To those of the UK and commonwealth: Opinions of our shared "head" of state

[Northernmonkey]

Genuine question - Do the Royals actually bring more money to the economy than we put back in to them?

Royalists always bring this up as an argument, claiming that they bring in loads of money through tourism, but as far as I can tell there's no evidence to suggest that it's true.

Personally I like the idea of a monarchy. There's something comforting about having the tradition of a royal family that goes back over a thousand years. However the amount of money we pay them is obscene, especially when our government tells us they need to make sweeping cuts to public services. Ideally I would strip all funding down to a bare minimum. I'd pay them daily for any state activities they embark on, but that's it. If they needed extra cash they'd have to either make some of their many castles and mansions open to the public or get a job. With their contacts they could easily get one of those jobs where you get paid loads to do fuck all (like Tony Blair).

Having said that when I see the British public fawning over Kate Middleton and her pregnancy it does make me feel a bit sick. I do have quite a bit of contempt for the Royal Family and everything they represent, but I know most people like them so I don't kick up a fuss.

[Which Tyler]

Well, the main positive to my mind is merely as a statement that this is (ideally if not quite in practice) not a country where birth determines destiny. The very existence of the royals as head of state is a bald demonstration that the class system is alive and well thankyouverymuch and that social mobility will never be absolute. It's just ridiculous in this day and age to still have a job that you can only qualify for by being the firstborn male child of particular parents, and getting rid of that is an end in itself.

using this argument against royalty would make far more sense if they had any power at all. As it is, I think it shows that in theory the class structure is dead and gone, whilst acting as a reminder that its anything but.

Getting rid of the royalty won't do anything at all for the class struggle IMO, and I'd rather trust to genetics than to yet another popularity contest (given that there's no power to weild).

Oh and I think Leap is right, gender no longer has anything to do with it.

[all swedes are racist]

What's with the quotes, though? I don't watch much news... Is the Queen some disembodied head in a jar now or something? With all egg laying functions ceased, are royals able to survive extended periods of time as simply a head separated from the thorax?

[Which Tyler]

I've just spent the last 30-odd minutes of insomnia googling the question of finance, and trying to approach it without bias (I'm mildly anti-royalty in principal, but largely "men"; and believe in a fair hearing for both sides - I have a tendency towards playing devil's advocate if I perceive someone being unfair)

Officially, the royal family costs the county approximately £30M pa, whilst generating approximately £180M pa the latter figure is far harder to calculate, (and excludes the impossible to clarify tourism boost) but equally, seems less challenged even by the anti-monarchy sites.

The cost though, has been estimated as high as £200M pa by the organisation "Republic" who may be considered slightly biased, they include a lot of further expenses such as lost tax revenue from the favoured rates in Cornwall (fair enough) and the cost of security for royal visits etc, which would be the same for any ceremonial head of state.

To my and, the real answer probably lies somewhere in between, so let's split the difference, and call it a cost of £120M. I'm perfectly happy to take it that the monarchy is pretty much self funding, with neither a major drain, nor major profit for the country. This could also be simple confirmation bias, as that was my instinctive position before doing any research.

Either way, the money is peanuts on a national scale. For a (royal) comparison, the jubilee celebrations brought in an extra £2.4 Billion, costing £1.2B in outlay and bank holidays

ETA it's 4.20 am here, and I've nothing better to do, so I'll probably continue googling, I'll edit I spot anything that challenges the above.

[The Drunkard]

I have heard that in Aussie land a Governor General tried to wield some political power but got shouted down by the general public. I'd say its just a useless office that our PM can fill with whoever he wants (Wasn't any good when it had actual power IMO either).

One of our PMs was dismissed by the Governor General, but it hasn't happened again.

I'd go for a republic if given the choice, but it's not that big a deal given the royals can't do shit. It is a bit annoying, though, that we harp on about our multiculturalism and egalitarianism yet have an imperial monarch as our head of state. We just have to make use of this Charles window before Will and Kate get in.

[Hammermen's Revolt]

As someone with long-standing plans to migrate to the British isles, I must say I find the British royal family quite endearing, as individuals. I mean, a crown prince who writes children's books, records poetry readings and campaigns for wool and knitting? Awesome!

Nevertheless, I'm vehemently opposed to the idea of a monarchy. It's expensive, unnecessary and inherently anti democratic. In my opinion it was the one thing about the Scottish Indy campaign that I disliked: they wanted to keep the Queen.

[lacuna]

What MinDonner said. Also, I'd hate to be expected to act deferential and subservient to, say, princess Märtha Louise, who claims to be able to commune with angels and dead people, plus other supernatural abilities. In and of itself, this is harmless enough, but she now runs a school where she charges money to "teach" others to do the same. :ack:

But I also dislike the institution for the sake of the people born into it. I wouldn't want to be born into public scrutiny like that, with your life all planned and laid out for you.

