UKH

I see the queen has had a £9 billion windfall from renting off "her" seabed to the wind farm companies. 

This money will come from our electricity bills, and many are struggling in these difficult times to pay them. I would suggest she shows leadership and donates the windfall to the NHS.

That's an interesting thought - let the Queen determine how her/our money should be spent. This month, she can bung it to the NHS - next month, maybe buy a few fighters for 'her' aircraft carrier... We don't really need a government at all!

I suggest getting rid of her and her horrible lot altogether.

So cancel the civil list approach and tell her to pay it all and if she runs low she can come and ask parliament to create a tax?

Nice work by Osborne who changed the civil list so it was a percentage of the crown estate but could never drop beneath a certain level.

There's suggestions of her creating a climate change fund which would potentially save more lives than the NHS will.

On balance I disagree. There's a job to be done - being a figurehead for the country - and on balance I think it's better done by someone non-political, as in UK, Netherlands, and Scandinavia, rather than someone elected but without power (Germany, Ireland) or someone elected with power (USA and France). The latter is the worst option in my view as at any one time around half the population don't feel represented by "their" Head of State.

William will do the job well. Charles will be better than many expect. So I don't see any need to change the system soon. I fully agree that the band of "hangers on" should not be supported. Just the immediate family. And the royal trappings should be reduced - much as in Scandinavia.

Martin

Do you mean changing of the guard.? A superb event which I would highly recommend to anybody visiting London.It makes it more real that it is not a so called tourist event.

Is there?

Figurehead, interesting etymology. It comes from its original meaning, the figures carved at the front of old sailing ships. Sailors were almost universal in their belief that the figurehead was vital to protect and guide the ship.

Turns out that was just a bollocks old superstition and modern ships with no figurehead are far safer.

That wasn't what I meant so perhaps I chose the wrong word.

I meant doing things on our behalf - on behalf of all the people, not just a faction of the people who voted for whoever holds the post at the time. So that includes presenting honours (not convincing if you think the whole honours system is outdated of course) opening and presenting trophies at major sporting events, supporting charities, speaking at times of national crisis to draw everyone together. It's not a long list. It only needs two or three people involved. But I feel happier having a non-political royal family to do this than a political leader. 

The stock answer to anti-royalists 30 years ago was "President Thatcher". Now it might be "President Johnson". "President Trump" should be warning enough. 50 years ago I was proud to receive my D of E Gold Award from Prince Philip. As it happens I wouldn't have been too reluctant to receive it from Harold Wilson, but more reluctant from Ted Heath, and decidedly dischuffed it it had been Margaret Thatcher. I doubt I'd have gone. As for Trump........

Martin

Having a monarchy is obviously a ridiculous and anachronistic arrangement in this day and age ... until you try and think of an alternative. Societies are complicated affairs with all sorts of competing and overlapping interests, pressure groups, special groupings, tribal loyalties, the monarchy is just one more batty institution that vaguely holds everything together.

Which was piss poor then and still is now.

Regardless of whether you are a fan of Margaret Thatcher or not I think the one thing everyone can agree on is not having Mark take over just because he is her offspring is a good thing.

Whereas with the royals we get what we are given. Just think we could have had King Andrew.

When we look at North Korea we can see how ridiculous inherited power structures are. Chuck in claims of divine intervention and it really is laughable. But once imprinted with religious/royal servility, it's hard to shake.

Of course the big danger of inherited power structures is that sooner or later that power ends up in the hands of an imbecile (and sometimes a dangerous one).

I think Trump was proof that power ending up in the hands of imbeciles isn't confined to inherited succession.

On the original point, I think it is ludicrous that one of the richest people in the U.K. is going to receive £2bn. from the installation of electricity generation in our coastal waters. That’s around £70 per household to keep her in palaces. Osborne’s decision to change the civil list for political expedience, was an expensive decision. 

He's a great example. He inherited wealth and access to a powerful address book. Both are a transfer of power.

Due to their written constitution and their elected status, the German president is far from powerless. They frequently refuse to approve legislation if it is deemed  unconstitutional (I think 8 times in the last 8 years). 
It is unlikely that the German president would have accepted prorogation. The Queen only uses here constitutional powers on Australian prime ministers. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-...

