Because The British Royal Family

[sunday]

One needs to consider the cost of organizing presidential elections. Some years ago, there was some numbers made for the Spanish case, and the cost of one election would pay for 10 years of royal house budget.

[DB]

One might well have paid for basic grammar and spelling twenty or more years ago, but apparently we didn't.

A quote from the relevant section of the .gov website (my bold):

Quote

The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 came into effect on 1 April 2012. It sets the single grant supporting the monarch’s official business, enabling The King to discharge his duties as Head of State. It meets the central staff costs and running expenses of His Majesty’s official household – including official receptions, investitures and garden parties. It also covers maintenance of the Royal Palaces in England and the cost of travel to carry out royal engagements such as opening buildings and other royal visits.

In exchange for this public support, The King surrenders the revenue from The Crown Estate to the government. Over the last ten years, the revenue paid to the Exchequer is £3 billion for public spending.

The Sovereign Grant for 2022-23 is £86.3 million, the same as in 2021-22. While the net revenue surplus for The Crown Estate fell in 2020-21 due to the impact of Covid, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 includes a mechanism to keep the Grant at the same level as previous year in such circumstances. Where the Grant would reduce, the previous year’s amount should be paid.

So, given that there is a Monarchy, and that the Monarchy comes with a Crown Estate, it can be said that the Crown Estate more than pays for the Monarchy and using the same basis as "£127 million would pay for 2 new hospitals", then the £3 billion excess over the last ten years would have bought about 5 new hospitals.

An argument that if the Crown Estate were not tied to the Monarchy it would generate similar revenue holds little water - there is no doubt that it would have ben sold off as soon as possible and the money used to fund some pet scheme to secure votes, not sensibly on debt reduction or continuing infrastructure improvement.

[rmgill]

On 1/10/2023 at 10:32 PM, Angrybk said:

Us USAians fought a desperate war to get rid of monarchs, for good reason, so I don't have much sympathy for monarchies of any type (counterargument is that the US just invented new monarchies instead -- Kardashians, Clintons, Trumps, etc., which is fair). 

We weren't getting rid of monarchies specifically, it was the corruption and Rule of Man that went with that system and nearly all systems of the time. That's why we went with a constitutional republic. Now days, the Monarchy is a reserved power position that doesn't have the same level of power reserved to the post or those that it appointed as it did in 1776. Now we've been working to re-establish that with the amount of power granted and allowed to government figures who are above, beside or outside of the law and can make up law from whole cloth as they go. 

[DB]

The taxation issue was a pretext for a demand for independence.

If the colonists had been given representation, they'd have found another excuse.

[rmgill]

20 minutes ago, DB said:

The taxation issue was a pretext for a demand for independence.

If the colonists had been given representation, they'd have found another excuse.

The Mercantilist practices protected by crown officers and laws simply professed by HM's appointed officials alone was a pretty big excuse too. 

We kind of outlined our reasons...

 

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

Edited January 12, 2023 by rmgill

[DB]

So, plenty of other reasons then - the taxation without representation thing is the bit everyone remembers.

[R011]

5 hours ago, DB said:

One might well have paid for basic grammar and spelling twenty or more years ago, but apparently we didn't.

A quote from the relevant section of the .gov website (my bold):

So, given that there is a Monarchy, and that the Monarchy comes with a Crown Estate, it can be said that the Crown Estate more than pays for the Monarchy and using the same basis as "£127 million would pay for 2 new hospitals", then the £3 billion excess over the last ten years would have bought about 5 new hospitals.

An argument that if the Crown Estate were not tied to the Monarchy it would generate similar revenue holds little water - there is no doubt that it would have ben sold off as soon as possible and the money used to fund some pet scheme to secure votes, not sensibly on debt reduction or continuing infrastructure improvement.

And then the UK would need to spend for a presidential office, staff, residence, security, activities etc.

[DB]

I welcome Tony Blair as our new figurehead leader. Or maybe it would be Stormzy?

[rmgill]

4 hours ago, DB said:

So, plenty of other reasons then - the taxation without representation thing is the bit everyone remembers.

Well, it has a nice ring to it. 
 

 

[Ssnake]

11 hours ago, TrustMe said:

In Britian for the tax year 2021/2022 the Royal Family received 127 milion pounds. We could of built two hospitals for that amount of money.

