I'm not suggesting anything unpleasant. The only thing I would like to see removed from the Windsors apart from their role as head of state is a good chunk of their wealth. The exact proportion of which could be decided by a transparent democratic process (personally, I would argue for enough for the older ones to live comfortably as private individuals whilst the younger ones might need a bit of retraining but can eventually earn a living for themselves ).
Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
There is no reason for a functionally-powerless head of state at all. Just get rid of the entire edifice.
Are they functionally powerless though. They certainly benefit from considerable public largess and have the political clout to ensure there are few questions asked and no challenge to that situation.
Tourism and Trade, the Queen has more influence and draw than arguably any individual alive on earth today. That could obviously change with Charles and William.
And I agree, the whole lot, Lords and all.
Tourism isn't going to go away. I'm not suggesting we demolish Buckingham Palace but I suspect charging admittance might be more of a draw than standing at the gates and gawping.
Trade, I don't see what Liz and Chuck can do that a UK minister or diplomat can't and as for Andrew...
I thought they did charge admittance to Buckingham Palace. They charged me in the 1990s anyway. Have they stopped that?
I bet you didn't get to see all of it though.
None whatsoever, I am becoming increasingly fed up about the wealth and land they have when the country is now at a stage where foodbanks are becoming institutionalised.
I think that is the problem, the harm they do is they embody the idea that some people have the right to live in a palace just because of an accident of birth.
> Tourism isn't going to go away. I'm not suggesting we demolish Buckingham Palace but I suspect charging admittance might be more of a draw than standing at the gates and gawping.
https://www.rct.uk/visit/the-state-rooms-buckingham-palace
> Trade, I don't see what Liz and Chuck can do that a UK minister or diplomat can't and as for Andrew...
I'm talking about the Queen hosting people etc.. She has worked pretty much daily from aged 21 to 90 plus, name me one politician ever who were even half as dedicated?
If you think your own family can be dysfunctional at times, its handy to have another family around to confirm that actually you aren't that bad....?
> I think that is the problem, the harm they do is they embody the idea that some people have the right to live in a palace just because of an accident of birth.
I'd argue their wealth isn't so critical compared to the owners of amazon, Facebook, Google etc..
Doesn't she deserve a break then.
As I said the aforementioned central London venue will still be available. In fact more so once the sitting tenants are gone.
That's basically "move along here, nothing to see..."
Jeff, Mark and Serge are not the UK head of state but I quite agree their wealth is also a big issue.
I believe the Royle family performed that function admirably.
> That's basically "move along here, nothing to see..."
> Jeff, Mark and Serge are not the UK head of state but I quite agree their wealth is also a big issue.
And I bet the queen contributes more to the uk treasury than all these super companies added together. Whilst your chasing those who make millions, the billionaires are partying and will colonise space, never mind own a few big London properties!
That sounds like a finger in the air calculation and anyway wouldn't 'she' contribute more if the royal estate was handed over to the public?
> That sounds like a finger in the air calculation
2019;
Amazon uk- £14m
Royal Estate- £300m
At least the queen won't embarrass us on the international stage! Can you imagine if we had to elect our head of state?? I think I would even take Charles over anyone the Great British public would elect!
The crown estate does actually contribute quite a bit to the economy. I would agree that it's crazy to live that luxury just by an accident of birth, but then someone living in a slum in Delhi could argue that it's unfair that we live in the luxury we do by an accident of birth, and they would be right!
https://fullfact.org/economy/royal-family-what-are-costs-and-benefits/
I'm still not sure how that justifies having Elisabeth Windsor as head of state.
Prince Philip
Tony Blair's son trying to sell the virtues of apprenticeships in the news today! Like he has any idea.
> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
President Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson!
Comedy value
> Prince Philip
Yes, there is that. At least he isn't head of state himself though! And he is STILL less embarrassing than the type of person I imagine the British public would elect!!
I predict the candidate who named themselves Queeny McQueenface would win!
> I think that is the problem, the harm they do is they embody the idea that some people have the right to live in a palace just because of an accident of birth.
So are you going to outlaw inheritance for everyone? Or where are you going to draw the line?
> I'm still not sure how that justifies having Elisabeth Windsor as head of state.
It doesn't, but they aren't the ones creating the inequality today. Whilst bezzos takes over every market, many employees are barely paid more than minimum wages and the treasury boosts their pay with tax credits. In return amazon UK paid just £14m in corporation. Think about it for just a minute. The enemy of equality is the one with a super yacht you'll never see, not the old lady with a crown on her head in plain sight.
> Tony Blair's son trying to sell the virtues of apprenticeships in the news today! Like he has any idea.
Yeah, so much more embarrassing than the monarch’s son.
Probably the best argument yet but;
> So are you going to outlaw inheritance for everyone? Or where are you going to draw the line?
Only if you can inherit being head of the state, the armed forces, the church, head of state of 15 other countries, diplomatic immunity from prosecution and the privilege of being the only person in a nation of 67,000,000 that doesn’t have to pay inheritance tax.
You find this unreasonable?
> Yeah, so much more embarrassing than the monarch’s son.
Give him time, he's a third of Andrews age!
I can guarantee we would get much more comedy value at much lower cost watching them all trying to make it in the US and/or as influencers.
As a voter in a democracy, I have little say in the level of inheritance tax but I would vote for taxation quite heavily above a reasonable level. What that level is ought to be a matter of public debate.
Are you seriously suggesting that if we move to a republic you won't be able to pass on to your kids? That is a bit of a leap isn't it?
If you have lots of houses I can see why you might want to shut down this sort of debate though.
>> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
> President Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson!
President Donald J Trump
President Vladimir Putin
President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
President Jean-Bédel Bokassa
It makes it much harder for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag and claim head of state immunity for their misdeeds.
You really think inheritance tax etc changes anything... look at the absolute richest in the world, they can so easily avoid it, it's likely never even been a consideration. It will hit those in the middle, the moderately successful.
Crossing over with another thread; hmrc added lots of new rules for landlords and it definitely impacts those with one property who maybe moved for employment etc.. but if you own many properties, 12 or more, many of the new rules don't apply!
You became dull remarkably quickly! Bye!
Berlusconi, Sarkozy....
Constitutional monarchy facilitates a peaceful transition of power from one government to another. Not being elected the monarchy can also not be a rival powerbase to the elected government. It is arguably an insulator against populism. That stability is probably the strongest argument.
Norway, Denmark, Sweden the Netherlands all appear to be very stable have a similar system and are modern wealthy socially advanced countries.
It is maybe the way we do it which is the source of problems not the system.
One good argument: continuity.
Monarchs aren't always going to be popular, their greatest virtue is that they don't have to try.
Who's your nomination for head of state?
Bye then.
No suggestions on how to make looking for a good argument more interesting?
> >> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
> President Donald J Trump
> President Vladimir Putin
> President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
> President Jean-Bédel Bokassa
> It makes it much harder for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag and claim head of state immunity for their misdeeds.
Crucially all those people had to convince a sizeable portion of their fellow citizens that they were up to the task and then continue to convince them that there’s no one more able.
Compare to our system where they’re simply required to emerge from the correct vagina and Bob’s your Uncle. Say hello to the new head of state/church/armed forces for the rest of their natural life.
(Unless they’re a Catholic of course)
I’m sure the 92% of the Globe struggling along with their elected heads of state feel totally ridiculous when they compare themselves with us😂
> That stability is probably the strongest argument.
Stable?
Here's the Wiki list of Monarchs deposed in the 20th Century. I didn't bother adding them up as it's quite a long alphabetical list with several entries to each letter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_who_lost_their_thrones_in_th...
You don't really need the link though as even a passing interest in history would inform you that the vast majority of Monarchies have been far from stable.
Don't you think the Windsors work hard to maintain their popularity?
Personal nomination I'm not sure. If it had to be a politician I would go for someone like Paddy Ashdown (I know he's not with us anymore). By that I mean a significant political figure that has never actually held power through Parliament?
If we had a more open system then I have always thought a national figure like David Attenborough would able to perform the role pretty well. He's well liked, has a degree of gravity about him.
I suspect that if we were ever in that situation the Monarch wouldn't be much of a safeguard.
Also, the UK is not much of a case study for the avoidance of populism.
> Who's your nomination for head of state?
Bear Grylls ?
(...runs away laughing )
Neither of whom are in power anymore.
Isn't it better to be able to change the head of state?
> Stable?
> Here's the Wiki list of Monarchs deposed in the 20th Century. I didn't bother adding them up as it's quite a long alphabetical list with several entries to each letter
> You don't really need the link though as even a passing interest in history would inform you that the vast majority of Monarchies have been far from stable.
Monarchies or Constitutional Monarchies?
Arguably constitutional monarchies are effectively republics with a heriditary head of state.
I am not saying that they are a good or a bad thing. It isn't a subject that is in the forefront of my mind, but if four of the most socially advanced societies in Europe use the system then there must be reasonable arguments in favour. That a whole host of monarchies that tried to retain power lost it isn't really an argument against constitutional monarchy. (It is an argument for realising that trying to be an absolute monarch has a limited future) That kind of monarchy died in Britain and Ireland with Charles 1.
If I was going to change it I would go for the Irish model rather than the French or American.
I think he's pretty much there already. Meeting foreign heads of state and all that.
He'd give Putin a run for his money although when they both retire to the hotel he would have to be careful about ordering room service.
> Monarchies or Constitutional Monarchies?
Contemporary constitutional monarchies include the United Kingdom and Commonwealth realms, Belgium, Bhutan, Bahrain, Cambodia, Denmark, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Monaco, Morocco, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Eswatini, Sweden, and Thailand.
I'll leave it to you to judge if all these countries seem stable and whether the ones that do seem stable owe that stability to being in the charge of someone in a fancy hat or simply because they're mature democracies.
> Are you seriously suggesting that if we move to a republic you won't be able to pass on to your kids? That is a bit of a leap isn't it?
No. I was just wondering if it was only palaces you though shouldn't be inherited.
There good reasons. It separates the abstract idea of the state from the messy business of running it. If done well it gives a nation an institution all can identify with. Royalty is one option, an apolitical president another.
> I think that is the problem, the harm they do is they embody the idea that some people have the right to live in a palace just because of an accident of birth.
In the scheme things that isn't so terrible is it? There will always be some who are lucky/privileged. I find the genuine unaccountable power of e.g. Elron Musk far more concerning.
My biggest problem is the role of head of state being inherited but I do think too much inherited wealth is a problem for society.
After the war we did have a situation whereby stately homes at least were pretty difficult to pass on we do seem to have gone backwards a bit in that respect.
In which of those countries is the person in the fancy hat in charge?
If that person is in charge then does that country really qualify as a constitutional monarchy?
Don't mistake me any attempt at arbitrary royal power and I am with you at the barricades.
Do you actually think he has that much power?
He can be an arse on Twitter and get away with it.
I assume he can have pretty much whatever he wants in LA for what that's worth and he seems to be pushing German planning regulations to their limit right now.
I did always think Hesaltine had it about nailed with the "how may gunboats has Amazon got" question.
The problem we have is that states can easily reign in these sort of idiots if they want to. My point is that is those states are headed up by people who think that wealth is some sort of divine right it's that bit harder.
> Do you actually think he has that much power?
Vastly more than the royals. Companies run by his likes (Google Tesla etc) have massive power. For example deciding whether social media should allow Trumps tweets.
> The problem we have is that states can easily reign in these sort of idiots if they want to. My point is that is those states are headed up by people who think that wealth is some sort of divine right it's that bit harder.
I think you are misunderstanding the monarchy. They have essentially no power politically.
I doubt you and may others would have ascribed much power to these companies 10 years ago. Tesla certainly, and possibly wont in 10 years time.
I suspect the monarchy will still be with us and that is my point. It has the power to very effectively preserve itself as an institution and I don't think it is benign because of all the other things you have to accept alongside it.
> Vastly more than the royals. Companies run by his likes (Google Tesla etc) have massive power. For example deciding whether social media should allow Trumps tweets.
The royals have way more sway over government than any tech giant. We've evidence from the past 60 years or more to prove this.
> I think you are misunderstanding the monarchy. They have essentially no power politically.
Not true. They have undue influence and exercise it. I'd recommend keeping abreast of the news from this week.
> Not true. They have undue influence and exercise it. I'd recommend keeping abreast of the news from this week.
It's Guardian hyperbole.
> It's Guardian hyperbole.
You think lawyers wouldn't be taking action if that were true?
Try this: youtube.com/watch?v=TGamLrHlikc&
President Johnson?
> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
Not one good argument then. But a good argument all the same.
I do like the image of President Grylls emerging from the central London undergrowth though.
Good night all.
I can't think how we go from a monarchy to any other system of governance without intolerable upheaval. Plus I dont think the presidential model is looking that great right now. Personally I'd just look to keeping the royal 'perks' at a reasonable level and ditch a few minor royals.
Your nomination for head of state is a politician who died two years ago?
Better than Johnson I suppose...though the inauguration would be rather macabre.
The defence rests, m'lud.
There are many better ambassadors for the UK. Few would argue with President Attenborough.
Let's image you were a newly independent country, for the sake of argument let's say Yorkshire suddenly becomes a sovereign state.
It's a multiparty democracy with an as yet undecided government structure. Do you go for a powerful executive branch with a president with far reaching powers? Perhaps you go for a single chamber parliament where the leader with the greatest cross party support is the de-facto head of state. Maybe a politically neutral expert of constitutional law is chosen to referee elections but is otherwise powerless.
The one option you wouldn't pick is a family to rule forever and get the public to fund said family even if they offer very little in return.
It's absurd that a baby born today can become head of state just because they happend to have the "right" parents.
Make the UK a republic. Redesign the flags of Australia, New Zealand and Fiji etc (if they want to) and banish this out dated political structure to the history books.
That's of course true but it's not an argument for change unless what you propose is obviously better. If anything the most prosperous countries tend to have monarchies - Norway Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands, Aus, NZ ,Canada - which suggests at best there would be no change except the loss of a chunk of.culture and tradition.
> The one option you wouldn't pick is a family to rule forever and get the public to fund said family even if they offer very little in return.
No, but if you already have one one built in, which arguably offers a lot in return, you might well choose to keep it. The two situations are not equivalent.
Attenborough already has a full time job.
> Attenborough already has a full time job.
And if he was offered this new opportunity....
> Tourism and Trade, the Queen has more influence and draw than arguably any individual alive on earth today.
Each year:
1,652,000 visitors to Windsor Castle
552,000 visitors to Buckingham Palace.
489,000 to Holyrood Palace (which is more about Mary Queen of Scots than UK royals)
and.......wait for it......
10,000,000 visitors to the Palace of Versailles.
So I conclude that the best way to increase tourism revenue from your royal palaces is to become a republic.
The only oath I have ever sworn in my life was to the Queen. I could go on about other stuff that are mentioned upthread but you asked for one good reason, for me this is it!*
* Damn but it's hard to resist the temptation to talk about how the Cavaliers were just so much more fun than the dour Roundheads.
> 10,000,000 visitors to the Palace of Versailles.
Admission to the gardens is free from November to March.
Admission to the gardens is free on Wednesdays and Thursdays outside of those dates.
Admission to anyone under 18 is free for the whole Palace.
Admission is free to all EU residents under 26 for the whole Palace.
> One good argument: continuity.
> Monarchs aren't always going to be popular, their greatest virtue is that they don't have to try.
> Who's your nomination for head of state?
Sir Bobby Charlton
> Admission to the gardens is free from November to March.
> etc.
I don't think it is about free.
Look at Holyrood Palace and Buckingham Palace. Holyrood Palace is a relatively small building with relatively small grounds in a city with 500,000 inhabitants. Buckingham Palace is f*cking huge in the middle of a far larger city. They charge money to get into Holyrood. Yet Buckingham Palace has only about 10% more visitors.
Actually, here's an even better number: Edinburgh Castle: 2,000,000 visitors per year and they charge quite a bit to get in.
The obvious reason so few people go to Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle is that the queen lives there and they don't get to see it properly and/or the royals are doing a sh*tty job of marketing. Kick the royals out, make them proper tourist attractions and the tourists will be happier and you'll make more money from tourism.
If you went a step further like the French and made Buckingham Palace free the visitor numbers would be gigantic.
This 'royals are amazing for tourism' argument is prima-facie total bollocks.
> I don't think it is about free.
...
> If you went a step further like the French and made Buckingham Palace free the visitor numbers would be gigantic.
You are replying to a reply to your own post that was going on about revenue.
> ...
> You are replying to a reply to your own post that was going on about revenue.
Then it moved on to visitor numbers.
Also total tourism revenue is far more than the entrance fees to the building. If these royal buildings were open to the public and marketed properly it would bring more visitors than having the royals in them.
Do you have any awareness of your uncanny knack of making people not to want to post to say that they agree with you, when they actually do agree with you? It’s a special, if possibly rather self-defeating, talent.
> The only oath I have ever sworn in my life was to the Queen.
You don't need a monarch for that though.
> Your nomination for head of state is a politician who died two years ago?
> Better than Johnson I suppose...though the inauguration would be rather macabre.
> The defence rests, m'lud.
Maybe we could have the present incumbent stuffed when she goes, and keep her on in perpetuity. And I'm not entirely jesting. I could see many benefits, although I suspect people's odd reaction to death working against the idea.
I guess when Queen Nicola has Salmond head removed that will help tourism figures in a few centuries time? Everyone loves a plot.
As for the rest of your thoughts, you can't really compare Windsor and Edinburgh Castle, as you can walk to one from the city centre etc.. it doesn't require an extra excursion, you just follow the tat shops up the mile and you're there.
> As for the rest of your thoughts, you can't really compare Windsor and Edinburgh Castle, as you can walk to one from the city centre etc.. it doesn't require an extra excursion, you just follow the tat shops up the mile and you're there.
Err, you've never been to Windsor castle then?....it doesn't require an extra excursion, you just follow the tat shops half a mile and you're there.
You can't seriously suggest that we keep the monarchy because it makes us a prosperous country. That argument hasn't been valid since when, the reign of Victoria?
We supposedly live in a free and fair society, or aiming to live in one at least. No person should have the privilege of becoming the head of state based purely on their family.
I don't wish ill of the royal family, most of them are likely to be very nice people (except Andrew, he needs his day in front of a judge). However there is a grotesque unfairness to their role in society.
They tend to preach a lot on issues to those less fortunate yet fail to follow their own advice.
"Let's help the environment" - huge number of helicopter flights within the UK at taxpayer expense, multiple houses, enormous staff numbers etc.
"Give to charity and help where you can" - they literally live off the money from people much poorer than them.
Hypocrites - the lot of them.
I like the way in which we don't have a head of state with individual power, though I guess an elected one could be ceremonial only too. To me it gives one person too much power.
> Err, you've never been to Windsor castle then?....it doesn't require an extra excursion, you just follow the tat shops half a mile and you're there.
Maybe you've been to a different Windsor, the one I'm thinking of is a decent walk from Central London.
> I think you are misunderstanding the monarchy. They have essentially no power politically.
This is the Queen who in normal times has a weekly audience with the PM. The Queen who every MP has to swear allegiance to. The Queen who opens and dissolves parliament. The Queen who approves all bills, etc, etc, etc
From UK parliament website: "Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution of Parliament."
https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/relations-with-other-institutions/...
No power politically? Pull the other one
> 2019;
> Amazon uk- £14m
> Royal Estate- £300m
I think you mean Crown Estate, that isn’t the Queen paying tax on her wealth, that is us giving a big chunk of money to the Queen.
> Maybe you've been to a different Windsor, the one I'm thinking of is a decent walk from Central London.
It's an even longer walk from (pick entirely arbitrary geographic location).
I was referring to Windsor's centre, just as you were referring to Edinburgh's centre.
> It's Guardian hyperbole.
Google Gough Whitlam for an extreme example. A while ago, but the current monarch.
>
> No power politically? Pull the other one
Like many, you seem to confuse a constitutional monarchy with power. The idea the queen tells the pm to restructure the NHS, say, and he goes and does it is nuts.
You bring that up repeatedly. A lifetime ago, in another country, in a constitutional crisis and could never be repeated. The Queen was clearly powerless over Johnson's proroging shenanigans by contrast.
> It's an even longer walk from (pick entirely arbitrary geographic location).
> I was referring to Windsor's centre, just as you were referring to Edinburgh's centre.
The point is you can visit Edinburgh Castle whilst seeing everything else in town. You can't do that with Windsor. While most don't, walking down to Leith to the yacht or out to the zoo is that far either.
> Like many, you seem to confuse a constitutional monarchy with power. The idea the queen tells the pm to restructure the NHS, say, and he goes and does it is nuts.
A mandated weekly audience with the PM and you think that doesn’t constitute political power? If it was a weekly audience with Branson or Murdoch would you also think they had no political power?
Anyone who thinks that the royals don't bring in tourism obviously have never seen your average magazine rack in the US.
> This is the Queen who in normal times has a weekly audience with the PM. The Queen who every MP has to swear allegiance to. The Queen who opens and dissolves parliament. The Queen who approves all bills, etc, etc, etc
> From UK parliament website: "Along with the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Crown is an integral part of the institution ....
Did you know that constitutionally and legally the Queen is banned from the houses of Parliament debating Chambers. She might open them, but isn't allowed to attend.
The eu appointed a figure head leader, and a few side kick unelected commissioners, look at the influence, attempts at power and general cluster they've made of things recently.
No but they have quite different motives.
I'm sure the German president meets Merkel regularly, that doesn't mean he has power. It means the apolitical and political leaders of states need to talk to each other to make a country work.
> Anyone who thinks that the royals don't bring in tourism obviously have never seen your average magazine rack in the US.
Bumping Di off was a cunning move in terms of adding mystery and the beatification of her. It must have paid for itself many times over.
> I guess when Queen Nicola has Salmond head removed that will help tourism figures in a few centuries time? Everyone loves a plot.
> As for the rest of your thoughts, you can't really compare Windsor and Edinburgh Castle, as you can walk to one from the city centre etc.. it doesn't require an extra excursion, you just follow the tat shops up the mile and you're there.
London has approximately 18 x the population of Edinburgh.
Urquhart Castle on the shores of Loch Ness got 500k visitors, only 10k less than Buckingham Palace.
Stirling Castle got 605k, nearly 100k more than Buckingham Palace.
The royals aren't just doing a bad job of attracting tourists to visit their properties they are doing an *unbelievably* bad job. They can't be arsed attracting tourists because they are already rich and they'd rather have their estates to themselves.
https://www.historicenvironment.scot/about-us/news/another-record-breaking-...
> You bring that up repeatedly. A lifetime ago, in another country, in a constitutional crisis and could never be repeated. The Queen was clearly powerless over Johnson's proroging shenanigans by contrast.
Only when people stupidly assert that the Queen has no constitutional power. I don’t think the Australians have forgotten. Why do you think it was a constitutional crisis? What caused it? Was she powerless over proroging, rare use of overt power isn’t proof that the power is lacking.
> . Why do you think it was a constitutional crisis?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis
> What caused it? Was she powerless over proroging, rare use of overt power isn’t proof that the power is lacking.
No but is strong evidence, unlike your example, which is weak to say the least.
I'd suggest that if the castle wasn't on the shores of Loch Ness it would see much less folk? It's a handy toilet stop for the grannies on the coach tour is they cut back across Scotland.
Ps. Urquhart has some good history, being right in the thick of it in the early years.
> Tourism and Trade, the Queen has more influence and draw than arguably any individual alive on earth today. That could obviously change with Charles and William.
As I said on another thread, Versailles gets more visitors than all the British Royal Palaces put together. It would seem that a dead royal family and outstanding architecture is more of a draw than a live royal family and a few drab houses and castles.
> Anyone who thinks that the royals don't bring in tourism obviously have never seen your average magazine rack in the US.
Erm....did you ever see Elvis on the cover of the average UK magazine/newspaper? It was prolific at times. Remind me how often he came here...
edit :https://modernfarmer.com/2014/05/come/
> Only when people stupidly assert that the Queen has no constitutional power. I don’t think the Australians have forgotten. Why do you think it was a constitutional crisis? What caused it? Was she powerless over proroging, rare use of overt power isn’t proof that the power is lacking.
The Queen had nothing to do with that. It was the Australian Governor-General (who deliberately did not inform the Queen in advance of his intentions.)
> As I said on another thread, Versailles gets more visitors than all the British Royal Palaces put together. It would seem that a dead royal family and outstanding architecture is more of a draw than a live royal family and a few drab houses and castles.
Possibly. But without thinking the Queen might be looking out, how many Americans would ever go look at Buckingham Palace. It's the pinnacle of blandness externally.
You might like her, but you can't deny the Queen has pulling power. I'd argue folk don't solely go to France for versaille. Paris has a bundle of non royalty related other attractions.