Yet she likes to lobby for a lot of things. Why would she want to hide her private wealth?

I completely agree about a non-political figurehead but a hereditary monarchy seems to be far from the best alternative!

My suggestion would be it is treated much like a chairman of a large charity board or master of an oxbridge college, - an appointment for a longish fixed term (~5-10 years) with a generous stipend and all the fancy clothing you need for official functions, appointed by a board with the criteria that the candidate is a UK citizen who is appropriately dignified, good at making small talk at functions, and who has made a substantial contribution to the progress of humanity as a whole. I would find it incredibly inspiring to be in a country with say Roger Penrose as head of state whereas I'm mildly embarrassed to be in one with Brenda at the top of the tree. A nobel prize seems a better qualification than the right parents, and you can always sack them if they start making off-colour comments or hang out with dodgy people in pizza express.

Ah, but the Kim's haven't got the might of Fleet Street to keep them on the straight and narrow

How straight and how narrow did Fleet Street make Prince Andrew's "straight & narrow"?

You're right. Who could possibly think of an alternative? I mean, if say three quarters of the World's countries were managing to rock along without all that bowing and scraping to a bunch of Royals then maybe those Republicans might have a point, but the reality is....

Oh! hang on a minute!!!

The Monarch doesn't have any power, it's in the hands of Parliament and the Prime Minister.

This showed up in the news today https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-100...

Oh dear. I don't really know where to start with this.

Perhaps watch today's Royal news?

Good point. Stupid republicans just look at the House of Saud and North Korea for fine examples of why hereditary power is best.

They're only acting on behalf of the faction of people who think royals are a good idea.  I want nothing to do with them.  Imposing royals on people who don't want royals is worse than temporarily imposing an elected leader on people who didn't vote for them.

And what happens when we get a really scummy royal like the queen's uncle who liked the nazis or one that makes racist comments, or (completely hypothetically)  one that likes shagging underage girls  Can't chuck the c*nts out like you can with an elected figurehead.

I reckon if we want royals they should only get to be queen for a year and they should choose them with a reality TV show.

If by the Queens uncle you mean Edward the 8th then you need to check your last line

I'm thankful that most Scottish people I know and I know lots, are absolutely nothing like you. 

They could get rid of Trump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII

Read the bit about the second world war.

The Queen in this case being the Crown estate, whose profits go to the treasury? And so quite possibly the NHS...

That used to be true. Since 2011, the monarch gets a significant share. Was 15%, currently 25% goes to the Queen. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011. So over £2bn of our electricity bills is not going to the treasury. But hey, it saves those awkward negotiations of the civil list. 

I hope your last comment isn't serious.

I may be naïve but I've always assumed that getting rid of the royal family (their role, not them personally) would be relatively straightforward. But first it would need a majority of the population in favour of the move. In that situation we would either need to elect a party to government with a manifesto commitment to either remove the monarchy directly, or to call a binding referendum on the issue. It would then happen. The big hurdle for anti-monarchists would be persuading the majority of the population - but that's democracy.

As Dr S mentions in another post, the 1930's abdication crisis demonstrated that, even 60 years ago, the real power did not lie with the monarch.  

Martin

Regardless of the issue of whether the monarch wields real power of any kind, I would contend that the monarchy is at the apex of a outdated undemocratic system in which we have an unelected second chamber and a  totally unrepresentative first chamber. To my mind, the failings of British democracy are all of a piece, a desperate reactionary action against proper and fair representation. 

That would be the Crown Estate whose profits go to the Treasury ?

Of all the problem UK democracy has, monarchy is probably the least I’d worry about.

See above. They get a cut now. 

But the OP was effectively implying that it goes in the Queen's back pocket, which it obviously doesn't.

Looks to me like if this income does arrive (and I see nobody's given any sources), then the result will be an overlarge reserve for the Sovereign Grant - with the probable end result that in the long term a lot of this will go on keeping the palaces in good repair rather than needing further funding from Parliament/Treasury.

