The Value Of Monarchy

[Biri]

This is a wrong view of royal families. Royals now work, not all members of royal families are supported by tax money.
Nowadays only heirs receive money from taxpayers (at least in most cases).
Sustaining a monarchy is no more expensive than a republic.

It's cheaper in fact; holding a presidential election every few years consumes more money.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't live in a Monarchy but I can definitely see the point in having one.

A dynastic Monarchy is a visible and living link to the past.. unique history and traditions of its people. Lose that living link with the past...yes the country will continue and perhaps even thrive.

But something very valuable in the national identity is lost. It cannot be replicated by installing a democracy with self serving elected leaders every few years.

 

[Osipi]

I'm an America just trying to understand. I respect them for what they have contributed, but do you guys really buy into the fact that they are "royal" and above the every day person? Because across the pond we look at it like it just seems you keep them around for tourist purposes, and I feel bad that you waste your already high taxes on supporting a bunch of people who don't really do anything and live boughie lives. You can have regular citizens contribute to charities, you don't need to pay a prince, out of the money you could contribute to your own family, to do that.

I'm an American like you are and have learned so very much just by being a member here and reading the threads and most of all, like you, asking questions.

To me "royal" is a designation much like a "professor" or a "doctor" or a 'third generation CEO of a family business". I'm going to draw mainly on the UK's constitutional monarchy as that is the one I am the most familiar with. The Queen and the British Royal Family is something that is integral to life in the UK. They no longer rule but reign and they're representative of continuity and stability of a nation. Kind of the like the words in our national anthem "gave proof through the night that our flag was still there". They represent *all* the people of the UK and political parties and divisions are totally absent.

Monetarily wise, the BRF is actually a bargain compared to what we here in the US dole out for our government figures. The *only* thing that your average Brit pays for out of their tax dollars is funding royal security through the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard. A long, long time ago a deal was struck and the monarch turned over properties and holdings and lands to Parliament which Parliament then established the Crown Estate. The "Crown" holds them and not the royals themselves. So you have the Crown Estate that today is vast and is its own entity that does prosper and make money. The Queen receives a certain amount of the *profits* each year to run the monarchy. This is called the Sovereign Grant. You may think that places like Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace and Clarence House and Windsor Castle are the Queen's. Actually they're not. They're Crown Estate properties earmarked specifically for use for the royal family. The Queen only owns Balmoral and Sandringham outright and even that is another story unto itself.

Nobody in the BRF gets "paid" by the taxpayers. The Queen funds their work through the Sovereign Grant except for the Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall who gets his financing from the Duchy of Cornwall which was established in 1337 specifically to give the heir to the throne an income. The Duchy, itself, is an independent entity much like the Crown Estate and Charles' income is derived from the *profits*. He's worked hard over the years to grow and improve the duchy going into the future for future Dukes of Cornwall.

So the UK has something very rich in history and traditions in it's monarchy and really, to me, works so much better than having a political party in charge every four years when there's an expensive election. The UK has Parliament for that. They have a Queen and her family. We have um.... a flag that represents us all.

Hope this helps some. Keep asking questions. I still do and it's how I check off my "learn something new everyday" box.

 

[Blog Real]

I am a monarchist. I think the role of monarchies is very interesting and I like the role that monarchies play.
I also like that monarchies continue to follow their own traditions and at the same time try to adapt to the present.

 

[Osipi]

I am a monarchist. I think the role of monarchies is very interesting and I like the role that monarchies play.
I also like that monarchies continue to follow their own traditions and at the same time try to adapt to the present.

I also find it amazing to be able to travel back into the past via archives and books and such and realize how over the centuries, monarchies throughout the world have all those connections. For instance, Queen Victoria being "The Grandmother of Europe" and how her lineage spread far and wide throughout Europe and continues to this day. Even the Queen and her Philip have Victoria as a common ancestor. Fascinating!

 

[Muhler]

I'm an America just trying to understand. I respect them for what they have contributed, but do you guys really buy into the fact that they are "royal" and above the every day person? Because across the pond we look at it like it just seems you keep them around for tourist purposes, and I feel bad that you waste your already high taxes on supporting a bunch of people who don't really do anything and live boughie lives. You can have regular citizens contribute to charities, you don't need to pay a prince, out of the money you could contribute to your own family, to do that.

You are trying to have a rational view of something that is basically irrational.
It's akin to question people's religion, because the monarchy is such an integral part of the history, culture and sense of belonging in many countries, that abolishing it, is akin to closing down churches.
You can present a perfectly rational argument that churches are a waste of taxpayer money, and really not needed. - The first Protestants did that. You will hear a howl of protests and there will be a vacuum that needs to be filled.