> That's of course true but it's not an argument for change unless what you propose is obviously better. If anything the most prosperous countries tend to have monarchies - Norway Sweden, Japan, Denmark, Netherlands, Aus, NZ ,Canada - which suggests at best there would be no change except the loss of a chunk of.culture and tradition.
An outstanding piece of cherry-picking, if a little obvious.
> The Queen had nothing to do with that. It was the Australian Governor-General (who deliberately did not inform the Queen in advance of his intentions.)
I know. Where did the Governor-General get his power / authority from?
> Possibly. But without thinking the Queen might be looking out, how many Americans would ever go look at Buckingham Palace. It's the pinnacle of blandness externally.
There's no possibly about it - it's a fact that Versailles is far more of a visitor draw than Buckingham Palace.
> You might like her, but you can't deny the Queen has pulling power. I'd argue folk don't solely go to France for versaille. Paris has a bundle of non royalty related other attractions.
London also has many other non-royalty related attractions - world-class galleries and museums among them.
And leaving numbers aside, is it not somewhat tawdry to suggest that one the head of state's main influences is on tourism? Should we not be aspiring to something better in a contemporary democracy.
Not really. If the argument is that monarchies prevent either widespread wealth or effective democracy, those examples prove otherwise. Im not saying monarchies are necessary for those things.
> And if he was offered this new opportunity....
I seriously doubt he'd be interested. He's too old now anyway, but he turned down being DG of the BBC back in the 70s (although he was a brilliant controller of BBC2). On the principle that only the least interested in power should be allowed to wield it, though, perhaps we should force him to do it!
> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
It's the least original reason; someone needs to come up with something better.
If we learnt nothing else from Brexit, it demonstrated how easy it is to object to something that, while not perfect, works pretty well, and persuade others to abandon it without the slightest consensus on what should replace it.
Of course unlike Brexit, there are a number of mature models of government to look at as alternatives. We are not talking about electing a unicorn as the president of the republic of sunnyuplantopia.
> Of course unlike Brexit, there are a number of mature models of government to look at as alternatives. We are not talking about electing a unicorn as the president of the republic of sunnyuplantopia.
OK, I look forward to the process of deciding which one of them we would adopt and to the wording of the referendum question!
> It's the least original reason; someone needs to come up with something better.
> If we learnt nothing else from Brexit, it demonstrated how easy it is to object to something that, while not perfect, works pretty well, and persuade others to abandon it without the slightest consensus on what should replace it.
Monarchy and Brexit in the same sentence? Jesus man, are you trying to create the UKC singularity? All it takes is for someone to mention the grade of Three Pebble Slab and we'll enter Schrodinger's forum.
Put the OP's questions the other way: What are good arguments for getting rid of the monarchy?
Claims of increased democracy don't stack up - there are plenty of monarchies that are also the most democratic of countries, and the UK isn't at all bad here anyway
Costs doesn't either - presidential systems are at least as pricey, and the monarchy most certainly is a pull for tourism etc. with associated revenue.
Despite the recent hysteria, the monarchy doesn't have political power. And if there are concerns here, it would be easy to change details if it was really felt to be an issue without wholescale constitutional upheaval.
If setting up a new country you clearly wouldn't have a monarchy but since we have one that works, why change?
Sounds like a lot of ipsedixitism on here today. I say Death to them all please. Borrow Madam Guillotine from the French. Complete waste of space.
> I know. Where did the Governor-General get his power / authority from?
From the Australian constitution.
The fact remains: what happened in 1975 had nothing to do with the Queen.
Two reasons, one philosophical one practical. There is an argument that the hidden 4th pillar of state is symbolic, and that this role is essential for social cohesion but best separated from government. It has been argued that in places where this does not exist as a historical accident, such as the US, societies end up collectively trying to replace it with something else to get behind - aggressive nationalism, elevation of the military in its importance, the emergence of political dynasties (Clintons, Bushs etc.). It’s quite a deep academic well to delve into but I find it quite compelling. I will never understand the appeal of royal weddings for example, I couldn’t care less but there is no denying that they appear to be have value for many. If you get rid of the royal family, you will need to fulfil the symbolism they embody for the country in some other way. Good luck with that.
On a practical level, and this applies to the Lords as well (although not negating the need for reform there) - it works at least as well as any of the bad ideas that have been suggested by republicans. Don't tell me that if the Crown Estate had belonged to the government for the last 50 years it wouldn't have been sold off to the highest bidder in the latter half of the 20th century. We are not a country whose politicians operate in the long term, as the Norwegian’s have with their oil fund for example. I would be surprised if any of the royal residences or historical tourist attractions weren't owned by wealthy Russian businessmen by now - either as profit making enterprises which they avoid tax on or as private dwellings. As it is, the Crown Estate still contributes to the country's coffers*, the UK's historical architecture is well managed and maintained and let’s face it the Royal's pay a much greater share of taxes on their incomes than the old "off-shore-account" pals of our politicians. They have proved to be good stewards of some of the county’s assets, they are themselves a diplomatic asset and perform certain duties of state much better than any of our politicians could. It works quite well and even if you don’t think they profit the country financially it costs us F all in the grand scheme of things.
The Royal family are not very wealthy in this day and age. The money issue is very much like Brexit, people aren't for or against the Royal Family because they think they are a net gain or loss to the economy - it's an unanswerable question. Most people I’ve met who want them removed have absolutely no idea how Royal finances work and underneath the surface it really boils down to a fight between people who like the Queen and people who don’t – pointless and divisive. It's clear that the vast amounts of lost tax revenues from the modern day rich list absolutely dwarf the sums of money we're talking about with the Royal Family. When I researched it (admittedly a number of years ago now) I came to the conclusion they were probably a net gain in economic terms but there were too many historical and hypothetical variables to account for to say that with any high degree of accuracy. They don’t lose the country vast swathes of cash, that’s for sure. We live in a country beset by a lot of problems just now, the Royal Family aren't that high up the list and the obsession some people have with republicanism is just another ideologically driven distraction. The UK is a weird collection of countries, no one would create this set up from scratch but we are more divided than ever just now and it is not the time to rip up the fabric of our fragile, constitutionless society because you don’t like the Queen.
*not directed at anyone in particular but please look it up before telling people the Crown Estate is " us giving a big chunk of money to the Queen", I just picked that at random from NickB but this thread is a perfect example of how people completely misunderstand how the Royal finances work. It is complicated but the crown estate is probably the least complex part of the whole thing and there is no excuse for spreading fake news when the information is so easy to get hold of. The Crown Estate are assets managed (but not owned) by the monarchy, the revenue goes to the treasury and a portion of that is then allocated back to the monarchy to cover expenses (25% for 10 years then back to 15%).
> Put the OP's questions the other way: What are good arguments for getting rid of the monarchy?
> Claims of increased democracy don't stack up - there are plenty of monarchies that are also the most democratic of countries, and the UK isn't at all bad here anyway.
I would argue that there is a considerable democratic deficit in the U.K. The monarchy is certainly part of that.
> Costs doesn't either - presidential systems are at least as pricey, and the monarchy most certainly is a pull for tourism etc. with associated revenue.
The US President is certainly expensive, more than £1bn a year, the Irish President on the other hand costs about £3m a year. It has already been pointed out that empty French palaces attract 20 times as many visitors as occupied British ones. No Royal attractions are in the top 20 U.K. visitor attractions.
> Despite the recent hysteria, the monarchy doesn't have political power. And if there are concerns here, it would be easy to change details if it was really felt to be an issue without wholescale constitutional upheaval.
As demonstrated, there is political power, both hard and soft. Changes to the power of the monarch is by definition constitutional upheaval.
> If setting up a new country you clearly wouldn't have a monarchy but since we have one that works, why change?
Do we have one that works?
For me, the compelling argument 'against' is that it legitimises and is at the apex of a hierarchical system that even in this day and age favours inherited wealth and privilege.
The compelling argument 'for' is that is exists and seems to have worked OK for the last 200 years or so, making a big change like that would undoubtedly have unintended consequences, just like Brexit wil do, and they won't necessarily be good ones. I am also in favour of the fact that, whether symbolic or not, much of our apparatus of government - and in particular the Armed forces and the police - are ultimately answerable to her Maj rather than, say, Bunter.
> I would argue that there is a considerable democratic deficit in the U.K. The monarchy is certainly part of that.
You can certainly improve the UK democracy. I don't see where the monarchy either blocks this or is part of the problem.
> The US President is certainly expensive, more than £1bn a year, the Irish President on the other hand costs about £3m a year. It has already been pointed out that empty French palaces attract 20 times as many visitors as occupied British ones. No Royal attractions are in the top 20 U.K. visitor attractions.
If you don't think people come to e.g. changing of the guard, you are simply wrong. The place is mobbed and everyone there will be spending money
> As demonstrated, there is political power, both hard and soft. Changes to the power of the monarch is by definition constitutional upheaval.
I don't think been demonstrated at all. Your absurdly tenuous example from 45 years ago in another country really isn't the knock down argument you think it is.
I’m not misunderstanding the Crown Estate. Summo was suggesting that the tax paid on the Crown Estate is tax personally paid by the Queen. The Crown Estate themselves would disagree with your assessment of their ownership.
> I don't think been demonstrated at all. Your absurdly tenuous example from 45 years ago in another country really isn't the knock down argument you think it is.
If you think it’s an absurd and tenuous example, we are not going to have a reasonable discussion. Australia might be another country, but it is another country where she is head of state.
> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
Tourism.
I'm actually monarchy ambivalent. If they go, cool. If they stay, cool.
> I’m not misunderstanding the Crown Estate. Summo was suggesting that the tax paid on the Crown Estate is tax personally paid by the Queen. The Crown Estate themselves would disagree with your assessment of their ownership.
You said the Crown Estate was "us giving a big chunk of money to the Queen." The crown estate is a collection of assets, it is not a chunk of money and it is not given to the Queen.
You can argue the CE is owned by the Monarch but it is a misleading way to frame it which happens to suit your position. She does not own it in the common usage of the word and it is distinct from her private assets. It would be like saying Boris Johnson owns the prime ministerial car he is driven around in. It doesn't, it belongs to the state. If the Queen stepped down or the monarchy was abolished tomorrow then the Queen would still own her private assets, the Crown Estate would not be amongst them.
Did easy, my gran loved them. Anything my gran liked wins a thumbs up from me( she was a fantastic lady).
OK, let's pick this apart. Who owns the Crown estate? You said "it belongs to the state. If the Queen stepped down or the monarchy was abolished tomorrow then the Queen would still own her private assets, the Crown Estate would not be amongst them."
Also you: "You said the Crown Estate was "us giving a big chunk of money to the Queen." The crown estate is a collection of assets, it is not a chunk of money and it is not given to the Queen."
How is 25% of the profits of a state asset (£82 million in 2019) being given to the Queen not "us giving a big chunk of money to the Queen." ???
I'd much rather bin off the House of Lords than the monarchy.
Some of the income is used to fund the queen etc.. The estate itself isn't hers.
> Some of the income is used to fund the queen etc.. The estate itself isn't hers.
Yeah, that's what I wrote.
> Tourism and Trade, the Queen has more influence and draw than arguably any individual alive on earth today. That could obviously change with Charles and William.
Paris and Versailles were doing a roaring trade when I was last there.
It's a fudge, but it's worked for the last 70 years. You have someone slightly disconnected, reasonably intelligent, with a sense of duty to the country, well earned respect from the majority of the country and most importantly able to think over a period of greater than the 4-5 year political cycle. The advice from the Queen to the PM can only have been a good thing over the years. A pseudo-independent mentor. The tourism is a bonus.
Will Charles be as good? Probably not.
Would jumping to William be better? Maybe starting at 'working age' would be a good idea.
Could you find someone else that would do a better job? Almost certainly.
Could you come up with a fair system to select an ideal person for a (say) 20 year term? Based on our local councils, parliament, government, the honours system, house of lords appointment (inc. church of England) being less and less democratic the closer you get to her majesty, I have no faith this could be achieved. Or open vote and you'd get a Trump.
Probably best to just get rid, make them into a museum.
Create a high-level cross-party & socilital group who can plan our country's main systems and infrastructure for 20 years+. Referendum that if required. Elect the executive as normal.
I broadly supported the monarchy on the previous thread and will do so here. I think you're only asking half the question, You need to propose an alternative and then the pro's and con's of each can be debated. That's the only way, short of revolution, that the UK will ditch the monarchy; ie via a referendum, or possibly an election, in which the benefits of monarchy against a rival system are debated.