The alternative to the Royal Family expenditures is not no expenditures at all. You would still have to pay for the palace, security detail, and travel of some president, but without the revenue generated by the unwashed foreign visitors fawning over your Royals. Of course, I guess the Disney Corporation could teach you how to build a world class Royalty-themed entertainment park, but judging by Whitehall practices past and present, they would probably get a tax exemption.

[Ivanhoe]

RoyalWorld. I like it.

Animatronic headsman lopping melons off at the Tower.

New Model Army on the hunt for anyone enjoying life.

King Arthur receiving a sword from some soggy tart.

[Angrybk]

7 hours ago, DB said:

I welcome Tony Blair as our new figurehead leader. Or maybe it would be Stormzy?

Stormzy fucking rocks!

[Stuart Galbraith]

Tyson Fury for King. I for one would welcome our new monarch living out the back of a Caravan.

[Ssnake]

Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, accept no substitute!

 

Sure, some minor Union-Jack themed apparel adjustments 'n shit will be necessary.

[TrustMe]

16 hours ago, Ssnake said:

The alternative to the Royal Family expenditures is not no expenditures at all. You would still have to pay for the palace, security detail, and travel of some president, but without the revenue generated by the unwashed foreign visitors fawning over your Royals. Of course, I guess the Disney Corporation could teach you how to build a world class Royalty-themed entertainment park, but judging by Whitehall practices past and present, they would probably get a tax exemption.

When Princess Beatrice stops having 6 holidays a year, flown around the world by RAF aircraft, i'll agree with you.

[Ssnake]

I'm saying, you're not going to squeeze your two hospitals out of the budget of the Royals. One wing at best, and that's when not counting the considerable tourism and merch revenue that they generate. Taken that into account, their ROI is probably quite positive.

I'm strictly focusing on the financial aspect because that's what you did; figured, it might be most relatable to your avatar.

Whether one would want a King, in principle, is a different matter. Here, as a dyed-in-the-wool republican (not US Republican) I'm fully with you: Hang 'em high - although I couldn't mention anything particularly heinous that these Royals did during my lifetime that would justify their murder (or any other of the European lot).

[Stuart Galbraith]

So you will want one of them. Andrew for Kaiser?

 

[DB]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

When Princess Beatrice stops having 6 holidays a year, flown around the world by RAF aircraft, i'll agree with you.

Citation for her use of the RAF for personal flights?

[TrustMe]

I respected the Queen alot but as for the rest of them I really can't stand most of them.

 

13 minutes ago, DB said:

Citation for her use of the RAF for personal flights?

After an internet search I can't an example however do you really think the Royals fly by EasyJet?

[R011]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

I respected the Queen alot but as for the rest of them I really can't stand most of them.

 

After an internet search I can't an example however do you really think the Royals fly by EasyJet?

And you'd respect some random old politician or media hack instead?

As far as I can tell from a quick Google and Wikipedia check, save for the King who always travels by RAF for security reasons, members of the Royal Family (which may or may not include Beatrice) do not use 32 (Royal) Squadron for personal travel.

[Murph]

Somewhere I read that having a Monarchy and Aristocracy is because they think in the long term, not just till the next sound bite or election season.  I cannot recall where I read this.

[Mike1158]

Aye, we have come a long way in 300 odd years (Very odd years) or not.  Progress in cyclical spurts, sometimes going backwards but rarely standing still.

[TrustMe]

56 minutes ago, R011 said:

And you'd respect some random old politician or media hack instead?

As far as I can tell from a quick Google and Wikipedia check, save for the King who always travels by RAF for security reasons, members of the Royal Family (which may or may not include Beatrice) do not use 32 (Royal) Squadron for personal travel.

If you look at my profile and my user id, you can basically sum up what I think of elected politicans.

As for 32 Squadron, a quick internet search seems that my information was a number of years out of date. But, upto a few years ago, the RAF used to fly the queens grand childern to the swiss alps for a holiday amongst other locations.

Edited January 13, 2023 by TrustMe

[R011]

5 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

If you look at my profile and my user id, you can basically sum up what I think of elected politicans.

As for 32 Squadron, a quick internet search seems that my information was a number of years out of date. But, upto a few years ago, the RAF used to fly the queens grand childern to the swiss alps for a holiday amongst other locations.

"used to". Allegedly.

[Tim the Tank Nut]

even if they did (and it seems unlikely) its a perfectly good opportunity to build pilot skills hauling high value cargo.  Technical skills require a certain amount of practice to maintain.

Compared to all the resources spent by the United Kingdom the monarchy doesn't move the money needle at all.