Britain: Dump the monarchy?

[mdwh]

Well, option 2 would be an obvious choise, but yes, I would resort to violent means if I had no other choise (i.e. the Government wouldn't reason with it)

To be honest I find that worrying ... I'd rather the country was run through democratic means rather than violence and what one person wants, but I guess that goes to the core of the idea of saying that one person should be ruler just because they were born that way.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

The British Monarchy should stay, no need for it to be overthrown, unlike the Czarist Regime in Russia, the British Monarchy appeals to me as quite fair and intelligant, it has the Common Sense that the US Democracy lacks oh so much.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

Do you have some sources for what the Queen does personally to generate tourism - as opposed to people coming for the history/buildings/tradition/etc?

And if so, perhaps we should capitalise on this, and do away with all the bits of the monarchy that don't contribute towards tourism, then?

We won’t ever know how much they make for us in tourism terms but how about the Prince’s Trust which brings in over £100m every year for charities. And helped half a million disadvantaged kids as well

Think of it like this if you must – Your 62p per year is turned into £1.80 by the Monarchy for charity.

Now I bet you wish you could pay even more to the Royals

This is where his famous Prince’s Trust comes in. The Prince founded it in 1976 with the £7,400 he received in severance pay from the Royal Navy. The charity has since helped 500,000 young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and supported the setting up of 66,000 businesses. With the other 15 charities forming the Prince’s Charities Group, it comprises the UK’s largest multi-cause charitable enterprise, raising more than £100 million each year.
http://www.postoffice.co.uk/portal/...EOSQUHRAYWQ2K?mediaId=45200684&catId=45200683

 

[Brighteye]

And when it comes to the Commonwealth, I think that we should be far more active. These are our friends too.

 

[mdwh]

We won’t ever know how much they make for us in tourism terms but how about the Prince’s Trust which brings in over £100m every year for charities. And helped half a million disadvantaged kids as well

Think of it like this if you must – Your 62p per year is turned into £1.80 by the Monarchy for charity.

Now I bet you wish you could pay even more to the Royals

I don't know how exactly the trust operates, but surely this doesn't have to be connected to the concept of the monarchy as a whole. There are plenty of trusts which don't need a monarchy to operate. So the trust would still operate without the monarchy - so it's false to say that the 62p is turned into money for charity - and indeed, that 62p could now be invested directly into the trust if that's what you wanted.

Put it another way, if investing 62p per year directly into the trust (and not all the other bits of the monarchy) gave us more than £1.80 to charity, then that's an argument in favour of getting rid of the monarchy.

 

[StarWorms]

I don't know how exactly the trust operates, but surely this doesn't have to be connected to the concept of the monarchy as a whole. There are plenty of trusts which don't need a monarchy to operate. So the trust would still operate without the monarchy - so it's false to say that the 62p is turned into money for charity - and indeed, that 62p could now be invested directly into the trust if that's what you wanted.

Put it another way, if investing 62p per year directly into the trust (and not all the other bits of the monarchy) gave us more than £1.80 to charity, then that's an argument in favour of getting rid of the monarchy.

If you get rid of the monarchy, you get rid of the very famous prince who runs the charity, which will have a severe negative impact. Food is sold from Prince Charles duchy (I think it's Cornwall). People buy it because it is endorsed by the prince. Get rid of the monarchy and you get rid of a lot of profit made, probably giving less output in charity money.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

If you get rid of the monarchy, you get rid of the very famous prince who runs the charity, which will have a severe negative impact. Food is sold from Prince Charles duchy (I think it's Cornwall). People buy it because it is endorsed by the prince. Get rid of the monarchy and you get rid of a lot of profit made, probably giving less output in charity money.

FWIW, I carefully don't buy Duchy goods precisely because it's Chuckie's stuff. Regardless of it being wholesome, organic, and able to save third world babies by itself (and, let me tell you, that's impressive for a biscuit), I just can't touch the stuff if Chuckster is involved.