I would disagree that the issues you raise are "all of a piece". For me, by far the most urgent to deal with is our outdated first chamber. A first move in the right direction would have been the Alternative Vote". I campaigned for that. It wasn't a perfect solution, but it would have resolved two key issues. The lack of influence felt by millions of voters in safe seats, and the sea-saw nature of our current politics. The second because parties can only gather second preference votes by gravitating to the centre rather than to their respective extremes. But the vote was lost. As on other issues, when vested interests meet a gullible public, vested interests prevail.

Symbolically, the House of Lords is a dreadful anachronism. But, in practice, it does its job quite well. I'd favour incremental reform - reducing or eliminating the inherited peerages would make sense, but we're quite a long way down that road already. 

I think I've had my say on the monarchy. The least important to reform in my view. Less bloated, less ostentatious would be good. I may be proved wrong, but I've hopes that William will want to encourage that when his time comes. Some of the best, and most democratic, places to live in this world have constitutional monarchies, so they can't be that bad.

Martin

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-...

The proposition that "The Monarch doesn't have any power" is so imbecilic that I can only assume you are trolling.  If you're not trolling then .... oh dear.

My point exactly.

Although having a Royal Family, and how it's funded, is full of anachronisms, the merits (or lack) of which can be debated, I don't think that's the issue here.

I think in practice, as long as the Royal Family (at around its present size) and its palaces are kept, this windfall won't make any difference to the Treasury (i.e. what you and I pay for) in the long run, although it will affect the timings of where the money is.

Here's my thinking:

The Royal Family (including the Palaces) cost a certain amount to run. This is effectively paid for by the Treasury and by income from the Crown Estate. If the CE has less income, the Treasury pays more and visa versa; the Treasury is effectively a top-up for the costs of running the RF.

So this windfall for the CE will give it a healthy balance which will reduce the Crown's future "demands" on the Treasury. If the Treasury payments can be totally stopped if the CE has too big a balance then it will take some years before "you & I" need to fork out again. If some kind of minimum payment from the Treasury has to be made to the CE, then it will take (much?) longer to equal out but it will eventually get there.

However, I think there is some kind of limit on the amount that can be held by the CE compared to its expenditure (i.e. a limit on reserves) in which case any "excess" would go to the Treasury (i.e. reduce what you & I need to pay).

Having said all that, other changes could speed all of this up; reform of the RF (i.e. downsizing) or reform of the funding legislation.

Or we could just abolish the Monarchy (when Lizzie dies), give the immediate members a pension of £100k a year and a modest country house, take back all the relevant jewels and estates (they're national assets and could be hotels  museums, tourist attractions etc....), make them pay tax and use the CE income to fund the NHS. This plan would also end their malign interference in government.

If you want to regard it as national assets maybe they could be working a lot harder for us and bringing in more for the NHS if the royals weren't using them as private houses and country estates.

But the single worst problem with royals and aristocracy is the message it sends to society about money and power being inherited and there being no way for anybody not from particular families to rise to be head of state or own large tracts of the countryside because they've been in the same family's hands for hundreds of years.   Effective capitalism needs wealth to move around more so the hardest workers doing the most useful work for the present day have a chance of getting the best stuff.   Getting rid of the monarchy and aristocracy is part of the transformation into a modern society.

The problem with abolishing the monarchy (and I do agree that you wouldn't invent something as weird today - basically prominence because your dad's dad's dad's was good at bopping people on the head), is what do you replace it with that makes people's lives in the UK better.

I've yet to hear concrete proposals (rather than vague waffle) that would do that. Just saying "we could have a President" or similar doesn't make it a good thing - what would we (the UK) lose, what would we gain - in detail - would the new situation be better?

Just because something's not perfect or because we don't like it isn't a good enough reason to get rid of it until we're sure of a better alternative.

Huge constitutional reform would also be required and I'd bet that a lot of necessary changes would get twisted in ways that we wouldn't like.

Where progress could be made is slimming down the RF and having a clearer division between the RF's private property and the assets of the state - which I'll bet is a big grey area.

At least they've got rid of male primogeniture - it's a start.