It is backwards thinking, and it's wrong that someone has different legal rights, as well as responsibilities, than others simply due to birth.

[Salafi Stannis]

As a Brit , having a monarchy without any power is fine. In real terms they have no effect on me whatsoever; they are, after all, powerless.

In terms of the country, they cost a small fortune in tax dollars, and they earn a small fortune in tourist dollars.

I'm pretty sure that an elected head of state would try to wield power, against my wishes, would cost a similar amount, without brining in any tourists.

The idea of a Blair or Thatcher as president fills me with terror, the monarchy is utterly harmless by comparison, even the outspoken ones (a mistake I doubt will be repeated now they're used to the information age).

Politically speaking we've bigger fish to fry with first past the post and party political systems which have far greater, and far more damaging effects.

The Prime Minister holds more power in the UK than the President does over in America, because the POTUS has more restrictions placed on his powers, like the separation of powers, which we don't have here.

[Stubby]

Practically, we have HRH on some of our coins, writs (originating processes and subpoenas) are addressed as from HRH, criminal proceedings are (in some cases) cited as "The Queen v Bloggs", some senior lawyers are appointed as "Queen's Counsel" (although those who object to that style can opt for "Senior Counsel" instead) and we have tabloid magazines falling all over themselves to get photos of some of the kids and their wives in the buff.

Doesn't really mean more to me than that.

[SeanF]

I think that the existence of a monarchy helps to keep the United Kingdom united, and so I'm in favour. Nor do I favour abolishing ancient institutions without need.

It's a paradox that some of the world's most egalitarian societies have monarchs as Heads of State. Some of the most inegalitarian are Peoples' Democratic Republics.

[Salafi Stannis]

I don't get why people are saying that they wouldn't want their Prime Ministers to be President on a Republic because of the power hat they would wield, Prime Ministers generally have more power in their country than Presidents have over theirs. Like Cameron has more power over the UK than Obama has over America because the U.S. have the separation of powers and we don't.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The revenue argument is weak: it's not as if Buckingham Palace is going anywhere, republic or not. France still has Versailles.

Since guillotining the lot of them is a bit of a non-starter these days, moving them to a council house somewhere in Wales would work instead.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Also, not only is the monarchy classist, there's the delightful religious baggage associated with it too. You know, stopping those evil papists and all. If you want that sort of thing as symbolism, you're either Ian Paisley's best mate or need your head read.

[Talleyrand]

criminal proceedings are (in some cases) cited as "The Queen v Bloggs",

In Scotland at least its "Her Majesty's Advocate v Wee Mental Davey" else people might get confused and think the Queen is personally shouting at people

[Gears of the Beast]

criminal proceedings are (in some cases) cited as "The Queen v Bloggs"

We use "x v The Queen" when it's an appeal in a criminal case, all other criminal cases are "R v x". 'R' means the monarch too.

[Alex.]

Get rid.

Or if we don't do that, at least stop fawning over them constantly ffs. Seeing people line the streets to wave little flags at them is embarrassing.

[Stubby]

We use "x v The Queen" when it's an appeal in a criminal case, all other criminal cases are "R v x". 'R' means the monarch too.

It's cited as "R" but on the Court papers it says "The Queen".

[Arkhangel]

Get rid.

Or if we don't do that, at least stop fawning over them constantly ffs. Seeing people line the streets to wave little flags at them is embarrassing.

Thousands of teenage girls lining the streets to squeal at One Direction is of course much more edifying.

People like to wave flags and scream at symbols. If it makes them happy then leave them to it, I say.

[Alex.]

At least One Direction have a purpose and create something of value. Waving and screaming at Zayn and Harry isn't the same thing as paying obeisance to a centuries old class system which continues to fuck us over to this day, which I assume you knew when posting.

[Essan]

As a Brit , having a monarchy without any power is fine. In real terms they have no effect on me whatsoever; they are, after all, powerless.

In terms of the country, they cost a small fortune in tax dollars, and they earn a small fortune in tourist dollars.

I'm pretty sure that an elected head of state would try to wield power, against my wishes, would cost a similar amount, without brining in any tourists.

The idea of a Blair or Thatcher as president fills me with terror, the monarchy is utterly harmless by comparison, even the outspoken ones (a mistake I doubt will be repeated now they're used to the information age).

Politically speaking we've bigger fish to fry with first past the post and party political systems which have far greater, and far more damaging effects.

That pretty much sums it up for me too.

Plus the added kudos that comes with having the most famous (and respected) monarch on the planet.