Elisabeth II Regina

quote:

We do pay the costs of running the RF,
which is a bit weird considering how loaded they are.

We now theoretically only pay for the state functions that the royal family carry out. Admittedly as the crown and the state are practically constitutionally inseperable it is no doubt a confusing matter. Likewise seperating what is the personal property of the royals and what is the property of the state is impossible. For example, technically the Queen owns the Palace of Westminster, but it is used as the seat of government, the Queen niether makes use of it in a personal capacity or makes an income from it. Yet many such properties are included in estimates of her wealth.

I find myself increasingly unsure about the royalist/republican debate.

If I lived in a republic I'm sure I'd not want to invent anything like the current RF.

Yet living in Britain I really cannot imagine any great advantage to losing the FR. The biggest problem with having a President is the thought of that great messianic gurning self-obsessed ex-PM Mr Blair applying for the job...

Downsize the Royals, preserve the heritage that surrounds them and value their daily round of charitable support and dinners with the great and good. Just keep them away from too much power, publicity or influence. If they choose to surround themselves with dumb animals (horses, pheasants, Paul Burrell) and shoot at some of them (sadly not Paul Burrell) then so be it.

Namby-pamby republicanism for me!

Bruce

As much as I dislike what the Royals represent, I think there is probably nobody lower than that little shit Paul Burrell.

quote:

Diplomat no!

quote:

Absolutely

Officially no - she only works in support of diplomatic and economic relations!

quote:

We now theoretically only pay for the state functions that the royal family carry out.

You've got to find better sources of info' Dom!

QEII has four major sources of income:

The Civil List
This is funded by tax payers (£7.9 million just for HM) to meet the official expenses of The Queen's Household so that HM can fulfil her role as Head of State, and Head of the Commonwealth.

Property Services Grant-in-Aid
£15 million P.A. covers the cost of the upkeep of the Royal residences, also funded by tax payers.

The Privy Purse
The historical term used to describe the income from the Duchy of Lancaster - approx' £5m P.A.

The Queen's Personal Wealth
As for any individual, The Queen's private funds remain a private matter, but the Lord Chamberlain said in 1993 that estimates of £100 million and upwards were "grossly overstated". From The British Monarchy Website.
As she's the richest woman in the world I'll go out on a limb & guess she's not having any problems paying her bills. The Duchy of Lancaster & The Queen's personal wealth was acquired from where?

Let's not forget there are also one off costs which are funded by tax payers - the Windsor Castle fire restoration project cost £36.6 million.

Still good of HM to offer to start paying taxes in 1992,
altough as it was only after a public outcry perhaps not that good!

quote:

I find myself increasingly unsure about the royalist/republican debate.

Interesting points Bruce.
I see the big advantage being finacial, assuming all their ill gotten gains move back in to public ownership. I imagine a few swans on the Thames would feel relief too.

quote:

As much as I dislike what the Royals represent, I think there is probably nobody lower than that little shit Paul Burrell.

LOL!
I see your PB & raise you a Tony Blair.

I hoped a debate would ensue. Good Hoh! I shall read the replies ccarefully later on. Thanks for the thoughts so far.

George

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:

quote:

Iceland is a republic and spends a lot less on its president than we do on Royalty. If you look at it on a like for like Royalty is a lot dearer!

Yeah but they make up for it in other ways. You seen the price of a pint of Creme De Menthe?

Yes that's true - never thought of that.

quote:

You've got to find better sources of info' Dom!

Really? I shall have to fire my researcher!

I hope your employee isn't a minor royal Dom?

quote:

Please click here to hear just what Sir Paul thinks of her maj

Is my eyesight failing me, or did he flip H.M. the bird before he started singing!?!

quote:

Originally posted by 555:

quote:

Diplomat no!

quote:

Absolutely

Officially no - she only works in support of diplomatic and economic relations!

quote:

We now theoretically only pay for the state functions that the royal family carry out.

You've got to find better sources of info' Dom!

QEII has four major sources of income:

The Civil List
This is funded by tax payers (£7.9 million just for HM) to meet the official expenses of The Queen's Household so that HM can fulfil her role as Head of State, and Head of the Commonwealth.

Property Services Grant-in-Aid
£15 million P.A. covers the cost of the upkeep of the Royal residences, also funded by tax payers.

The Privy Purse
The historical term used to describe the income from the Duchy of Lancaster - approx' £5m P.A.

The Queen's Personal Wealth
As for any individual, The Queen's private funds remain a private matter, but the Lord Chamberlain said in 1993 that estimates of £100 million and upwards were "grossly overstated". From The British Monarchy Website.
As she's the richest woman in the world I'll go out on a limb & guess she's not having any problems paying her bills. The Duchy of Lancaster & The Queen's personal wealth was acquired from where?

Let's not forget there are also one off costs which are funded by tax payers - the Windsor Castle fire restoration project cost £36.6 million.

Still good of HM to offer to start paying taxes in 1992,
altough as it was only after a public outcry perhaps not that good!

quote:

I find myself increasingly unsure about the royalist/republican debate.

Interesting points Bruce.
I see the big advantage being finacial, assuming all their ill gotten gains move back in to public ownership. I imagine a few swans on the Thames would feel relief too.

quote:

As much as I dislike what the Royals represent, I think there is probably nobody lower than that little shit Paul Burrell.