Look at republics like France, Austria, Russia. - All of them pride themselves of having been monarchies and to some extent they have each recreated the royal spectacle.

The monarchy is a national rallying point to me. It's a integrated part of the history of my country, of my culture and who I am. It's one of my anchors in a sometimes changing and troubled world. - And that's why I used churches as an example.
The royals are living national symbols. They are living permanent representatives of my country and therefore me. They are living role models and I expect them to be living role models.
In return I will bow to them, and to considerable extent elevate them. Not because I have to, but because I want to.
You salute the rank, not the man.

With a royal, you get to know the person, for good or bad. You get to know their flaws and strengths. You watch them grow up and improve - sometimes they let you down - and you watch them try to fill the role they have been given to the best of their abilities. Its like watching myself, my children, my parents. In that way they personify me and I can relate to them.

With an elected president, some, sometimes myself, will not have voted for that person.
The difference between electing a (representative) president and having a monarch, is to me, the difference between a popularity contest and a maturing process. Both can be successful, both can fail.

I'm proud of my country. I'm proud of my culture and my history. I'm also proud of my royal family. - Sometimes with good reason. Sometimes I honestly have little to be proud of...
But it's a part of me.

I hope I was able to illustrate a little what the irrational concept of royalty means.

 

[Silverpot]

Well said @Muhler, very well said. I also think it's a question of having a very long history versus hardly any history at all.

As Diana Gabaldon wrote: Europeans consider a 100 miles a long distance, while Americans think a 100 years is a long time.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Monetarily wise, the BRF is actually a bargain compared to what we here in the US dole out for our government figures. The *only* thing that your average Brit pays for out of their tax dollars is funding royal security through the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard. A long, long time ago a deal was struck and the monarch turned over properties and holdings and lands to Parliament which Parliament then established the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate was established 100s of years before George III made the original deal with parliament. It was established by William I when he took 'ownership' of all the land in England after the Conquest. He then parcelled out the land to his supporters and reserved the right to take back that land and re-allocate lands as he, and his heirs and successors saw fit.

From this income the King had to pay for the running of the country. He/She could also raise taxes but by George III the income of the Crown Estate wasn't enough to cover what George III was expected to pay for from the Crown Estate so he struck a deal with the parliament to hand over the income of the Crown Estate to parliament so they could use it, along with taxes, to pay for the running of the country in its own way rather than have parliament paying for some things from taxes while the King paid for others.

In return the parliament paid the members of the Royal Family a Civil List to cover their expenses.

In the middle ages two parts were separated from the Crown Estate - The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall to provide the private income for the King and the Duke of Cornwall (heir apparent who was also the eldest son of the King - George III was never Duke of Cornwall so never had that income as heir apparent which contributed to his poor financial situation on becoming King.)

George III's deal was for his reign only but George IV then followed his father's lead and it is now the expectation that each new monarch will sign over the income of the Crown Estate and be given a percentage back but it is not a law that it has to happen.

The original deal was that it would be negotiated once per reign but with inflation in the 1960s, along with the increasing costs of royal travel due to the number of overseas tours the Queen was able to renegotiate the figure every five or so years but that lead to constant criticism and governments trying to squeeze the monarchy so in 2012 the Sovereign Grant Act was passed which sets the figure as a percentage of the income of the Crown Estate - currently 15% with an extra 10% for the refurbishment of BP.

 

[Mbruno]

I

So the UK has something very rich in history and traditions in it's monarchy and really, to me, works so much better than having a political party in charge every four years when there's an expensive election.

The United Kingdom also has different political parties or governments in charge every so many years. Since Elizabeth II became Queen, the UK has had 14 different Prime Ministers. Between 2015 and 2019 alone, the UK had three general elections.


The purpose of the monarch nowadays is not "to be in charge", but rather to ensure that the person who has the support of the majority of the elected MPs is in charge. The main difference with the United States is that the ceremonial role of Head of State is not confused with partisan politics.


If Americans want to learn how a parliamentary system of government under the Crown works, they don't have to look "across the pond". It suffices to look north to Canada.

 

[Prinsara]

The United Kingdom also has different political parties or governments in charge every so many years. Since Elizabeth II became Queen, the UK has had 14 different Prime Ministers. Between 2015 and 2019 alone, the UK had three general elections.


The purpose of the monarch nowadays is not "to be in charge", but rather to ensure that the person who has the support of the majority of the elected MPs is in charge. The main difference with the United States is that the ceremonial role of Head of State is not confused with partisan politics.


If Americans want to learn how a parliamentary system of government under the Crown works, they don't have to look "across the pond". It suffices to look north to Canada.

Except we now have US-style limits on the frequency of federal elections (four years), and so there's no way we could have had three "general" between 2015 and 2019. This is certainly a parliamentary democracy, but not everything is an example of what's done in the UK.