 

[Mise]

There's a reason why sticking "Royal" in front of something costs more.

There were two hospitals in the town I grew up in, St. Woollas Hospital and the Royal Gwent Hospital. Guess which one received more donations, more public/media attention, more prominence and more recognition.

The "Royal" brand carries a significant value, in the same way that "Coca-Cola" is worth more than "Virgin Cola". Buckingham Palace and other "Royal franchises" would lose a lot of revenue if the Monarchy was axed.

I agree with mdhw that the benefit to tourism that the Monarchy generates should be properly costed. However, I'm almost certain that the Monarchy generates more income than expenses. Economically speaking, the Monarchy as a whole is similar to the Olympics, and "Royal" is a valuable brand. It's a sort of artificial boost to the economy. Nothing is really "produced", as such, but it still holds a value.

 

[mdwh]

If you get rid of the monarchy, you get rid of the very famous prince who runs the charity, which will have a severe negative impact. Food is sold from Prince Charles duchy (I think it's Cornwall). People buy it because it is endorsed by the prince. Get rid of the monarchy and you get rid of a lot of profit made, probably giving less output in charity money.

You don't get rid of him - no one's suggesting beheading him all.

Do people give more money to charity if a monarchy's involved? I think we need evidence to support that claim - I don't know, maybe compare money donated to charity by countries with and without monarchies?

Yes, given two products, one branded "royal" and one not, people may choose the former. However, that doesn't mean that people will spend less if faced with two equal products, it may just be that the same gets spent, distributed evenly. Remember, whatever money is spent on something branded "royal" has an opportunity cost, and that money would be spent elsewhere, so it's not clear that the "brand" actually generates any wealth.

Plus even if this is true, this comes from the "brand", and doesn't need Government money invested into it.

 

[Mega Tsunami]

I don't know how exactly the trust operates, but surely this doesn't have to be connected to the concept of the monarchy as a whole. There are plenty of trusts which don't need a monarchy to operate. So the trust would still operate without the monarchy - so it's false to say that the 62p is turned into money for charity - and indeed, that 62p could now be invested directly into the trust if that's what you wanted.

Put it another way, if investing 62p per year directly into the trust (and not all the other bits of the monarchy) gave us more than £1.80 to charity, then that's an argument in favour of getting rid of the monarchy.

I’ll try and explain a little better:
If you give 62p to a charity then that charity benefit by 62p. OTOH, as a result of the 62p we each give to the Monarchy not only do you get all the workings of a Head of State (which we would have to pay for anyway) but you also get £1.80 going to charities. It is surely a win-win situation.

And yes, a lot of people do give both time and money to the Prince’s charities because of who he is, and what the Monarchy stands for and the fact we trust them considerably more than any politician for example.

If we had become a Republic in 1952, say, do you think the Prince’s Trust would have even existed; or if it did, been do successful? – of course not. Do you think it is coincidence that The Prince’s Trust is the largest multi-cause charitable enterprise in Britain; that the Prince (so I read somewhere) is the greatest philanthropist not just in Britain but the whole of Europe? Of course it’s not coincidence.

If we had a President (Blair, Major, Kinnock, Livingstone, Thatcher etc) do you really think they (or their sons) would have done anything like as much as Charles has done as Prince? People wouldn’t trust them, wouldn’t be attracted to their enterprises as they would lack the certain je ne sais quoi that the Monarchy has.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

Never post when you're tired. Thursday evening I managed to post something completely opposite of my intention (page 5). The joke's on me I guess. (I've edited it now though.)

What I wanted to ask for was some logical reasoning from republicans. Something like "This country would benefit from being a republic because..."
It is rare, if not nonexistent in these debates IMO.

 

[Mise]

Yes, given two products, one branded "royal" and one not, people may choose the former. However, that doesn't mean that people will spend less if faced with two equal products, it may just be that the same gets spent, distributed evenly. Remember, whatever money is spent on something branded "royal" has an opportunity cost, and that money would be spent elsewhere, so it's not clear that the "brand" actually generates any wealth.