That'd make a lot more sense if it wasn't for the fact that 92% of the World's population are managing without monarchy.

You're argument boils down to:

 "it's all very well proposing we abolish the horse drawn carriage but what on Earth will you replace it with?"

A less financially parasitic entity.

Is it really beyond the wit of the British to come up with something?

You've already said you wouldn't invent something as weird today. That line of reasoning applies. 

Why complicate it? Remove them.

By what justification should you trim it down? If you believe these people  dropped out of some God-ordained magic vagina, you have to own the implication of that. (Otherwise why not trim it down to 0?)

Yes, it does make you ridiculous.

Like i said, when we look at North Korea it is much easier to laugh at 'monarchal' structures.

But what's ok for 92% of the population may not be best for us - following the majority is not a very valid argument except for becoming part of a safe mediocrity.

Also, 92% haven't got rid of a monarchy (although a fair amount have). Are those who've got rid of a constitutional monarchy better off overall?

Personally, I'd like to see a long-term direction of downsizing & reform - and then if necessary consider whether to keep the monarchy. At the moment we're treating it like a binary question - look where that got us with Brexit.

They'd still be a rather wealthy family if we got rid of their status as the RF. A slimmed down RF would be less "financially parasitic". And how financially parasitic are they anyway - this is one of the areas that I think needs more clarity with split between what the RF as "people" own (should all be taxable) and what the Crown Estate owns (no point in taxing something owned by the state).

All these headlines about the cost come up but the overall financial picture is very murky.

Well look how we've f**ked up Brexit from start to finish - so yes it might be beyond our wit as a country (even if individually it's not).

The risk is that you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

How has having a Monarch had a positive impact on your life? concrete examples rather than vague waffle?

Feudalism and hereditary power structures have been pretty much a universal stage for every society that has transitioned beyond hunter gatherer.

Have these societies been better off post monarchy? Yeah, but only financially, socially, politically and morally.

I'm not treating it as binary. I'm not even fussed about abolishing them. As far as I'm concerned they can wear all the gold hats they want, award each other all the honours and medals they like, potter around the country in private trains and pretend that who your Mum was means you're a very special little soldier.

All I want is that they obey the same laws as everyone else, have no special access to government like everyone else, pay taxes like everyone else and have as much right to interfere in the legal system as everyone else. Plus they're billionaires, so is it really too much to ask that they stop reaching into my familiy's pockets to fund their billionaire lifestyles?

What is this 'baby'? What advantage does a monarchy bring?

Would Pippa's bottom at W&K's wedding count?

So, you are a fan of the monarchy, and fair enough, more than half of the country is. 
But, re the OP, do you think it’s valid for the Queen to get a 0.5% cut of every kW of electricity generated offshore? 
Is it appropriate in a modern state, for one person to have inherited ownership rights on most of our coastal waters? I don’t know if this is the case in any other western democracy? It seems unlikely. Does the King of Norway get rich from North Sea oil, or the Queen of Denmark from all their wind farms? 

Try reading the thread, the Queen does not get the money, the Crown Estate does. You're making out that it's going straight into her purse which is complete rubbish. 

I doubt it has much (if any) effect on her personal wealth.

Having said that, I agree that it's ridiculous that money from these coastal rights aren't going into the treasury directly. Any funding of the RF should be transparent (or at least as transparent as other areas of government spending) and subject to audit by the National Audit Office (maybe it is already - I've no idea).

I'm not a complete fan of the monarchy, I'd be much happier with something a lot closer to the Belgian or Danish setup.

What would we lose, mainly some of the UK's historical heritage, but any benefits from that are very subtle. The RF helps with tourism (the Americans love the RF) but I think that would be difficult to quantify on a financial basis - but not everything should be quantified on a financial basis.

One logical extension of the "get rid of the RF" is for nobody to be able to inherit wealth. Not many are demanding that.

This is quite the claim. Do you really think that people come to the UK to see the RF? It might be on the agenda to see Buck House, but actually seeing the queen is unlikely much of a pull. Even events like a royal wedding have been found to only lead to tourists looking to coincide their UK visit; it was  not a primary driver. Besides, they're rare.