We could follow the systems in use elsewhere. But, as has been said, it's not obvious that they work better in practice. The list of prosperous, stable, more than averagely happy countries with constitutional monarchies, compares well with the list of similarly blessed countries with other systems for choosing their ceremonial head of state. The list of countries without anyone performing that role is pretty slim.
We could appoint a "national treasure" to be head of state. David Attenborough and Bobbie Charlton have been mentioned. No-one, I think, has suggested who would appoint them though. David Attenborough is an pertinent example. I would support him 100%, but he's not exactly apolitical. Many people do not sign up to his green agenda. He would probably not be appointed by the current government, if that was the system chosen. He might well win an election, but a significant minority would not vote for him.
That's the problem with any elected Head of State. A significant proportion of the population would not have voted for them and would feel their loyalty to the country compromised while that person is Head of State. A while ago a friend of mine refused to put GB plates on his car while Thatcher was prime minister. He had to buy a set of plates in Calais before the French would let him in. That sort of feeling would have been magnified if Thatcher had been elected "President", which at that time she probably would have been.
Most countries, particularly ones that are already not bad places to live, improve best by incremental evolution and reform. I'd fully support moves towards a less oversized, less ostentatious monarchy - more on Scandinavian lines. But I'd need convincing of a clearly better alternative before ditching the system completely.
Martin
Think about it, one family living in the lap of luxury with an income to the tune of hundreds of millions all taken from our national assets whilst we have kids going hungry, schools in need of repair, a chronic homeless problem....
By all means, i think people like you should be able to subscribe to, and support this if you so approve of it (on some kind of royal Patreon model), but people like me should not be expected to fund it.
> ... with other systems for choosing their ceremonial head of state.
Why do we (or other countries) need a 'ceremonial head of state' at all? If the monarchy here just disappeared in a flash, absolutely nothing would stop working.
> That's the problem with any elected Head of State. A significant proportion of the population would not have voted for them and would feel their loyalty to the country compromised while that person is Head of State.
Logically the same is also true for republicans living under a monarchy with the difference being at least with an elected head of state you might get your choice next time round.
Who would the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance to?
A thoughtful answer;
On the philosophical point I do agree that there probably does need to be some way of embodying the state (I'm a bit sceptical about stated generally but they are a reality of life, they haven't always been and I hope they won't in the future but for now). But I think that this is just the point. If it was the case that the way they sought to do this was closer to the Scandinavian/Dutch model then I would probably be closer to the 'it isn't the biggest issue' arguments that a lot of people have made. I was for most of my life.
I think you overestimate the restraining power of Monarchy certainly they did nothing to hold back imperialism but rather enabled it. Also, their role in the military is a bit suspect even symbolically pledging the state's capacity for violence to an unelected leader.
I think to say that the symbolism of the state should rest with the Windsor family seems to give up on the creativity as to how the people of a modern, pluralist multi-national state could choose to symbolise themselves in the 21st century and all the implications that has for our position in the world. If you take something like Danny Boyle's Olympics Ceremony for example (I know the Queen was in it but it wasn't all about her). My point is that the state can be imagined in lots of ways and to just restrict it to one very backward looking one with a hell of a lot negative of baggage shows a dangerous lack of imagination. If anything positive does come out of Brexit then maybe reimagining ourselves is a good place to start.
The practical arguments seem to flow from the symbolic ones. If you are comfortable with what the Monarcy symbolises, and I struggle to see anything positive, then why go for the upheaval. It is actually the right thing to do then up to a point the costs are worth it.
> Why do we (or other countries) need a 'ceremonial head of state' at all? If the monarchy here just disappeared in a flash, absolutely nothing would stop working.
You could probably say the same for just about anyone.
If there is one lesson that Brexit should teach us: the workings and inter workings of states are not at all simple and the dynamics not at all clear.
If I had to risk a radical upheaval of our state, I can think of far more productive places to start than the monarchy. FPTP and the Lords for a start.
I am, at heart a republican but I don't have any major issues with the Queen and her direct descendants other than as a matter of principle but I would baulk at the idea of replacing her with a "President Tony Blair" or "President Boris Johnson". To be fair the Queen herself has done a reasonable job of representing the UK as a figure head. Whether she has been good value for money is another matter.
Al
> Who would the armed forces and the police owe their allegiance to?
To the law, as determined by our elected Parliaments.
> If I had to risk a radical upheaval of our state, I can think of far more productive places to start than the monarchy.
I don't disagree with that. And the money wasted on the monarchy is after all small beer in the scheme of things. Nevertheless, the principle is worth discussing.
A few people have said state the alternative so here goes;
Federal UK with defence, foreign policy, health (given the strength of the NHS and watching Germany struggle with this it would be popular) and some Treasury, culture and education remaining national. Constitutional issues/changes would need a 3 nation majority so England can't push the others around.
National Parliaments with tax raising and economic development powers, these would include transport and education and the culture stuff that isn't at the national level.
A written constitution, the Parliaments should jointly commission a citizens assembly to produce a draft that would then go back to the parliaments and finally ratified by a referendum requiring a supermajority and say 60% turnout. No freaking out if it takes more than one go.
This ought to put the relationship between local and central government on a constitutional footing as well as further devolving some tax raising powers
The establishment of a head of state who aside from the ceremonial functions has the responsibility for;
This would probably more likely be a political figure rather than a 'national treasure' but I think that they often adapt to the role. They may behave like braying idiots in parliament but some of that is the environment and the culture of the place. They should probably serve about 2.5 parliaments (again continuity). No reason why a royalist party couldn't put forward a candidate.
Personally, I would like to see a deliberative branch of government as a check and balance both in the UK as a whole and in the nations. This would deal with issues that are not well dealt with by the four-year electoral cycles particularly making sure future generations are represented in some way.
If you had all this you could keep FPP if you want. Personally, I don't like it but the problem is as much the dominance of England and the lack of check on executive power that we have.
> To the law, as determined by our elected Parliaments.
Is there anyway in the world where the armed forces are allied to the law? Seems an odd concept to me. In the US it's to the constitution, which is pretty close to the "monarchy" in that its an abstract idea of the state.
> The establishment of a head of state who aside from the ceremonial functions has the responsibility for;
> Upholding the constitution (this would cover the transfer of power) and
> Interpreting the constitution. In that order.
In any proper democracy, the judiciary must have the role of interpreting the constitution (whether that's written or unwritten.) Why would you suggest that that role be assigned to a single (possibly, appointed) person? Is your suggested model in force anywhere?
> Is there anyway in the world where the armed forces are allied to the law? Seems an odd concept to me.
It seems obvious to me. Who, in practice, commands the UK armed forces? Definitely not the Queen - despite the associated pageantry.
No you are right about that. I was thinking of someone who embodied that role. But obviously it is a judicial function.
I was thinking of the German head of state and what I meant by interpreting was that constitutions cant remain static and not every conceivable solution can be written down so the primary role of the head of state should be protection but you do need the ability to allow a constitution to reflect changing circumstances.
> It seems obvious to me. Who, in practice, commands the UK armed forces?
Various generals admirals etc. I don't see the relevance of that.
> Definitely not the Queen - despite the associated pageantry.
Of course not. We were discussing allegiance not command. Having the armed forces loyal to the monarch (or some other abstract idea of the state) rather than politicians seems a good thing to me. To the law would be weirdly narrow and vague idea to me.
The judiciary certainly has a role but there is also the risk of the judicialisation of government (a type of technocracy), where issues that might be better settled democratically are taken out of the political realm. For better or worse this happens a lot with environmental issues as well of trade issues of course.
You've misunderstood my point. In practice, it's the Prime Minister (usually, one hopes, acting with the consent of Parliament) who commands the armed forces. For example, it is the Prime Minister who would declare war.
The Monarchy in practice has nothing to do with it - so the 'allegiance' business is simply pageantry.
Maybe. But I would say in the limit not. We saw recently in the US the military were very reluctant to get involved with Trump's antics, in part because of their allegiance to the constitution, not him personally despite him being commander in chief. I'd hope the UK forces would similarly refuse to follow a PM who for example tried to use them to bypass an election, because of their allegiance to the crown.
I agree with much of what you propose. But most of what you propose does not require replacement of the monarchy. I agree with others that replacing the monarchy would be some way down the list if we try to place the reforms you suggest in rank order.
Martin
Does the queen even have a public logbook?
'so the 'allegiance' business is simply pageantry.'
Don't underestimate the power of pageantry. Some people - particularly the types of people who get to the head of the Armed forces - lay great store in tradition, pageantry, oaths of allegiance and all the rest. Testing that loyalty is not likely to be something a politician is going to risk.
In practice it's completely irrelevant. The Armed Forces take their orders from the Prime Minister, not the Monarch.
> Some of the income is used to fund the queen etc.. The estate itself isn't hers.
The Crown Estate is a hereditary possession of the Sovereign “in right of the Crown”. It is neither a private possession of Elizabeth Windsor, or a possession of the state. It should be a possession of the state, includes the seabed ffs!
The Crown *is* the state. This is a rather key point to understand
> The Crown *is* the state. This is a rather key point to understand
It is, I’m glad you have raised it. It rather debunks the idea that the sovereign is without power. The sovereign is power.
Constitutional issues/changes would need a 3 nation majority so England can't push the others around.
Just a minute, England has 83% of the population. By this idea 17% of the population could "push around" the other 83%.
Why are you putting England as a singular unit, when the various regions of England are both fundamentally different from London (& Westminster) and have greater (or FAR greater) populations than any of the "Celtic" nations.
> In any proper democracy, the judiciary must have the role of interpreting the constitution (whether that's written or unwritten.) Why would you suggest that that role be assigned to a single (possibly, appointed) person? Is your suggested model in force anywhere?
In Germany, the indirectly elected* President checks laws for compatibility with the Grundgesetz (constitution) before signing, which is required for the laws coming into force**. If he refuses, laws are returned to the Bundestag (parliament) for amendment. If the Bundestag refuses the question is put before the Verfassungsgericht (the constitutional and supreme court) which then has the last word.
This actually happens every now and then, most presidents have refused to sign a law at least first go.
CB
* (by the elected Bundestag and representatives nominated by the states)
** The president must certify that the law as such is constitutional, and that is came to be in a constitutional manner, which is a suprisingly biggish issue in a federal state
Not as an individual. I don't see why people struggle with the ideas of 'the crown" as an abstract representation of the state, and the idea of the monarch as a person being a ceremonial head without power.
'In practice it's completely irrelevant. The Armed Forces take their orders from the Prime Minister, not the Monarch.' Unless you're Lord of the Admiralty, or Chief of Staff, I don't know how you can be so certain about this.
From the article you posted:
“The monarch is the living embodiment of the Crown and, as such, is regarded as the personification of the state.”
It is a shame that we don’t have a properly codified constitution. It would make these questions so much easier to deal with. Of course it would also highlight the utterly ludicrous nature of our constitution.
> 'In practice it's completely irrelevant. The Armed Forces take their orders from the Prime Minister, not the Monarch.' Unless you're Lord of the Admiralty, or Chief of Staff, I don't know how you can be so certain about this.
If you seriously believe, for example, that the Monarch could or would declare war on another country, I think you are on your own. But the Prime Minister can, and has.
Er, no. I'm rather thinking that a senior officer has a get out of jail card when asked to do something by the government of the day that is profoundly wrong. Like shoot the opposition.
That had disappeared in Nazi Germany by 1933, the armed forces, the police and civil service were all obliged to swear an oath of allegiance to Adolf Hitler personally. What he said was the law.
Congratulations. Godwin's Law.
> From the article you posted:
> “The monarch is the living embodiment of the Crown and, as such, is regarded as the personification of the state.”
That's what I said!
> >> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
> President Donald J Trump
> President Vladimir Putin
> President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing
> President Jean-Bédel Bokassa
> It makes it much harder for politicians to wrap themselves in the flag and claim head of state immunity for their misdeeds.
The Irish model of a largely ceremonial Presidency achieves the same thing, without the fancy dress, and family soap opera.
It would be fine, I'm sure. Getting from A to B would be a mess though. Worth it? I don't see much upside.
Whats your point. Both phrases (yes different words, very clever) mean the same.
LOL. If only.
https://davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-strange-and-obscur...
> Whats your point. Both phrases (yes different words, very clever) mean the same.
My point is that they don’t. We are not going to agree, so let’s leave it!
> LOL. If only.
It's not meaningful power. If she ever used it, the next law would be the abolition of the monarchy.
> It's not meaningful power. If she ever used it, the next law would be the abolition of the monarchy.