It generates a lot of wealth, given that many tourists come to this country over another country because we have the "Royal" brand. Going back to something you (I think) were saying earlier, Buckingham Palace isn't just a pretty building, it's a "Royal" building. Within our own country, the "Royal" brand would encourage a great number of people to donate/spend money where they otherwise wouldn't have.

Plus even if this is true, this comes from the "brand", and doesn't need Government money invested into it.

I disagree, but I can't prove it. It makes sense to me that a family that was once very powerful and prestigious, but has now been stripped of all prestige, would lose value. Without their status, they'd just be rather pathetic really...

 

[Lambert Simnel]

What I wanted to ask for was some logical reasoning from republicans. Something like "This country would benefit from being a republic because..."
It is rare, if not nonexistent in these debates IMO.

That last line is a nice throwaway barb - not something to make republicans more likely to respond with the information you want (that is, if you really want it, rather than just wanting to suggest that republicans never offer reason for their beliefs). Anyway...

Wiki covers the UK republican angle pretty well - have a look at Wiki link, especially the section entitles "Arguments in favour of a republic". Basically, I am against a societal construct where some people have some measure of privilege or special treatment, solely by the nature of their birth.

By the way, I'm not particularly interested in debating these if you happen to disagree - I'm just taking you at face value, Ingvina, and pointing you at some of the reasons people want rid of the UK monarchy.

 

[Ingvina Freyr]

That last line is a nice throwaway barb - not something to make republicans more likely to respond with the information you want (that is, if you really want it, rather than just wanting to suggest that republicans never offer reason for their beliefs).

The line is ment as a tease and a challenge, Lambert. I'm honestly asking for reasons rather than sentiment. I am, as in all debates, prepared to change my mind should someone present me with reasons convincing enough. However, on this matter I doubt someone will.

Anyway...
Wiki covers the UK republican angle pretty well - have a look at Wiki link, especially the section entitles "Arguments in favour of a republic". Basically, I am against a societal construct where some people have some measure of privilege or special treatment, solely by the nature of their birth.

Nothing new here, mostly sentiments really, and much to be argued (especially the belief in genuine intellect in a Presidential office ) but...

By the way, I'm not particularly interested in debating these if you happen to disagree - I'm just taking you at face value, Ingvina, and pointing you at some of the reasons people want rid of the UK monarchy.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

Ingvina, I think there is logical reasoning there. If you're not satisfied with it, well, I'm not going to bother trying to convince you of it. Frankly, I don't care at all about convincing anyone about the benefit of abolishing the monarchy, because I think there is so much emotional baggage associated with this (in my experience, more on the royalists' side, but so what) that it's not useful discussing. And, of course, it isn't really that important - they'll disappear sooner or later, though perhaps not in my lifetime. (I rather like the conclusion of Henry IX in Martin Amis' Yellow Dog, who decides jointly with his sole heir to abdicate. He's suggesting that, at some point, even the royals will realise they are an irrelevant anachronism.)

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

And, of course, it isn't really that important - they'll disappear sooner or later, though perhaps not in my lifetime. (I rather like the conclusion of Henry IX in Martin Amis' Yellow Dog, who decides jointly with his sole heir to abdicate. He's suggesting that, at some point, even the royals will realise they are an irrelevant anachronism.)

I think that this is a possibility. Not in your lifetime, but maybe in the lifetime of a young man like me

 

[Abaddon]

Keep them. they do good for the economy and public relations.

 

[bhsup]

God Save the Queen!

Here's one colonial who hopes his mother country of old never abolishes their monarchy.

 

[CartesianFart]

If it ain't broke,don't fix it.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

God Save the Queen!

Here's one colonial who hopes his mother country of old never abolishes their monarchy.

Would you be happy having such an embodiment of privilege by birth in the US ? We're not talking about just wealth here, but fundamental different treatment in law. I don't think you would..