 

[Mbruno]

Except we now have US-style limits on the frequency of federal elections (four years), and so there's no way we could have had three "general" between 2015 and 2019. This is certainly a parliamentary democracy, but not everything is an example of what's done in the UK.

Actually you can, because the legislation that was passed when Harper was PM setting a fixed date for regular elections does not preclude the Governor General from dissolving Parliament and calling an early election. That power could only be removed from the Governor General by a constitutional amendment, which can't be enacted by the federal government alone. From the Wikipedia article on "Elections in Canada":

Section 4 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms limits the term of any federal, provincial, or territorial parliament to a maximum of five years after the return of the writs of the last election. On November 6, 2006, the Parliament of Canada amended the Canada Elections Act to introduce a requirement that each federal general election must take place on the third Monday in October in the fourth calendar year after the previous poll, starting with October 19, 2009.[4][5][6] Since then, most provinces and territories have introduced similar legislation establishing fixed election dates.



These laws, nevertheless, do not curtail the power of the governor general or a provincial lieutenant governor to dissolve a legislature prior to the fixed election date on the advice of the relevant first minister or due to a motion of no confidence.[7]

At the time, PM Harper argued that, with fixed election dates, the royal prerogative would be used only in exceptional cases, most notably in the event of a vote of no confidence in the government, but Harper himself was the first to go back on his promise when, without a motion of no confidence, he asked the GG to call an early election in 2008, only two years after the previous election. In any case, given how many minority governments Canada has had lately, votes of no confidence are not far-fetched and early elections are a real possibility. PM Trudeau's current government for example may not last 4 years.



Incidentally, the UK also has a fixed-term Parliaments act in force now, which was passed in the first Cameron government. That did not prevent elections from being called though in 2017 and 2019. In the first case, the UK Parliament used a special provision in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act under which an early election could be called on a motion supported by a two-third majority in the House of Commons. In the second case, Boris Johnson simply passed a bill by simple majority in the House of Commons and the House of Lords saying that an early election should be held notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, showing that the act is basically useless in practice.



Note that neither in 2017 nor in 2019 a vote of no confidence in the government was needed for an early election to be called although the FTPA also provides for an early election to be held under those circumstances.

 

[JSH]

1) I don't believe royals are viewed as above the every day person. They are people who have a specific job to do. 2) Speak for yourself. I am across the pond and I know enough to know that they are far more than tourist attractions. 3) In Britain taxes pay for royal security and nothing else related to their royals. Even in the US we pay for security for our head of state. 4) "People who don't really do anything." Take a look at the British Court Circular and then see if they don't really do anything. 5) The British royals live the same lives as other British aristocrats 6) "You can have regular citizens contribute to charities" WHO in the US does what royals do in regards to charities? NO ONE. Celebrities can do that but not on the publicity scale that royals do. 7) "You don't need to pay a prince" See #3. No British royal gets any salary. They get business expenses paid like any other employee and that does not come from taxes.

 

[Denis Poore]

I think royalty can help build the conscience of a nation. I think the James1 style of baronet can help any country.

 

[Denville]

I think royalty can help build the conscience of a nation. I think the James1 style of baronet can help any country.

not sure how selling baronetcies for money is building the consinece of a nation

 

[Denis Poore]

not sure how selling baronetcies for money is building the consinece of a nation

I think of it as rewarding others in creative ways for their great giving. IMO that is a good thing.

Denis Poore, pauper non in spe

 

[Denville]

I think of it as rewarding others in creative ways for their great giving. IMO that is a good thing.

Denis Poore, pauper non in spe

You cannot sell honours, it creates a terrible fuss and rightly so....

 

[Denis Poore]

It wasn’t a peerage at least, James 1 is who started the baronet hereditary. The last was given to Denis Thatcher. The amount was first used to pay for knights. I can’t think of one problem that raised in the award.

 

[Denis Poore]

I found this link interesting regarding the “health” of the honors.
https://royalcentral.co.uk/features...that-could-lead-to-the-end-of-baronets-34531/
Most holders it seems don’t care anymore about baronets. I’m glad they have stopped the hereditary part , as the baronet in our family has been outside of England for some time and it doesn’t look like he is returning to England. I realize that I am here in the states because of money raised in England from the baronets to fund the service to their territories. I wonder what a billion dollar infusion would mean to world hunger.

 

[Curryong]

James I began as King of England by sprinkling English honours including baronetcies willy nilly around flatterers and supporters as he progressed from Scotland to London. He continued this after being crowned and intermediaries and gatekeepers like his boyfriend the Duke of Buckingham were enriched by the practice. I can think of a great many things wrong with that.

As I can with the sale of peerages and baronetcies just after WWI with Lloyd George and his ilk.