Eh? 

She didn't inherit it. She appropriated it in the Crown Estate Act of 1961.

In 1897, there was a test case at the appeal court  brought by an Essex yacht club to establish a right for anyone to place a mooring in the sea bed, if done with regards to other's right to safe navigation. The Master of the Rolls ruled that it was permitted as part and parcel of said right of navigation "and not a right to be granted by the Sovereign". 

But when they were hoovering up all the mineral rights prior to the granting of licences for North Sea oil exploration, the Crown also instigated its ownership of all the sea bed from the high tide line. So what had been a 'right' for millennia, was stripped from ordinary people and now use of any inch of the sea bed involves a fee payable to the Crown Estate, Duchy of Cornwall or Duke of Lancaster.

I never understand this. if you're interested in heritage, look at visitor figures for Versailles. Versailles visitor figures outscore all the British royal sites by a factor of about 2.5. As a tourist draw, having a live royal family doesn't appear to be nearly as successful as having a dead one. 

Queenie gets 25% of crown estates profit

£82.2 million in 2019

Not very transparent at all. Queenie gets all sorts of special exemptions from public scrutiny.

What for? The only benefit you've come up with for UK Royals is the old chestnut "Cos Tourism". We can put that one to bed right now...have you ever heard anyone suggest they were visiting Denmark or Belgium, even partly, cos of their Royal family? 

We've done tourism. If we stop paying the Royals, stop giving them privileged access to the government and expect them to follow the same legal and taxation rules as everyone else, what historical heritage would we be losing exactly? 

No, nobody has demanded that. If you could explain why its perfectly fair for the Queen to be the only person in Britain that doesn't pay inheritance tax though?

Up from 15% whilst they refurb Buck Place, then should go back down to 15%

Not in her pocket though - it's for official Royal duties.

Shouldn't get special exemptions unless it's to stop money going round in a circle with the Treasury, but the Sovereign Grant is audited by the NAO and is apparently more transparent than the previous arrangement.

I'm not exactly sure how to express this - the RF is part of the "character" of the country. If you remove the RF, the character of the UK will change over time because of that. Will that change be what people (who want to remove the RF's privileged position) want?

Agree that their private wealth should be subject to same legal & tax rules although there's a bit of a problem with the way the law is constituted in the UK. 

Again, on private wealth, I agree.

I don't expect tax payers to pay for my modest gaff to be reroofed but her Maj expects the public to fork out for the upkeep of all seven of her huge UK homes. 

She can spend it how she likes, "official duties" is the excuse. To be fair she did work 117 days in 2019 which is pretty good for a 93 year old, but that works out at just over £700,000 per day.

Personally speaking, if I was attending the opening of say a new outdoor pursuits centre, I'd be much more stoked to see Alex Honnold cutting the ribbon than a bored 93 year old and I can absolutely assure you that your average squaddie would much rather Margot Robbie was pinning brag rags to their chest than old Queenie.

Not sure what slebs are charging for personal appearances but I doubt Alex will be wanting 3/4 of a mil.

They get all sorts of special treatment. The sovereign grant itself is special treatment.

The RF is a ludicrous anachronism enshrining forelock tugging, toadyism and the idea that people should be regarded as special because of who Mummy and Daddy are and not because of who they are. We're all on board with the idea that words are important, how you address people, what you call them and that you afford them equal respect. So what does all the formalised bowing and scraping and unearned titles and honours teach our kids about equality and respect?

Further, if we accept words are important in every day life how much more important is the wording of legally binding oaths? You want to join the police, army, airforce, become an MP or a British citizen...well you've got to swear an oath and the very first line will see you swearing allegiance to the Queen. How nuts is that in a modern country?

The word "work" is doing a shit-load of heavy lifting here. If a royal attends a Wimbledon final (chauffeur driven to/from, sits in a private box with full waiter attendance and refreshments included), it is classed as an "engagement" and thus "work".

This is very true but everything is subjective, after all, Charlie finds putting his own toothpaste on his toothbrush too much effort and Kate was bemoaning the challenges of lockdown parenting with just the normal household staff plus two full time nannies...poor loves.😂