Which would then never pass in parliment - can you imagine any british nationalist party/MP voting to abolish the monarchy in the UK?
A lot of circular discussion going on that will never be resolved so I'm bowing out of the main discussion points.
However, If it wasn't for the monarchy one of the greatest groups of all time would have been called 'Heath'.
Windsor squatters aren't exactly squeaky clean either with their arranged car crashes and Epstein parties.
Truly baffling that in 2021 people are happy to give their money to a woman who has mansions and a solid gold chair whilst parts of UK are bleeding out.
Shame we cant thank them with a round of applause. Bet her and Phil are pissing themselves when the peasants are out banging their pots and pans.
> Shame we cant thank them with a round of applause. Bet her and Phil are pissing themselves when the peasants are out banging their pots and pans.
Think about the net worth of where you use your money. Ever shopped online? Drank Starbucks? Searched with Google? Have a Facebook account?
The royals make a profit and the treasury keeps most of it. Net worth £370m ish.
Amazon, pays just £14m in UK tax. Uses UK tax system to subsidise low pay. Bezos net worth $200Billion ish.
Even on a UK rich list have look at the queen's position, She isn't even close to the top ten.
Granted she's an easy target, but there are many others who could be paying vastly more in tax to fund UK services. But that's the uks tax choice folk have voted for for years. Low tax, high tax thresholds, marginal state services. The population gets what it votes and pays for.
Ps. I think the Duke of Westminster is worth 10 times as much as the Queen.
If she went against the actions of the democratic Government, absolutely. That would be a turning point.
> Windsor squatters aren't exactly squeaky clean either with their arranged car crashes and Epstein parties.
> Truly baffling that in 2021 people are happy to give their money to a woman who has mansions and a solid gold chair whilst parts of UK are bleeding out.
> Shame we cant thank them with a round of applause. Bet her and Phil are pissing themselves when the peasants are out banging their pots and pans.
Arranged car crashes? Solid gold chair? Laughing at the NHS? I don’t think you’re helping the republican cause with nonsense like this.
And we go around banging on about democracy when the head of state is unelected as is half the houses of Parliament. Truly bizarre.
> Think about the net worth of where you use your money. Ever shopped online? Drank Starbucks? Searched with Google? Have a Facebook account?
How's that at all relevant?
> The royals make a profit and the treasury keeps most of it. Net worth £370m ish.
No. They don't.
> Amazon, pays just £14m in UK tax. Uses UK tax system to subsidise low pay. Bezos net worth $200Billion ish.
Oh look! A cloud!
> Even on a UK rich list have look at the queen's position, She isn't even close to the top ten.
So?
> Granted she's an easy target, but there are many others who could be paying vastly more in tax to fund UK services. But that's the uks tax choice folk have voted for for years. Low tax, high tax thresholds, marginal state services. The population gets what it votes and pays for.
So?
> Ps. I think the Duke of Westminster is worth 10 times as much as the Queen.
So?
Nobody is saying we should ban rich people. People are saying that it's wrong to have preferential legal and taxation privileges, diplomatic immunity, weekly access to the prime minister, tens of millions a year from an asset you neither own nor manage plus a whole heap of rights afforded just to you alone, whether that's the right to drive without a license, travel without a passport, a country's gold mines, coastline or seabed, or the ability to dismiss the entire government of Australia... and all this simply because of who Mummy and Daddy were. To be passed down the line in perpetuity
and to cap it all, we're regularly lectured by the likes of Harry and Wills on the importance of equality. A level of self importance entirely mirrored by a staggering lack of self awareness.
Also this, why should they go to him.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1396302/prince-charles-duchy-cornwall-...
Think she picked up £9 billion because she owns the seabed and we needed it for windfarms.
Nice!
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1395295/Queen-news-wind-farms-green-en...
> Think about the net worth of where you use your money. Ever shopped online? Drank Starbucks? Searched with Google? Have a Facebook account?
> The royals make a profit and the treasury keeps most of it. Net worth £370m ish.
> Amazon, pays just £14m in UK tax. Uses UK tax system to subsidise low pay. Bezos net worth $200Billion ish.
> Even on a UK rich list have look at the queen's position, She isn't even close to the top ten.
> Granted she's an easy target, but there are many others who could be paying vastly more in tax to fund UK services. But that's the uks tax choice folk have voted for for years. Low tax, high tax thresholds, marginal state services. The population gets what it votes and pays for.
> Ps. I think the Duke of Westminster is worth 10 times as much as the Queen.
World class whataboutism there Summo.
I said "laughing at the peasants banging the pots and pans." If your majesty was such a gem surely she could use her clout to sort out these other parasites in parliament. Maybe even ask her Tory pals to lay off the tax cuts for Bezos and co.
Instead what do you get? A speech on tv if you're lucky. Ok old mate Liz did get the builders back to work on the £349 000 000 buckingham renovation before the lockdown was finished so good to see she cares so much about keeping them in work. Think she was social distancing in Balmoral castle so done her bit staying home, staying safe. What a champ.
The whole monarchy thing is a distraction, it’s the shiny glossy tip of a large iceberg that exerts an unhealthy gravitational pull on British society, it’s economics and politics.
The fact it legally enshrines the principal that some people by right of birth and background are superior is wrong and this entitlement extends deep into our society and all the reforms since the 1930’s have had surprisingly little effect at the top, you only have to look at the cabinets from the last 12 years There is a reason the bullington club photo keeps coming up.
It’s seems unfashionable to refer to the “establishment “ as though it’s something we’ve dealt with but it never went away it just kept a lower profile.
Good old Liz has done a sterling job for the house of Windsor ensuring that during the period of greatest strides in socio economic development for the average citizen the throwback to feudal times that is the house of Windsor remained unchanged, unfortunately so did many of the other institutions at the top.
The landownership map of the U.K. looks little different in the 21st century as it did in the 19th.
> The landownership map of the U.K. looks little different in the 21st century as it did in the 19th.
That's total nonsense. Far more people own their own house than would have done back then. Unless you don't consider freehold to be land ownership, in which case you're getting into technicalities, as to all practical intents and purposes it is.
If you just view the Monarchy as a tourist attaction, it is a hugely successful and profitable one. There is of course the ethical question of whether it is acceptable to use people who have no choice in the matter as a tourist attraction; the main issue I have with the monarchy is whether it is an abuse of the members of the royal family - Harry and Meghan spring to mind.
> That's total nonsense. Far more people own their own house than would have done back then. Unless you don't consider freehold to be land ownership, in which case you're getting into technicalities, as to all practical intents and purposes it is.
yes more people own their own home but that is entirely separate from landownership as I’m sure your aware. Unless you really believe that your suburban house and the duke of Devonshire’s many estates are entirely equivalent.
https://www.newstatesman.com/life-and-society/2011/03/million-acres-land-ow...
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/whoownsengland.org/2019/01/11/the-holes-in-t...
> If you just view the Monarchy as a tourist attaction, it is a hugely successful and profitable one.
No it is not.
For context, the USA does not lack for tourists because of an absence of monarchy. Similarly no one goes on holiday to Spain to see the Spanish monarchy.
You are consumed by your own deference. Most non-British I know are 'entertained' by our Royal family (Fergie, Edward etc...) in a bad way, and laugh at our servility. Plenty more are horrified at how Charles runs his little fiefdoms and the excesses of the Queen Mum, Andrew etc...
They're embarrassing.
Stop your nonsense.
> For context, the USA does not lack for tourists because of an absence of monarchy. Similarly no one goes on holiday to Spain to see the Spanish monarchy.
But this is Britain, not just a former colony.
But this is the British monarchy, not just some minor European one.
And I make these points in all seriousness, not in some misplaced spirit of British exceptionalism. Who in north America could name the current Spanish monarch? Meanwhile the Queen is possibly the most recognised global figure and her family attracts global interest.
I didn't know that. Thanks.
> But this is the British monarchy, not just some minor European one.
Really, this is all in your head. It's exceptionalism.
> And I make these points in all seriousness, not in some misplaced spirit of British exceptionalism. Who in north America could name the current Spanish monarch? Meanwhile the Queen is possibly the most recognised global figure and her family attracts global interest.
Britney Spears attracts global interest. So what?
Prince Andrew attracts a LOT of interest at the moment.
Have you any evidence for your claim they're a hugely successful and profitable tourist attraction?
> Really, this is all in your head. It's exceptionalism.
No it's not. The British monarchy IS exceptional in its longevity and historical importance.
> Prince Andrew attracts a LOT of interest at the moment.
Indeed, and it is obviously bad for the monarchy's image. But this only reinforces my point - the activities of the British monarchy and the royal family attract huge international interest.
> Have you any evidence for your claim they're a hugely successful and profitable tourist attraction?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/royal-wed...
Constitutional issues/changes would need a 3 nation majority so England can't push the others around.
Just a minute, England has 83% of the population. By this idea 17% of the population could "push around" the other 83%.
Why are you putting England as a singular unit, when the various regions of England are both fundamentally different from London (& Westminster) and have greater (or FAR greater) populations than any of the "Celtic" nations.
I would say it reflects the fact that the UK is made up of three nations two with (to a greater or lesser extent) their own devolved parliament, one province/region also with its own parliament (albeit only occasionally used). That would probably need to be reflected. It is only for constitutional issues so really big changes. You would probably have to write something in about the nations becoming independent or uniting with Ireland as I couldn't see it being fair for the others to block this.
Personally I quite like the idea of regional assemblies, and I think you would get more local democracy by putting the local government/central government relations on a constitutional footing, but we have tried this and it wasn't particularly popular.
> yes more people own their own home but that is entirely separate from landownership as I’m sure your aware. Unless you really believe that your suburban house and the duke of Devonshire’s many estates are entirely equivalent.
Well, other than one being bigger than the other it effectively is, yes.
Freehold is de-facto ownership. Any concept of ownership is always going to be contractually and legally bound, as the whole concept of it is a legal construct based on the laws of the land.
No such thing as a land ownership map. I think it would shock a lot of people.
I'd have thought anyone who owned property wouldn't be surprised by that at all. When land is sold it does get registered, but of course a lot of it is proven only by the deeds, which is why those documents are so valuable.
It's no more surprising than the fact that if I buy a train ticket for cash the physical ticket is effectively the sole record of my right to make the journey it covers (unlike a flight, where it's in a database somewhere). It is just "old tech".
> No such thing as a land ownership map. I think it would shock a lot of people.
Good point, stick that in the what would you suggest as an alternative post.
Secrecy about wealth and land ownership is a big part of the symbolic power the monarchy embodies and as the recent evidence has shown they are not shy about using it, but they are shy about letting us know they are using it.
If we had a land ownership map then maybe the UK would be a bit less attractive to kleptocrats and oligarchs.
Obviously, if you wanted to know who actually owned what was listed on the map you would need to do something about the network of shell companies. Where would you base those then?
How about the Crown dependencies of British Overseas Territories.
Getting rid of the monarch might be a chance to do something about these in which case we would be doing the rest of the world a favour not just ourselves.
The information is available online from the Land Registry which funnily enough was privatised a few years back.
your being disingenuous with your false equivalence, Landownership dictates where houses are built, when they are built and how much that land is sold for, this land is in the hands of a small minority of people, the amount of land used for new development of housing in the last 40 years is probably less than is owned by the dukes of Britain.
> No it's not. The British monarchy IS exceptional in its longevity and historical importance.
No more so than monarchs in Egypt, India, Cina, Thailand. You are being seduced by contemporary culture.
> Indeed, and it is obviously bad for the monarchy's image. But this only reinforces my point - the activities of the British monarchy and the royal family attract huge international interest.
Said royal is alleged to be implicated in the predatory sexual activities of a convicted paedophile...I can sense the British pride puffing out your chest.
No tourist decides to come to the UK because of a Royal wedding. They might choose to coincide an already intended visit. The wedding will boost tat sales but I've yet to see evidence this offsets security costs or the billions they've helped themselves to from claimed rights over the seabed.
They should be privatised and people like yourself allowed to buy shares. If they are profitable then people like you will make a return.
I don’t believe there’s a perfect form of Head of Stateship but the advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that you don’t have competition for the job recurring every few years with candidates making fraudulent (or just unrealistic) promises to get voted in. We have to put up with that for the Parliament, thus determining the complexion of the executive, so it protects us from another layer of chaos.
But it needs to be a proper constitutional monarchy, one that doesn’t actually do anything....
> The only thing I would like to see removed from the Windsors apart from their role as head of state is a good chunk of their wealth.
Why? Who would remove it? And what would they do with it?
