To all republicans:?

Question

Here's a little piece of info that nicely renders your cost argument void:

"The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for the year ending March 31st, 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen's Civil List has been fixed at £9.7 million per annum until 2011. Full details of royal household expenditure are published. A summary of these follows. The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million."

What has she done for this country? A fat lot more than you will ever do. Watch the news. See how many trips to other nations she does? See how much work she does for diplomacy?

And does the fact that 80% of the public want the Monarchy to stay not phase you at all?

It strikes me that you have no real argument at all. And just to point out, I am a 15 year old. Basically all my political views are left wing. Just letting you know that not all loyal people are old bumbling men.

Answer 1

Good for you.  You have a lot more sense than most of the people who post on this section.

Answer 2

Well done. And the latest figures worked out @ 66 pence/1US$ or so per person in the UK for the year. That's not daily, but annually. Not bad.

Compare with the millions wasted so far just in the LOSING campaigns for Dem & Rep candidates, with mega-millions still to come for the actual election.

Critics of the Monarchy are v quick to use the millions figures and not wotk it out per person per year. How much extra health care is 66p per person per year going to be?

And, of course, they never remember the costs are in exchange for the Crown Estates, which as the bit you quote shows always earn the Government more than they spend.

And the costs include the upkeep of the buildings - or are you just going to let Windsor Castle, Buck Palace, Holyroodhouse, etc be demolished for sub-division housing when you go to a Republic? Surely their costs are going to continue whether there's a Monarch or a President?

Answer 3

Hey Badger...

I am an aussie and when we held a referendum to see if we wanted Au to become a republic .. I voted yes .. because although we still have many ties ... i really believe AU should become totally independant from the UK... I guess just for the evolution of the nation ...

However .. I greatly respect the Royal Family and really do not understand the amount of attack that is launched at them ..

If I were British .. I think I would like to keep the monarchy .

Answer 4

Hear, Hear!!!

Answer 5

...it's not about the money - it's about the desire to live in a meritocratic democracy, not in an arcane theocratic (she is head of the CofE) quasi-absolutist (she can dissolve parliament & rule by herself) monarchy.

As for what she has done for the UK - yes a load of tourists come to the UK - but France is the most visited country in Europe.

I'll grant you the diplomatic point.

I think though that the 80% support for the monarchy is, in truth, 80% distrust for politicians, and a politician would obviously replace the monarch as head of state.

Source - republican

Answer 6

I'm a 55-year-old, bumbling American woman, so I really don't have a dog in this fight, although I do have Scottish and English ancestors.  That said, most Americans I know, whatever their lineage or their age, would most likely continue to travel to the United Kingdom (if the price was right) whether or not there was a monarchy.  After all, the London shopping and the theatre district, Stratford upon Avon, Edinburgh, the Highlands, Stonehenge, Canterbury, Cambridge and Oxford, and the Lake Country are all tourist destinations that draw visitors from all over the world who perhaps include Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle in their itinerary, but they don't necessarily make the trip just to see these royal sites.  

Of course, England has already had a republic from 1649 to 1660, so a homegrown model for a republican form of government within the UK exists--albeit not a pleasant one!  Those British voters who wish to abolish the monarchy only for economic reasons, however, should be cautioned that just like a monarchy, a republican form of government can certainly waste money and ravage the economy.  Witness what has happened to the US economy in recent years.  

Moreover, since the Queen performs the "hostess duties" of the executive branch of the government, this relieves the Prime Minister of that task, so he or she can get down to the business of governing the United Kingdom.  Whether or not the President embarrasses himself* (and, in turn, the entire country) while pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey or welcoming the President of the Philippines or the British Prime Minister depends, naturally, on who is in office.

Bottom Line:  The majority of Brits will continue to respect the Crown, no matter who is wearing it just as most Americans will respect the Office of President no matter who is acting like a turkey while he (or perhaps, she) is occupying it.

----

*So far, at least, no feminine, reflexive pronoun is necessary here.