY OPINION the hereditary privilege symbolised and embodied by the institution of The Monarchy disadvantages the vast majority of people in this country when children growing up in a place like Teesside are denied the opportunity gifted to people Like Cameron, Johnson, et al simply by attending the "right school", they are given a second rate education, if they do well enough to go to University they may not be able to afford to do so and will probably not be selected to go to a top University (Oxbridge) etc. because someone has put in a word with an old chum. Even if they manage to somehow rise above all those impediments they are excluded by being required to earn entry with unpaid placements a luxury only doable for those with wealth behind them. Even then not being the right sort will deny opportunities to the common oik.

But yeah good old kingy...

 

[indeedido]

Combining points 1 and 2 demonstrate by your own figures that the Monarchy DOES cost us money.

We could argue whether YouGov is impartial or biased. My point was that I accept that currently if we were to have a referendum that the majority would favour retention of the Monarchy.

OK, you think that being a "subject" rather than a "citizen" is OK? You keep on deferring to your betters, try not to think too hard about anything. I clearly stated how IN MY OPINION the hereditary privilege symbolised and embodied by the institution of The Monarchy disadvantages the vast majority of people in this country when children growing up in a place like Teesside are denied the opportunity gifted to people Like Cameron, Johnson, et al simply by attending the "right school", they are given a second rate education, if they do well enough to go to University they may not be able to afford to do so and will probably not be selected to go to a top University (Oxbridge) etc. because someone has put in a word with an old chum. Even if they manage to somehow rise above all those impediments they are excluded by being required to earn entry with unpaid placements a luxury only doable for those with wealth behind them. Even then not being the right sort will deny opportunities to the common oik.

But yeah good old kingy...

“Try not to think too hard”.
You really are an arrogant thing.
I suspect our politics are actually not a million miles apart, but you seem to have to link everything to your perfect view of how things should be.
The monarchy does financially wash its face.
The Crown estate doesn’t materially belong to the King. The grant is 0.08% of UK Tourism.
Their private wealth is not huge, would not make a great deal of difference if confiscated and they pay top rate tax on the income generated from it.

You have a moral/ ethical stance that means little to me as I don’t see another country as superior.
I am a pragmatic monarchist. I don't see upside from lurching away, but see lots of risk from changing what broadly works and what most people are happy with.



The poll was this year but discount away as it doesn’t fit your narrative.

 

[BoroMart]

1. I said almost certainly, only a pedant would dispute it, just look at the numbers i posted again.

he's disputing that you had a non-fact as your number one fact

 

[Liamo]

In this debate, if you're advocating getting rid of the monarch as head of state what do you propose to replace it with?

If, for the purposes of this debate, we were to replace the monarchy, I would suggest replacing it with a president along the German model.

That is to say, a president with wide ceremonial powers and who for the most part (although in Germany this is more a matter of tradition than legality) stays out of day to day politics and avoids commenting on political matters.

Definitely not a president based on the US model.

 

[indeedido]

he's disputing that you had a non-fact as your number one fact

1. The Monarchy does not cost this country a great deal at all and is almost certainly self funding.

It costs the Grant of c£86m. In absolute terms this is not a great deal.
UK Tourism is £106bn per annum. So my assertion was that the £86m was equivalent to 0.08% of Tourism, hence almost certainly self funding.

It was very clear what I posted.
I said only a pedant would dispute it.

Fancy having the nerve to write a post with a different view of the Monarchy to yours, and put some scale to the rubbish there has been posted. Like your

They have no need for money from us, circa 28bill in assets, yet not self sufficient? It's nonsense.

Everyone should be entitled to challenge the concept of a Monarchy.
Everybody should be able to criticise our current one.
My initial post was to provide context and some facts, before perish the thought offering opinion.

 

[Muttley]

It costs the Grant of c£86m. In absolute terms this is not a great deal.
UK Tourism is £106bn per annum. So my assertion was that the £86m was equivalent to 0.08% of Tourism, hence almost certainly self funding.

Ah the "tourism" thing. It's not a fact, it is your interpretation of the facts. Countries like France do better from tourism than we do yet notably lack a Monarchy. Of course, France benefits from tourism for other reasons such as a warmer climate and Mediterranean Sea coast. However, the link between levels of Tourism and having a Monarch is at best unproven. Not. A. Fact.

Also £86million is roughly two new hospitals.

The poll was this year but discount away as it doesn’t fit your narrative.

We could argue whether YouGov is impartial or biased. My point was that I accept that currently if we were to have a referendum that the majority would favour retention of the Monarchy.

Come on. I do not dispute that the Monarchy is currently popular. But as I stated, we have been fortunate with the genetic lottery that a hereditary monarchy is. We dodged having a card-carrying Nazi as King when E8 abdicated, we might have had a Queen with a libidinous private life had we got Mags rather than Liz, we dodged having a playboy nonce as King if Andy was the first progeny of Liz 'n' Phil. The Royal Family has, over the years, produced more than its fair share of tawts.

Amusingly, I think that Chaz may actually attract the approbation of the right wing if he continues to be outspoken about environmental issues and I hope he does. We don't have to "lurch away" as you say, we are not likely to be changing anything for many years but we do need to be aware of the alternatives and the limitations of the current arrangements.

 

[JackG]

If, for the purposes of this debate, we were to replace the monarchy, I would suggest replacing it with a president along the German model.

That is to say, a president with wide ceremonial powers and who for the most part (although in Germany this is more a matter of tradition than legality) stays out of day to day politics and avoids commenting on political matters.

Definitely not a president based on the US model.

This is not always a guarantee of success. See Paul von Hindenberg

 

[Ziggy]

If David Attenborough was even 30 years younger he would’ve been my choice.
It doesn’t have to a politician/ statesman. Everyone will swear to uphold the new constitution
Have a look at the Danish model. Kami-Kwasi stood in the chamber yesterday and committed an act of robbery. Which he doesn’t seem to have a mandate for.
Just get rid of this blood sucking system