A good chunk of their wealth comes from their unjustifiable position as monarch so that proportion should probably go.
Their personal wealth is all a bit murky and while it is true the Queen pays tax, and is keen to let us all know she does, it seems very unlikely it is paid at the level that any other citizen of the UK would pay. So to answer who - the tax man.
> No more so than monarchs in Egypt, India, Cina, Thailand. You are being seduced by contemporary culture.
Last time I checked, neither Egypt nor India had a comtemporary living monarchy.
> Said royal is alleged to be implicated in the predatory sexual activities of a convicted paedophile...I can sense the British pride puffing out your chest.
At the moment I feel really quite embarrassed by being British. I am entirely concerned here with the pragmatic fact of the monarchy as a moneyspinner.
> No tourist decides to come to the UK because of a Royal wedding. They might choose to coincide an already intended visit. The wedding will boost tat sales but I've yet to see evidence this offsets security costs or the billions they've helped themselves to from claimed rights over the seabed.
Maybe not for a specific wedding, but the ongoing living, rather than fossilised, monarchy is a large part of the attraction.
> They should be privatised and people like yourself allowed to buy shares. If they are profitable then people like you will make a return.
I think privatising them would remove the mystique and allure they have as an active constitutional monarchy and so result in loss of revenue from them.
No its not. Only land that has changed hands relatively recently is on it and in any case you can't search it by a person's name to see what they own.
Quite right, its not exactly set up to make access to the information accessible.
> Last time I checked, neither Egypt nor India had a comtemporary living monarchy.
Not a claim I'm making and not the point i was responding to.
> At the moment I feel really quite embarrassed by being British. I am entirely concerned here with the pragmatic fact of the monarchy as a moneyspinner.
A pretty sickening view to want to expoit people as a 'moneyspinner'. The ROI of letting the royals scoop up rights to the seabed (as above, £2bn), in my mind would be better spent on education, the sick, the homeless & hungry.
> Maybe not for a specific wedding, but the ongoing living, rather than fossilised, monarchy is a large part of the attraction.
What attraction? Hollywood does it better if that's your thing. Celebrity can be monetised but why not celebrate those who achieve fame from doing something of value? Gates & Musk are far better role models.
> I think privatising them would remove the mystique and allure they have as an active constitutional monarchy and so result in loss of revenue from them.
"mystique and allure"? Again, this rubbish is living in your head rent-free.
> "mystique and allure"? Again, this rubbish is living in your head rent-free.
Mystique and allure is a pretty good description of the effect they have on the US media. For all their republicanism, they can’t get enough of the Royals.
> Mystique and allure is a pretty good description of the effect they have on the US media. For all their republicanism, they can’t get enough of the Royals.
Absolutely. Go through any supermarket checkout in the US and the gossip magazines are full of British royalty.
> Not a claim I'm making and not the point i was responding to.
OK, but the fact they are a living monarchy with a constitutional role as well as their longevity and history sets them apart.
> A pretty sickening view to want to expoit people as a 'moneyspinner'.
I expressed my reservations on that in my post at 11.22am
> What attraction? Hollywood does it better if that's your thing. Celebrity can be monetised but why not celebrate those who achieve fame from doing something of value? Gates & Musk are far better role models.
I wouldn't dispute that (though I think the Queen herself is a fantastic role model). I am simply making the point that the monarchy is a massive attraction as things stand.
> "mystique and allure"? Again, this rubbish is living in your head rent-free.
I really don't think it is. It is precisely what makes the royal family exceptional.
> I said "laughing at the peasants banging the pots and pans." If your majesty was such a gem surely she could use her clout to sort out these other parasites in parliament.
But that isn’t how a constitutional monarchy works. People would rightly get very upset if an unelected monarch started intervening directly in political matters. However, the subtle check of all legislation needing royal assent does cause legislators to pause and through her chats with the PM the Queen exercises her right to advise and warn that PMs find difficult to ignore.
And, again, what are you proposing as an alternative, that would have any chance of clear majority support?
> The information is available online from the Land Registry which funnily enough was privatised a few years back.
If it has been registered. Not all of it has.
> your being disingenuous with your false equivalence, Landownership dictates where houses are built, when they are built and how much that land is sold for, this land is in the hands of a small minority of people, the amount of land used for new development of housing in the last 40 years is probably less than is owned by the dukes of Britain.
I don't see this as a fundamental problem. Clearly we differ. I suspect your use of the term "landownership" means we're not discussing entirely the same thing, because I just see who owns land as, well, the person who owns it, nothing more conspiratorial than that. OK, some people own a lot more of it than I do (and many own less). So? I don't have a particular interest in owning lots of land, just enough of it for my house to sit on.
If you own land you can build houses on it (subject to planning consent etc). Plenty of people have a large garden and build a house on it.
There is plenty of available building land for the country's housing needs. The main problem is the wrong type of houses being built on it (i.e. large ones that make more profit than small ones) but that is not an issue of ownership. The reason land in some parts of the country is expensive is not a conspiracy, it's because of high demand to live there. It also happens in countries where the feudal history isn't the same.
The one area of land ownership I have a major issue with is leasehold (which isn't really land ownership anyway). But there are steps being taken to move towards solving that one.
Similarly no one goes on holiday to Spain to see the Spanish monarchy.
Who comes on holiday to the UK to strip down to their swimsuits and lie on the beaches in the sunshine ?
> Absolutely. Go through any supermarket checkout in the US and the gossip magazines are full of British royalty.
This comes up a lot so I thought I'd Google "US gossip magazines".
https://www.allyoucanread.com/top-10-celebrity-magazines/
Yeah, so no. The current crop of the top ten magazines feature dozens of slebs on their covers but only one small photo of Wills (fears for his health!) sandwiched between Lori someones? first night in prison and Halle Berry's new bike, but dwarfed by a 10x bigger photo of Kim Kardashian.
So it turns out this claim is as much bollocks as all the rest of the pro royal crap that people are always spouting.
> Personally I quite like the idea of regional assemblies, and I think you would get more local democracy by putting the local government/central government relations on a constitutional footing, but we have tried this and it wasn't particularly popular.
It was only put forward to the North East. The rest of us have never been asked.
> However, the subtle check of all legislation needing royal assent does cause legislators to pause and through her chats with the PM the Queen exercises her right to advise and warn that PMs find difficult to ignore.
This is the same Queen that umpteen people on here have insisted has no political power. FFS
> And, again, what are you proposing as an alternative, that would have any chance of clear majority support?
Oh, I don't know, 92% of the Globe have figured something out so I'm sure we could come up with some system that would prevent a 93 year old with no qualifications and minimal job history from swaying the country's legal and political processes on the sole grounds that her Daddy had a very shiny hat.
With the 'No' vote that killed the idea being one of Dom Cummings's first contributions to democratising the UK.
> Mystique and allure is a pretty good description of the effect they have on the US media. For all their republicanism, they can’t get enough of the Royals.
Not for the first time you've localized Royal appeal to thd Americans. How many Americans are coming to the UK to see the Royal family?
They DO want the Royals....well, they want Andrew. In court.
> Similarly no one goes on holiday to Spain to see the Spanish monarchy.
> Who comes on holiday to the UK to strip down to their swimsuits and lie on the beaches in the sunshine ?
>
Do the Spanish visit Ireland and Germany...?
> So it turns out this claim is as much bollocks as all the rest of the pro royal crap that people are always spouting.
It's anecdotal experience, but I've also noticed that the checkout mags in US supermarkets do seem quite keen on the UK royals. Mostly it appears to be trivial nonsense or speculation about trivial nonsense, but presumably it helps sell them. I assume I only really notice because it's such a markedly different approach to the UK press, which seems over recent years (post Saint Diana) to take - or pretends to take - a more measured approach.
That's not an argument to justify the monarchy, obviously. I suspect most people's lives wouldn't be noticeably diminished by not knowing the REAL reason Megan changed shampoo, revealed by palace insiders
> Yeah, so no. The current crop of the top ten magazines feature dozens of slebs on their covers but only one small photo of Wills (fears for his health!) sandwiched between Lori someones? first night in prison and Halle Berry's new bike, but dwarfed by a 10x bigger photo of Kim Kardashian.
Well it has either changed since my last trip to the US two hears ago or else my two week sample or your one week sample is unrepresentative.
> Well it has either changed since my last trip to the US two hears ago or else my two week sample or your one week sample is unrepresentative.
Perhaps you'd like to provide the relevant dates and I'll Google it for you?
> Perhaps you'd like to provide the relevant dates and I'll Google it for you?
First two weeks of April 2019.
> First two weeks of April 2019.
https://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2019/04/page-4.html
Only US gossip source I could come up with for April 2019: Over 120 "celebs" pictured, but just 4 Royals featured.
Hardly rammed with Royals then and rather a poor showing considering Meghan and Harry popped the sprog on May 6th
> Only US gossip source I could come up with for April 2019
Not the ones I was looking at at supermarket check outs. Maybe, as the title suggests, it is more Hollywood orientated.
> Not the ones I was looking at at supermarket check outs.
I don't want to appear tedious but I too have travelled to the States a couple of times and haven't been overly troubled by wall to wall Royal coverage. I've now provided links backing my own impression that you're mistaken. Would you like to provide any evidence to the contrary or would you prefer to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LaLaLaLa"?
> I don't want to appear tedious but I too have travelled to the States a couple of times and haven't been overly troubled by wall to wall Royal coverage. I've now provided links backing my own impression that you're mistaken. Would you like to provide any evidence to the contrary or would you prefer to just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "LaLaLaLa"?
I am only going on what I (and, it seems, others) distinctly remember from various trips to the US. Afraid I can't be bothered to spend time googling. Obviously royal stuff would have stood out for me because I wouldn't have recognised (or probably heard of) most of the others on the covers of these magazines.
> I am only going on what I (and, it seems, others) distinctly remember from various trips to the US. Afraid I can't be bothered to spend time googling.
Understandable. I find myself remarkably bored today
>Obviously royal stuff would have stood out for me because I wouldn't have recognised (or probably heard of) most of the others on the covers of these magazines.
That'd explain it. A form of retrograde visual confirmation bias, easily confused with actual documented reality but not the actual reality.
> Oh, I don't know, 92% of the Globe have figured something out.
Yes, large parts of the globe (China, Russia, US etc) give us something better to aspire to. Right.
There is plenty wrong with UK's democracy, but the monarchy is the least of it.
> Yes, large parts of the globe (China, Russia, US etc) give us something better to aspire to. Right.
> There is plenty wrong with UK's democracy, but the monarchy is the least of it.
The lack of a written constitution and the abuses of convention that took place over Brexit were far more of a concern than what Lizzie will ever do, agreed.
And the US is a great demonstration of why an elected head of state is not necessarily good.
> Yes, large parts of the globe (China, Russia, US etc) give us something better to aspire to. Right.
In the realm of “let’s not have gross hereditary privilege for one particular family enshrined in law”, yes, absolutely.
> There is plenty wrong with UK's democracy, but the monarchy is the least of it.
You think the Monarchy is the least of it? I’d have a harder think if I were you. About a dozen things sprung to my mind just while typing the previous sentence.
> That'd explain it. A form of retrograde visual confirmation bias, easily confused with actual documented reality but not the actual reality.
I don't think so. it would have been the same in the UK.
Here's an argument in favor of retaining the Royal Family..
If there's one lesson that working on extremely complex systems brings is the value of convention, evidenced by many disciplines in engineering, software and so on. The Royals are emblems of convention in a country plagued by political stupidity of all kinds.
> Here's an argument in favor of retaining the Royal Family..
> If there's one lesson that working on extremely complex systems brings is the value of convention, evidenced by many disciplines in engineering, software and so on. The Royals are emblems of convention in a country plagued by political stupidity of all kinds.
Or we could fund education & innovation, heal the sick, feed the hungry and, house the homeless?
Edit: The monarchists here would rather 100's of millions be pushed towards a single, billionaire family than doing the above. Incredible that they think there is a cultural or moral case for this. Staggering, really.
> You think the Monarchy is the least of it? I’d have a harder think if I were you. About a dozen things sprung to my mind just while typing the previous sentence.
In terms of the mechanism of state ? Go on then ...
Certainly FPTP and the house of Lords rank above any argument between a presidency or a monarchy in my mind.
I'm not talking about Royal family wealth distribution or hereditary privileges, which is a completely separate argument.
