What's the monarchy for?

[morqthana]

No need to apologise.

Its the royal family, obviously a bit like marmite, nothing to argue over

I'm not "arguing" over the Royal Family, other than explaining why I think they are a bad idea, and why tourist attraction economics do not outweigh the democratic harm which the institution does.

 

[pete01]

I'm not "arguing" over the Royal Family

Ok nothing to see here then

 

[noseall]

the democratic harm which the institution does.

Nonsense.

 

[Odds]

Just another set of benefit claimants, in their current role.

Making money apparently, but no need to be taxed

Parts of the Royal Family's holdings are taxed, however: the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall generate commercial income, for instance, and much of their profits are donated to charitable causes. The Crown Estate profits go to the Treasury, but the Duchies operate separately, funding the royals' private costs.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

Parts of the Royal Family's holdings are taxed, however: the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall generate commercial income, for instance, and much of their profits are donated to charitable causes. The Crown Estate profits go to the Treasury, but the Duchies operate separately, funding the royals' private costs.

If they funded the private costs they wouldn't need so much in royal grants.

 

[transam]

Imho Charles and William ( king and next king) are decent blokes and play an important role in for UK

I like them and see no reason or advantage in getting rid of them !!!!

 

[Odds]

If they funded the private costs they wouldn't need so much in royal grants.

I imagine it isn't cheap maintaining great houses and estates.
Even the palace of Versailles has substantial private funding and donations to keep up with the running costs.
Would you rather privatise somewhere like Sandringham?

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I imagine it isn't cheap maintaining great houses and estates.
Even the palace of Versailles has substantial private funding and donations to keep up with the running costs.
Would you rather privatise somewhere like Sandringham?

I'm not after privatising.

But why should taxpayers pay for such like?

 

[Odds]

I'm not after privatising.

But why should taxpayers pay for such like?

How would you pay to maintain these houses, in that case?

 

[diy_fun_uk]

I'm far from being a royalist, so my personal preference would be to see them disbanded entirely. I've not given the alternative much thought, however a parliamentary republic approach might be my preference.

If the monarchy is to remain, my personal preference would be to see their land and property ownership scaled back quite significantly. No, we can't expect them to live in a two bed semi, however neither do they need to live in mansions and palaces.

I'm not sure if it's mainly for show or based on genuine feeling, however it seems William is perhaps aware the monarchy of old needs reform in a number of ways if it's to survive longer term.

 

[Brigadier]

Once you've binned the monarchy, it's not coming back.

For the drop in the ocean it costs p.a., I for one would say to the anti brigade "Be careful what you wish for".

 

[carmanmemoranda]

How would you pay to maintain these houses, in that case?

Let the royals fund them if they want to keep them

 

[noseall]

Imho Charles and William ( king and next king) are decent blokes and play an important role in for UK

I like them and see no reason or advantage in getting rid of them !!!!

Princess Anne is one of the hardest working Royals around. She's pretty no-nonsense too. Does not suffer fools or kidnappers gladly.