LOL!
I see your PB & raise you a Tony Blair.

An unfair post 555, you post the expenses for the RF but whats the income generated?

How can you claim the RF cost us money when you don't show the income and haven't produced an Income Expenditure account?

Don't give us half the story!

Regards

PB

(Who's an Accountant BTW )

I have no personal grudge against the Queen as I've never met her. I did meet her husband once but we didn't really have time to get to know each other.

It's hard to say whether £7.9m represents good value for money or not - although I suspect we're paying for living expenses which she could easily fund herself - but I don't think that's the point.

I just can't get past the idea that it's completely ridiculous for someone to get such an important job because of who their mum or dad was.

To me it doesn't matter how 'gracious' the queen is or how much tourists like her, having a hereditary head of state in this day and age is daft.

I think we should have an Irish style president to meet and greet the bigwigs and open parliament etc.

quote:

t's hard to say whether £7.9m represents good value for money or not

Certainly not, IMHO, not even enough for a decent centre forward these days and, God knows, England needs one.

quote:

You post the expenses for the RF but whats the income generated?

... an Accountant BTW

No, the figures I posted are the Queens income, as published on 'er website.
I couldn't find any figures for expenditure there,
but maybe they're to embarrassing.

The Queen admits she costs us this money on her website,
so please don't growl at the messenger!

Would that be a Turf Accountant PB?

While we wait to find out what type of accountant PB is,
today it is reported here The amount spent on maintaining the monarchy in the year to 31 March rose by £2m to £40m ...
Don't forget to share your thoughts with us George.

I wonder did the same report care to say how much the existence of the monarchy, including the symbolic pomp and circumstance, brought into the Country through tourism, trade, etc...?

In my experience of any business, it is necessary to spent money to make money.

Sounds like you are volunteering to establish these figures JWM!

No, no, it's just that having happened to be at the Mall at the time of the 1st rehearsal for Trooping the Colour, I was struck by the large number of UK and foreign tourists. Also if you go to the Changing of the Guard.

Just a couple of examples - even if people aren't coming only for it, the active Royal heritage is a good part of what draws both internal and external tourism. And the BBC news report I have just watched mentioned particularly increased travel costs - because of Royals going abroad at the request of trade and industry to promote the UK.

I think my point it's all too easy to point at the cost of something without necessarily appreciating what it's worth. What was it than Oscar Wilde said? Ah yes... "What is a cynic? A man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing." (Lord Darlington, Act III, Lady Windermere's Fan.)

If the justification for tax payers to continue financing Royals are the benefits they bring to tourism or trade I think the question is how much would we loose in ending the monarchy?
Seems to me most tourists don't visit solely for the chance to see a royal person,
so they'd visit anyway. If a business transaction makes or breaks on the basis of wheeling out a royal then that would be a pretty strange form of commerce IMHO. Of course there are many countries that beat the UK in trade & tourism but have no royal family.

It is also my experience in business that it is necessary to spent money to make money,
but the royal family isn't a business. I have sought figures for what the royals bring to the economy, but I haven't found any. Could this be because they don't deliver the value you suggest JWM? I'm not suggesting the RF bring nothing to the economy, but on balance I think they take much more then they give.

Ironic you quote Wilde who for much of his life advocated socialism,
so presumably would be anti-royalist!

I used to think that a republic might be a good idea for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and sometimes I find myself deploring some of what appears to be excess spending on the Royal Family, but as time has gone by, I have seen some of our potential presidents, of all political stripes, and I did not like what I saw: Ted Heath, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, or even Neil Kinnock. Even Price Charles looks a more sane option than any of these, in my opinion of course.

If we went for a republic, I would hope we have one based on the German or Irish model, which involves a constitutional presidency, rather than as in the USA, an executive one.

I rather like the moderating effect on the views of one individual of having government by committee, led by a first among equals Prime Minister, who can be toppled by the even bigger committee of the House Of Commons, who collectively do demonstrate more conscience than most individuals in politics.

In this way perhaps the result is less dynamic, but certainly preferable to a solitary and extremely powerful executive president, who then selects a "kitchen cabinet" of unelected people to implement his or her vision. I doubt if Britain would have invaded Iraq if she were still "Top Nation" with our Parliamentary system, though of course we did follow the USA once led from there on the issue, and that says something about the dependence, at some level we are not being told about, on the USA even now.

I am not sure this is not so much a special relationship as somehow, secretly still being "in hoc" to the US over the Second World War. No other reason seems reasonable for a [nominally] left of centre British PM taking the course of action he did. It was indeed a very strange partnership between TB and GWB.

Back to the Royal Family though. In my view I really hope the Queen has the stamina and good health to stay on the Throne long enough for Prince William to be the next King, and bypass Prince Charles, or ensure his reign is rather short at the least.

I do think there is quite a case for the British Royal family examining the arrangements for the Norwegian Monarchy, which is nothing like so extravagant in its spending. There is indeed room for pruning the Civil List to former Monarch's Consorts, the Monarch and the immediate children and grandchildren of the Monarch.

HMS Britannia was laid up some years ago, and at the time I thought this was quite sad, but we live in changing times. The move was prescient and correct with hindsight. More rationalisation must, and I am sure will, take place, particularly once our wonderful present Queen’s reign ends.

Thanks for some thought provoking posts, in what I hoped [correctly] would be a debate on this issue!

ATB from George