> In terms of the mechanism of state ? Go on then ...
being barred from calling out lying liars for lying in the commons
still copying public acts on vellum
black rod
bishops in the House of Lords
all that school boy booing and jeering in the house of commons
all the stupid and ridiculously expensive outfits carried over from centuries ago
formalised methods of address that add nothing but empty grandiosity
ermine...I mean ermine? really?
...I could go on a some length but in truth I already have. The enshrined hereditary role of one family in the nation's political process is worse than all these minor irritants.
> Certainly FPTP and the house of Lords rank above any argument between a presidency or a monarchy in my mind.
Yep, but since when do we only address the very worst issues and ignore everything else?
> I'm not talking about Royal family wealth distribution or hereditary privileges, which is a completely separate argument.
It's not a separate argument, it's made up a substantial part of the thread for the last 48 hours
> Edit: The monarchists here would rather 100's of millions be pushed towards a single, billionaire family than doing the above.
Who does?
a) Do you really think that education, healthcare and social security are underfunded because of the civil list?
b) Do you really think establishing an alternative head of state would be a net saving over a system where all the capital cost is already sunk?
To be clear, of course I think that the principle of such automatic hereditary privilege is indefensible. But, as an isolated anomaly, it’s a less terrible system than all the alternatives.
> Who does?
> a) Do you really think that education, healthcare and social security are underfunded because of the civil list?
> b) Do you really think establishing an alternative head of state would be a net saving over a system where all the capital cost is already sunk?
> To be clear, of course I think that the principle of such automatic hereditary privilege is indefensible. But, as an isolated anomaly, it’s a less terrible system than all the alternatives.
The billions they've creamed off and feel they are entitled to could go in to Sovereign fund. Their parasitic financial affairs continue as drag on us. The details above about windfarms at sea are a case in point.
Some 'isolated anomaly'. Get rid.
> Who does?
Monarchists
> a) Do you really think that education, healthcare and social security are underfunded because of the civil list?
I really, really think the money could be better spent. Especially considering that estimates of the true costs (direct costs plus security, costs to local councils, lost tax, lost mineral and land rights, etc) run to around £350 million pa. For what? ceremonial duties, interference in the political system and a profile on a tenner?
£350 million is quite a lot of cash. Coincidentally its the same annual budget as the North West Ambulance Service gets to pay and train 6300 staff, run 104 stations, 1000 vehicles and 3 control centres, responding to 1.5 million calls and covering 7.5 million people in Cumbria, Lancashire, Cheshire, Merseyside and Greater Manchester over an area of 5400 square miles.
Which do you reckon provides a better return on the money or a more valuable service to the nation?
> b) Do you really think establishing an alternative head of state would be a net saving over a system where all the capital cost is already sunk?
I dunno. We can all dream of a mythical land that's been stable for hundreds of years, untroubled by war, is rich, efficiently run and manages to look after their population without needing a head of state.
Well, I say dream. Or we could just ask the Swiss for a few tips. You see some of us aren't bothered about ceremonies, speeches and grandstanding, we'd just like a bit of boring competent administration with the minimum of bullshit and blather.
> To be clear, of course I think that the principle of such automatic hereditary privilege is indefensible. But, as an isolated anomaly, it’s a less terrible system than all the alternatives.
It's funny how many people on this thread have conceded that hereditary privilege is indefensible, while spending considerable effort defending it.
> Monarchists
> I really, really think the money ..... run to around £350 million pa......
> £350 million is quite a lot of cash......
What are you worried about, aren't we about to have £350 million a WEEK due to Brexit, and that's just for the NHS.
Tbh even if there was a financial argument for the monarchy I'd get rid. And I'd get rid of the rest of their class too. Those people are a blight on the country.
> Tbh even if there was a financial argument for the monarchy I'd get rid. And I'd get rid of the rest of their class too. Those people are a blight on the country.
Not related to Adolf Hitler are you ? Your proposal seems more like genocide to me.
> You see some of us aren't bothered about ceremonies, speeches and grandstanding, we'd just like a bit of boring competent administration with the minimum of bullshit and blather.
Fine. As seen in places like Denmark or Sweden or New Zealand or the Netherlands perhaps?
> Not related to Adolf Hitler are you ? Your proposal seems more like genocide to me.
Godwin!
Instead of death, you could just increase death duties to 70% after the first million. You could also clamp down on offshore tax arrangements.
> Godwin!
> Instead of death, you could just increase death duties to 70% after the first million.
You know they 40% already?
> >You see some of us aren't bothered about ceremonies, speeches and grandstanding, we'd just like a bit of boring competent administration with the minimum of bullshit and blather.
> Fine. As seen in places like Denmark or Sweden or New Zealand or the Netherlands perhaps?
No. Subtract ceremony, speeches and grandstanding from monarchy and what are you left with?
.....................................
> You know they 40% already?
Not for Queenie. For Queenie they're 0% and she only pays income tax if she wants to.
You don't think those countries are competently run?
Ceremony is a large part of monarchy, yes. Which is a key point. Power and governance isn't
Yes but Shani was talking generally.
> You don't think those countries are competently run?
> Ceremony is a large part of monarchy, yes. Which is a key point. Power and governance isn't
You aren't really getting it are you?
If, as 99% of monarchists keep insisting, constitutional monarchies have no power, you can't then turn round and congratulate them for how well run their countries are.
Personally, I see them as a complete waste of time, money and space
You don't have to have 'power' to be an important wheel in the mechanism of state.
> You aren't really getting it are you?
I think that you
> If, as 99% of monarchists keep insisting, constitutional monarchies have no power, you can't then turn round and congratulate them for how well run their countries are.
I didnt. My point, which you seem to be wilfully ignoring, is that monarchies are irrelevant to the competence of government.
Incidentally, the Swiss may not have a monarchy but they have plenty of ceremony and speeches.
> You know they 40% already?
Nope. The last Duke of Westminster was worth at least £8.5bn (that is £8,500,000,000, which, if you were paid the UK mean of £25,000 a year, would take you 340,000 years to earn).
Only £600,000,000 was subject to death duties because most of his wealth was in family trusts which largely passed on to his son Hugh, without incurring inheritance tax.
> You don't have to have 'power' to be an important wheel in the mechanism of state.
Read this back to yourself out loud. Do it again slowly if the contradiction still hasn't revealed itself.
Well that is (one of) the point of trusts - the money is no longer an individual's. Raising death duties wouldn't change the situation you just mentioned.
> Read this back to yourself out loud. Do it again slowly if the contradiction still hasn't revealed itself.
There is no contradiction, unless you imagine the state as power and nothing more.
Why cos I hate the wealthy landed classes who sit on inherited piles of money while people in this country struggle to put the rent together?
Nah. F*ck the lot of em. I don't want em to die, I just think we should take all their money and make them live like the rest of us. And before you say anything; yeah I'd absolutely do it to the wealthy without titles too.
I don't get why people don't see it. They live in luxury and don't give a f*ck about us. The Queen's personal wealth could feed and home every homeless person in the country but we don't because... she somehow deserves it? Nah. She's just another rich waste of space. They all are. In this country you're born into poverty while the Dukes inherit more money than 99.9% of people could dream of. That's immoral, and unjust, and wrong. So we take it and we fund public services, invest in communities. And if they don't like it, I couldn't give a single shit.
> Nope. The last Duke of Westminster was worth at least £8.5bn (that is £8,500,000,000, which, if you were paid the UK mean of £25,000 a year, would take you 340,000 years to earn).
> Only £600,000,000 was subject to death duties because most of his wealth was in family trusts which largely passed on to his son Hugh, without incurring inheritance tax.
Is it not a discretionary trust where you pay 6% of assets value, every 10 years, regardless of if you live or die? It spreads the tax bill and means they don't have to sell assets to pay in a single hit at death.
So to say they pay nothing is technically wrong and there's nothing to stop anyone putting family property in a trust.
> Nah. F*ck the lot of em. I don't want em to die, I just think we should take all their money
What would be the cut off for taking someone's money?
> Nah. F*ck the lot of em. I don't want em to die, I just think we should take all their money and make them live like the rest of us. And before you say anything; yeah I'd absolutely do it to the wealthy without titles too.
What would the cut off be?
> Well that is (one of) the point of trusts - the money is no longer an individual's. Raising death duties wouldn't change the situation you just mentioned.
I know. That's why i added the sentence, "You could also clamp down on offshore tax arrangements". I hoped that phrase would sufficiently encompass all those other tax instruments used only by the wealthy to protect their riches.
> There is no contradiction, unless you imagine the state as power and nothing more.
Perhaps a third time and even slower?
> What would the cut off be?
Axes are traditional over here... I certainly can't see us adopting the guillotine, post-Brexit, anyhow.
I think you probably don't have a point here.
Trusts are nothing to do with offshore arrangements. They are also easily available anyone, for varied reasons.
> You don't have to have 'power' to be an important wheel in the mechanism of state.
Yes, perhaps the monarch's importance is in having no power themselves but, at the same time, withholding power from someone else.
> Trusts are nothing to do with offshore arrangements.
I know. That's why i added the explainer, "I hoped that phrase would sufficiently encompass all those other tax instruments used only by the wealthy to protect their riches"
Trusts are available to everyone, you don't have to be rich. You are just ranting ignorantly at people you don't like because they have more money than you.
> Trusts are available to everyone, you don't have to be rich. You are just ranting ignorantly at people you don't like because they have more money than you.
In this case well over £8,499,000,000 more than me.
You reveal a lot about your own motivations to claim these are people I "don't like because they have more money than" me.
I'm financially comfortable and have no real material desires. I have very modest origins, so am happy with the material gains of a roof over my head and no fears (any longer) about paying the bills or putting food on the table.
What's significant is that the new and the old Dukes didn't earn their money. I think this isn't a model to aspire to. There are dangers to democracy of allowing people to amass such huge wealth.
As they say, if a monkey hoarded loads of bananas and forced the rest of the troop to share a single banana we'd get psychiatrists to study what the hell was wrong with its brain. When humans do it we put them on the cover of Forbes.
> Read this back to yourself out loud. Do it again slowly if the contradiction still hasn't revealed itself.
No, I'm happy with what I wrote. It doesn't seem a contradiction to me that there is an important role being played by someone who doesn't have any freedom to perform any other function than the one the role demands. That isn't power they wield. It's just part of the checks and balances in the running of state.
Let's go with a million quid, just cos nobody could reasonably be upset with "only" having a million.
If you've got more than that, it gets taken.
> It doesn't seem a contradiction to me that there is an important role being played by someone who doesn't have any freedom to perform any other function than the one the role demands. That isn't power they wield. It's just part of the checks and balances in the running of state.
Eh?
So if someone sets up a successful company and makes more than £1m its confiscated. I cant see this going well.
> Let's go with a million quid, just cos nobody could reasonably be upset with "only" having a million.
> If you've got more than that, it gets taken.
Have you worked out how much you'll likely earn in a life time? Add in sensible spending, inflation... a million isn't that vast anymore.
I've friend with views like you, her whole life, hating the rich. They are 50+ now, only ever worked part time, no pension, only ever rented, no assets.. their dad has had several businesses, but is ill and won't live many more years. He's offered to buy outright a £500k house for her, she's suddenly quite happy with trust funds, asset ownership and avoiding inheritance tax!
> Let's go with a million quid, just cos nobody could reasonably be upset with "only" having a million.
That's really going to cause some problems with the National Lottery and Euromillions 😁
> So if someone sets up a successful company and makes more than £1m its confiscated. I cant see this going well.
Let's keep this really simple (for my benefit), if that's ok? The new Duke of Devonshire inherited an £8,000,000,000 at the age of 26.
Is this fair (Y/N)?
> I've friend with views like you, her whole life, hating the rich. They are 50+ now, only ever worked part time, no pension, only ever rented, no assets.. their dad has had several businesses, but is ill and won't live many more years. He's offered to buy outright a £500k house for her, she's suddenly quite happy with trust funds, asset ownership and avoiding inheritance tax!
You've a friend who's managed to reach late middle age that's never worked full time, never grafted to accrue any assets or pension and yet is still set to inherit a shit load of unearned wealth? That's terribly unfair.
Also incredibly similar circumstances to the family under discussion. Is she royalty by any chance?
> Let's keep this really simple (for my benefit), if that's ok? The new Duke of Devonshire inherited an £8,000,000,000 at the age of 26.
> Is this fair (Y/N)?
It's obviously unfair from a material view but the inherited megabucks thing has never really bothered me. I can see plenty of obvious downsides for the individual concerned but more crucially anyone can inherit.
What's really unfair is having special legal, diplomatic and tax privileges as well as a billionaire lifestyle supported by the tax paying public. And all this just cos of who your Mummy is. It's wholly ridiculous as well as being socially, politically and morally corrosive on multiple levels.
