The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

I agree, there are bigger fish to fry - but the Queen has all the pans.
.
Removing her from her role as head of state wouldn't mean chucking her out on the street. She'd still have her private residences (we'd just take back the public ones like Buckingham Palace and such) and incomes. The people who like the royals would still be free to support them, maybe through a charity. Also, the Queen's getting on a bit now so it would be a kindness to relieve her of all the "work" she does. And poor old Charles wouldn't have to worry himself silly with all that interminable waiting any more. It really would be the kindest thing to do.

[IndigoPrime]

All the pans? Hardly. Yes, this is a family supported by the state, but the civil list has been stripped right back, and there's plenty of evidence to show that they bring in (as a living, breathing, active monarchy) a shit-load of tourist money in return for that minor outlay per tax-payer. That wouldn't be the case if we headed towards republicanism, and you can bet a British president would be closer in nature to a US one than, say, the Icelandic one. (i.e. loads of money for campaigning, overtly political regardless of whether they are technically so, etc.) However, we'd still be paying the taxes.

Objectively, I recognise the monarchy is an archaic, outdated concept, but the Queen's done a decent job as head of state and also has effectively no power anyway. Charles... well, he needs to step back regarding lobbying, but there are plenty of worse bodies lobbying the British government. As I said earlier, I'd sooner see electoral reform than an attack on the monarchy. PR + senate + Queen seems a perfectly decent 'compromise' to me. And if Charles turns out to be rubbish, you'll see growth in republican sentiment anyway.

[Theblazeuk]

Reality check - the monarchy had little to do with any of the major social developments of the last century, all of which were enacted by our political system, including the positive ones, flawed as it is. I am pretty sure the Queen said nothing about gay marriage for example.

[The Legendary Shark]

Monarchy Myth Buster.

[IndigoPrime]

Lots of hand-waving and "that isn't even true, but even if it were" on there. Also, it's utterly laughable, as that site does, to compare the costs of the British monarchy to that of the Irish presidency. It's also notable that "It has no power – it's just for decoration" sidesteps the problem of power consolidation, in that certain powers have historically been transferred from the monarch to MPs or the PM. But the monarchy has fuck-all power now.

Also, as others have rightly said, tying reform to republicanism would kill the former stone-dead remarkably quickly. Plenty of people are perfectly happy with the Royals but like the idea of a more representative democracy. I don't really give two hoots either way about the Royals, but am desperate for political change.

[Professor Bear]

Seeing as we're a capitalist society, let's keep the monarchy but privatise them so they have to support themselves through all this tourist money they seem to be generating - that way they'll be even better off than they are now.
What true monarchist wouldn't want the royals to be better off?  If you think about it, it's unpatriotic not to privatise the royal family.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Reality check - the monarchy had little to do with any of the major social developments of the last century, all of which were enacted by our political system, including the positive ones, flawed as it is. I am pretty sure the Queen said nothing about gay marriage for example.

True.  Now, I live in a republic and prefer to do so (simply because I don't feel that an accident of birth should give people a right to rule, even symbolically) but I don't feel that having a royal family gives anyone an excuse not to vote.  Just wondering, Sharky, if you DID live in a republic like the one you describe, would you vote then?

[Theblazeuk]

All or nothing will usually leave you with nothing.

[The Legendary Shark]

In a modern republic I would be far more inclined to vote, yes. At the moment I don't have a government - that's why the Queen always refers to it in speeches not as 'your government' or 'our government' but "my government."
.
Also, I'll post this link to a Guardian article on the Royal Veto (Queen's/Prince's Consent) again, just in case anyone missed it before.

[IndigoPrime]

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "It is a long established convention that the Queen is asked by parliament to provide consent to those bills which parliament has decided would affect crown interests. The sovereign has not refused to consent to any bill affecting crown interests unless advised to do so by ministers.

[The Legendary Shark]

Now you're getting it.

[Ghost MacRoth]

Seeing as we're a capitalist society, let's keep the monarchy but privatise them so they have to support themselves through all this tourist money they seem to be generating - that way they'll be even better off than they are now.
What true monarchist wouldn't want the royals to be better off?  If you think about it, it's unpatriotic not to privatise the royal family.

I'd buy that for a dollar!

[JPMaybe]

...there's plenty of evidence to show that they bring in (as a living, breathing, active monarchy) a shit-load of tourist money in return for that minor outlay per tax-payer.

Putting aside the issue of deciding our constitutional arrangements on the basis of how much money we can fleece from tourists, evidence for this please.  Especially given the pitiful showing of royal properties in the most profitable tourist attractions list.

[IndigoPrime]

Now you're getting it.

Not entirely. That's not an argument for the abolishment of the monarchy or a move to a republic per se, but for general reform. But we won't ever get to that stage while one right-wing party calls the shots on a tiny amount of the vote from middle England, largely because huge numbers of people can't be bothered to get off of their arses and vote. It just another case of:

- Oh, bloody hell, the Tories are in again, being wankers. We might have to move out, because of the bedroom tax.
- Who did you vote for, then?
- Oh, I didn't vote.

And even in the current system, some votes do have a hell of a lot of power.

[IndigoPrime]

Putting aside the issue of deciding our constitutional arrangements on the basis of how much money we can fleece from tourists, evidence for this please.

The briefest of Googling immediately finds:

• Is the Britigh Royal Family Worth the Money (The Atlantic)
• Mention of money passed to the Treasury from the Crown Estate, in The Telegraph
• Some interesting figures on Full Fact

Perhaps naturally, The Guardian counters with a pure 'strip it back to literal money pulled from visitors to Buckingham Palace, which is a bit mental.

The most obvious problem is it's hard to say for certain what the impact would be until a change is made. But, as I've said, I just don't see a great benefit in replacing the monarchy with a republic, given the nature of the British, and especially unless we have a massive overhaul of the electoral systems. Even if we did get those, it remains to be seen how tourism to the UK would change with the Royals being punted into the long grass and replaced by President Boris or President Jordan. Delving into the horrors of personal anecdotal 'evidence', it's clear a lot of Americans visit the UK in part because of its living monarchy. Maybe they still would anyway, because 'castles'. Maybe not.