Royal drama
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
@TeWaio oh, id have no idea in reality, what money do they generate? like drawing tourists to the UK?
This was a study done in 2017:
-
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
I generally don't give a shit about the Royal Institution, right up until some filthy peasant politician starts agitating to remove it. And then my question is; what with and why?
@TeWaio
@Kiwiwomble
@Victor-Meldrew -
@Victor-Meldrew said in Royal drama:
That and providing "soft" power globally. When the Queen visited Ireland a few years back, she generated more good-will and publicity than any number of politician's visits.
Also do a pretty good job in bringing together different parts of society and supporting often forgotten, but important, causes. There's loads of little things that Charles & his missus do in Cornwall, like supporting community-run village shops, which makes a big difference to people's lives.
definitely not saying they dont have value...or at least the queen, its just had to compare those more intaginable things to their straight up cost, i read yesterday the the government give the monarchy somewhere between 30 and 40 million every year in the form of a grant and thats on top of what they generate for them selves as huge land owners
as i say, might very well be worth it, but republican just see that cost i think
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
i read yesterday the the government give the monarchy somewhere between 30 and 40 million every year in the form of a grant
Used to be called the Civil List. The money is a small part of the £500m p.a. income from the Crown Estates which were given to the government 200+ years ago. It only covers the Queens expenses, upkeep of Royal Parks etc, I think. Charles and others are funded by income from the Duchy or Cornwall, I think
and thats on top of what they generate for them selves as huge land owners
They don't actually own much though. Most of the income is used to support various projects and they are taxed like everyone else.
as i say, might very well be worth it, but republican just see that cost i think
I think it's less to do with costs and more to do with a desire for change and be "modern".
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Royal drama:
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
i read yesterday the the government give the monarchy somewhere between 30 and 40 million every year in the form of a grant
Used to be called the Civil List. The money is a small part of the £500m p.a. income from the Crown Estates which were given to the government 200+ years ago. It only covers the Queens expenses, upkeep of Royal Parks etc, I think.
and thats on top of what they generate for them selves as huge land owners
Which is taxed like everyone else.
as i say, might very well be worth it, but republican just see that cost i think
I think it's less to do with costs and more to do with a desire for change and be "modern".
and is now called the Sovereign Grant, was just reading their lands are actually exempt from taxation and they make voluntary payments to HMRC
not everything people want changed is just because people want to be "modern" surely you can see if people dont know everything and just see reports like i just saw
"A report in 2019 revealed that Queen Elizabeth II and her family cost the British people £67 million during the previous year"
...they might think that money could be better spent
too be clear, i like the monarchy and dont want change, i'm just trying to see how others might see it rather than just writing them off as wrong
-
Oh I'm sure there are people who want to abolish the monarchy to save money. What, as they are focussed on money, would be replacement costs?
EDIT:The Italian & Polish presidencies, which is pretty much the same role as the Queen, cost about 2-3 times as much to run per capita.
But I think the majority of people who want abolition are more driven by seeing it as an anachronism.
-
@Victor-Meldrew and thats where i dont know enough, why does it need to be replaced with something similar, couldn't the current government be empowered? i thought the roll was largely ceremonial when it came to actual governance, asking the winner of the election to form a government in her name, opening and closing of parliament etc
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
@Victor-Meldrew and thats where i dont know enough, why does it need to be replaced with something similar, couldn't the current government be empowered? i thought the roll was largely ceremonial when it came to actual governance, asking the winner of the election to form a government in her name, opening and closing of parliament etc
Constitutionally, that's really difficult as you need a separation of powers. Unless people support the idea of Judges swearing an oath to the Prime Minister of the day.... I don't think that would work.
-
@Victor-Meldrew full devil's advocate here as im now just really curious
is there a big difference between a prime minister and a president? both elected officials, so could you not "just" call the prime minister the president ?
probably well of the thread theme of "drama"
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
is there a big difference between a prime minister and a president? both elected officials, so could you not "just" call the prime minister the president ?
You could - but you'd be placing all the power of the state in one person or place, risking the independence of the Judiciary, the Police and the armed forces.
Think you'd need a new Constitution and, as most similar countries have found out, you need a Head of State as well as a PM for separation of powers.
-
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
@Victor-Meldrew full devil's advocate here as im now just really curious
is there a big difference between a prime minister and a president? both elected officials, so could you not "just" call the prime minister the president ?
probably well of the thread theme of "drama"
How would a Prime Minster have solved the little problem in 1975?
-
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
@Victor-Meldrew full devil's advocate here as im now just really curious
is there a big difference between a prime minister and a president? both elected officials, so could you not "just" call the prime minister the president ?
probably well of the thread theme of "drama"
How would a Prime Minster have solved the little problem in 1975?
Well HRH didn't actually "solve" that little problem although her unelected representative did, but yeah, I can't see how us having a republic here would have enabled that little fiasco to turn out the way it did. Maybe Aussie would still be deadlocked today!
-
@Catogrande said in Royal drama:
@antipodean said in Royal drama:
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
@Victor-Meldrew full devil's advocate here as im now just really curious
is there a big difference between a prime minister and a president? both elected officials, so could you not "just" call the prime minister the president ?
probably well of the thread theme of "drama"
How would a Prime Minster have solved the little problem in 1975?
Well HRH didn't actually "solve" that little problem although her unelected representative did, but yeah, I can't see how us having a republic here would have enabled that little fiasco to turn out the way it did. Maybe Aussie would still be deadlocked today!
My point being you need an ability above the Prime Minister which for us is the GG. In a republic as some in Oz advocate for, this would result in the (real) Head of State becoming a President. Popularly elected too, to ensure the clusterfuck that is America is adequately replicated.
Any politician supporting this clearly deludes themselves they'd be popularly elected. Which should instantly rule them out.
-
Ah, sorry mate, I thought you were coming at this from a different angle.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Royal drama:
@Kiwiwomble said in Royal drama:
is there a big difference between a prime minister and a president? both elected officials, so could you not "just" call the prime minister the president ?
You could - but you'd be placing all the power of the state in one person or place, risking the independence of the Judiciary, the Police and the armed forces.
Think you'd need a new Constitution and, as most similar countries have found out, you need a Head of State as well as a PM for separation of powers.
Makes sense, and I think you just end up with all the same politicians just running for a different job title
-
@MajorRage said in Royal drama:
Americans are absolutely lapping them up.
Meanwhile, here in reality, people wonder why their thoughts about climate change, preaching about sustainability should be listened to when they fly private jets to polo tournaments ...
The US media are lapping it up, meanwhile lots of people in Britain are struggling to remember who Harry and Meghan were. They have become irrelevant. Seriously who cares what they think?
-
@Bones said in Royal drama:
It's just such a laughable suggestion. She is seemingly totally deluded if she thinks anyone would take such a claim seriously.