> What's really unfair is having special legal, diplomatic and tax privileges as well as a billionaire lifestyle supported by the tax paying public. And all this just cos of who your Mummy is. It's wholly ridiculous as well as being socially, politically and morally corrosive on multiple levels.
Whereas I'm perfectly happy to live with a monarchy from a governance perspective, I think this part is spot on.
> I'm not suggesting anything unpleasant. The only thing I would like to see removed from the Windsors apart from their role as head of state is a good chunk of their wealth. The exact proportion of which could be decided by a transparent democratic process (personally, I would argue for enough for the older ones to live comfortably as private individuals whilst the younger ones might need a bit of retraining but can eventually earn a living for themselves ).
> Can anyone give me a reason why the UK should continue to select its head of state by hereditary principle from the Windsor family.
We end up like America!!!
> And that’s bad because?
One person with too much practical power. I oppose the alternative of presidential democracy as a result. Indeed, I favour a move towards the Cabinet having far less power but streamlining Parliamentary processes with modern technology so far more can go to a vote. For instance, if remote voting was possible, things like COVID lockdowns could have had an immediate emergency vote carried out.
Of course that wouldn't preclude a ceremonial President, but they would essentially have the same issues as the monarchy.
I definitely don't find the idea of executive orders acceptable in the slightest.
> Let's keep this really simple (for my benefit), if that's ok? The new Duke of Devonshire inherited an £8,000,000,000 at the age of 26.
> Is this fair (Y/N)?
a) He didn't, it's in a trust b) what does £8bn mean? c) what does fair mean? d)Would taxing this at xxx% result in a better situation? Reducing questions like "How should £8bn in assets be owned and managed?" y/n isn't possible. Almost certainly things could and should be changed and improved but your initial suggestion of death duties at 70% wouldn't have the effect you seem to think it would. I suspect focussing on the Amazon's and Facebooks would be a better place to start than those with nominal huge wealth that is largely tied up in land and property.
At the moment people are born and die in poverty. It's not going well for them, but won't someone think of the poor millionaires?
We can discuss where we draw the line. But tbh I don't really think society benefits from wealthy people and it definitely would benefit from that money being used to help deprived communities and people in poverty.
All these social ills could be taken care of if we stripped the aristocratic class of their wealth and used it for the betterment of society. I genuinely don't understand why people think that's a bad idea or immoral. It's immoral for them to have that much money while living in a society where homeless people freeze to death in winter, or have to sell themselves sexually to get off the streets and into a house for a night. Society is increasing unequal. But hey, so long as these people can buy sports cars and yachts right?
Is it the wealthy or the aristocratic you have a problem with? They aren't the same.
I think we can all agree having people on the streets is bad. The question is whether confiscating money from the wealthy solves the problem. History suggests it doesn't.
> Society is increasing unequal.
Is that actually true? I'm not sure it is. Doesn't detract from the rest of your post of course.
The poor were much poorer (and the rich just as rich) in Victorian times, for example.
This is always used as an argument. Why not? If I confiscated everything over ten million from the wealthy class of society, who would suffer? They would still be wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the vast majority of people, and we could use that money to literally save lives. We could make deprived communities flourish again. We could make our environment less polluted and give people properly first rate world class services. We could improve education, health healthcare, public transport...
What's the cost? That the wealthy are now just wealthy rather than disgustingly, sickeningly wealthy? Who wouldn't pay that price? The only people who benefit from their wealth are them, not us. I just don't understand why people want to preserve that. Like I just don't get it.
And when people say "well I don't know that could not work out" the way it is now isn't working out! Look at the state of some of the communities in this country. They're dying. It's not working for them, and we could do something about it, but we choose not to. Because...?
Edit: the wealthy and aristocratic both tbh. The aristocrats without wealth I'd abolish just because I'm opposed to the idea of their class. It's ridiculous and archaic that some people can call themselves Lords cos their Dad was a Lord.
> Is it the wealthy or the aristocratic you have a problem with? They aren't the same.
> I think we can all agree having people on the streets is bad. The question is whether confiscating money from the wealthy solves the problem. History suggests it doesn't.
It's not a confiscation. Its unearned income and the price of growing up in a developed economy.
Much of the wealth is defined by the society in which those assets are held; it is 'our' economic activity that imbues his assets with value.
The problem is how concentrated wealth and assets stymies innovation & productivity.
Considering I don't even live there it says something that I have been thoroughly depressed at the state of the place for the last four years.
> At the moment people are born and die in poverty. It's not going well for them, but won't someone think of the poor millionaires?
> We can discuss where we draw the line. But tbh I don't really think society benefits from wealthy people and it definitely would benefit from that money being used to help deprived communities and people in poverty.
> All these social ills could be taken care of if we stripped the aristocratic class of their wealth and used it for the betterment of society. I genuinely don't understand why people think that's a bad idea or immoral. It's immoral for them to have that much money while living in a society where homeless people freeze to death in winter, or have to sell themselves sexually to get off the streets and into a house for a night. Society is increasing unequal. But hey, so long as these people can buy sports cars and yachts right?
I wouldn't say the aristcratic wealthy are a good thing but, looking at America and Russia, it hasn't made much difference
> This is always used as an argument. Why not? If I confiscated everything over ten million from the wealthy class of society, who would suffer? They would still be wealthy beyond the wildest dreams of the vast majority of people, and we could use that money to literally save lives. We could make deprived communities flourish again. We could make our environment less polluted and give people properly first rate world class services. We could improve education, health healthcare, public transport...
> What's the cost? That the wealthy are now just wealthy rather than disgustingly, sickeningly wealthy? Who wouldn't pay that price? The only people who benefit from their wealth are them, not us. I just don't understand why people want to preserve that. Like I just don't get it.
We have a progressive tax system for that. Not progressive enough in my opinion but there you go, democracy and all that. Rather than saying "you've got £20 million, I'm having half of it" we'd be better off closing down all the little schemes, trusts and off shore accounts that facilitate the very rich in avoiding paying their dues to society, but in reality that'd take a Global rather than national effort though British offshore tax havens are certainly a national disgrace.
Nobody is entirely "self made" it takes a society to build wealth, whether that's individual or communal wealth. The extraordinarily wealthy would do well to remember that.
> And when people say "well I don't know that could not work out" the way it is now isn't working out! Look at the state of some of the communities in this country. They're dying. It's not working for them, and we could do something about it, but we choose not to. Because...?
Which communities are dying? Sink estates have been around as long as I have, sense of community within them more aligned with self preservation than mutual support and for the majority of residents absolute poverty of aspiration has been a more entrenched and damaging issue than absolute poverty.
The main problem with what you propose is that it simply doesn't work. It's been tried many times, normally failing dismally such as with communism. Denmark and Sweden have probably come closest to making it happen but they still have plenty of rich people. There are various reasons including
-There would be little motive to develop a businesses etc if you knew once the successful the state would take it.
-Like it or not, many rich people are highly capable and can move if they feel they will lose their money, leading to general loss of talent.
None of which is to say I disagree with higher taxes if thought through but "take the money the greedy bastards don't need it" isn't the way forward.
> It's not a confiscation. Its unearned income
Starting a business and making a success of it is not "unearned".
> Considering I don't even live there it says something that I have been thoroughly depressed at the state of the place for the last four years.
Thing is, it’s been like that for a much longer time. Trump just brought it to the surface.
Do you give away much of your spare money, Andrew?
> Do you give away much of your spare money, Andrew?
I'm sure he gives everything over 10 million
I do give to charity monthly (currently guide dogs and a conservation foundation), and of course I pay taxes. I'm not anything close to wealthy, I earn less than the national average (but I live in Sheffield and I'm lucky enough to have been able to buy my apartment, so don't exactly scape by).
So if your question is "do I feel like a hypocrite" the answer is a firm no. I feel like everyone in this country deserves at least the standard of living I have; and a lot of them don't get it through no fault of their own. But a lot of people sit on estates worth million or billions, and that's just immoral and wrong. And inefficient!
> Starting a business and making a success of it is not "unearned".
Straw man. This is not a claim I'm making. In my examples above neither the Duke of Westminster nor the Queen are starting a business.
> Straw man. This is not a claim I'm making. In my examples above neither the Duke of Westminster nor the Queen are starting a business.
We aren't talking about them anymore - keep up.
> Why cos I hate the wealthy landed classes who sit on inherited piles of money while people in this country struggle to put the rent together?
> Nah. F*ck the lot of em. I don't want em to die, I just think we should take all their money and make them live like the rest of us. And before you say anything; yeah I'd absolutely do it to the wealthy without titles too.
> I don't get why people don't see it. They live in luxury and don't give a f*ck about us. The Queen's personal wealth could feed and home every homeless person in the country but we don't because... she somehow deserves it? Nah. She's just another rich waste of space. They all are. In this country you're born into poverty while the Dukes inherit more money than 99.9% of people could dream of. That's immoral, and unjust, and wrong. So we take it and we fund public services, invest in communities. And if they don't like it, I couldn't give a single shit.
I think your statement simply underlines the point that this thread has nothing to do with raising up the level of the "ordinary man or woman in the street", and is really all about plain simple jealousy.
I assume your idea of anyone with too much money is actually anyone with more money than yourself.
And what would happen if you got rid of the monarchy, and instead appointed one of your own as Head of State - the likelihood they'd go the same way as Stalin (& his cronies) with their multiple country estates and city mansions is pretty high - just look at every (so-called) Communist/Socialist country in the world.
> Let's go with a million quid, just cos nobody could reasonably be upset with "only" having a million.
> If you've got more than that, it gets taken.
OK, lets assume I have "just" one million.
And then maybe, my wife (if I had one) has another million.
Then our (imaginary) 4 children apparently have a million each.
Then say I have a company that makes and sells widgets, that's worth a lot more millions. This company has a few properties (home and abroad) that it "kindly" allows me and my imaginary family to live in, rent free, as part of my "pay". Similarly I get the use of company cars - again free, gratis and for nothing.
Now how far has that "one million" been stretched ??
Oh, and you can't tax the company or its' assets, because it's based abroad, in a country with more sensible tax arrangements, which, whilst not being a "freebie" tax haven, do allow people to make and keep a lot of money and property, whilst paying a reasonable sum in tax for the privilege.
All your idea will do is send people abroad, and then they wouldn't be paying ANY tax here. How would that help the less well off ?
> Have you worked out how much you'll likely earn in a life time? Add in sensible spending, inflation... a million isn't that vast anymore.
> I've friend with views like you, her whole life, hating the rich. They are 50+ now, only ever worked part time, no pension, only ever rented, no assets.. their dad has had several businesses, but is ill and won't live many more years. He's offered to buy outright a £500k house for her, she's suddenly quite happy with trust funds, asset ownership and avoiding inheritance tax!
There seem to be quite a few of these "poor little rich kids" who are "pseudo-socialists", always the most vocal complaining about the "rich". Until of course they acquire money/property themselves (usually through inheritance). They then turn into the most right wing reactionaries you've ever seen.
> All these social ills could be taken care of if we stripped the aristocratic class of their wealth and used it for the betterment of society. I genuinely don't understand why people think that's a bad idea or immoral. It's immoral for them to have that much money while living in a society where homeless people freeze to death in winter, or have to sell themselves sexually to get off the streets and into a house for a night. Society is increasing unequal. But hey, so long as these people can buy sports cars and yachts right?
As soon as a government started debating any such bill in parliament, if there was any remote chance of it succeeding hen everyone with more money than the cut-off point would leave for (financial) sunnier climes. Then all the jobs they provided would disappear, so would their taxes. You'd be left with more unemployed, and less wealth to look after them with.
> I do give to charity monthly (currently guide dogs and a conservation foundation), and of course I pay taxes. I'm not anything close to wealthy, I earn less than the national average (but I live in Sheffield and I'm lucky enough to have been able to buy my apartment, so don't exactly scape by).
You earn less than the average wage - the "average wage" includes the very wealthy, so the MEDIAN wage is considerably less, probably two thirds of the "average", if that. So if you earn more than two thirds of the "average" then you're one of the "rich" that you wish to take money off.
You have been able to buy your apartment - don't you know that "all property is theft" according to the "true" socialists.
Don't know how old you are, so can't tell how quickly you've become a property owner, but you do sound very much like someone who regards all those with more money than yourself as having too much, whilst you of course are just about right.
In a few years time, when you have a more expensive property, a higher income, and some other savings - where will you then be placing your "cut-off point" for the rich ?