HRH! KING! CHARLES!

The Monarchy is hardly ideal but it's by far the best thing we have in terms of a state figurehead although I suppose SUnak is a marked improvement on Johnson, at least he can tuck his own shirt in.

I wouldn't want to shake his hand with massive sausage fingers.

I am sure he could excuse the size of your fingers

Can't stand the lot of them.

Should of got rid of the lot of them in 1936.

Awww shit what happened to the Queen?

Victoria?

Victoria?

Biggest sponger of the lot.

Awww shit what happened to the Queen?

I hope Freddy is Ok not heard anything about him for awhile.

£8 million is being provided by the Government for a portrait in every public building…

Biggest sponger of the lot.

Chapeau sir 😂

Should of got rid of the lot of them in 1936.

Should HAVE. Where has this of nonsense come from?

The Monarchy is hardly ideal but it’s by far the best thing we have in terms of a state figurehead

Think that's my pragmatic take on it.

£8 million is being provided by the Government for a portrait in every public building…

Which is not the fault of the of the Monarchy, but like immigration, they are a handy distraction from our incompetent overlords.

Biggest sponger of the lot.

🎩

£8 million is a rounding error these days, Jeremy Hunt probably found that down that back of the sofa.

£8 million is a rounding error these days

Exactly this, it’s a fortune for the average person, but there are actually a fair few individuals who could fund that, it’s small change when compared to the amounts that governments are used to dealing with.

Biggest sponger of the lot

bravo!!

£8 million is being provided by the you

Fixed for you. We, the tax payer are funding a pictures of the entitled mood swing to be placed in public buildings.

we have at least one grown up doing the right thing.

what’s he doing?

Now he's King the correct title is His Majesty. Protocol is everything where handouts are concerned!

there are actually a fair few individuals who could fund that,

Like the King!

Now he’s King the correct title is His Majesty. Protocol is everything where handouts are concerned!

Someone suggested “the monarch formerly known as Prince” and I just kind of liked that.

There was also the suggestion that his speaking German to their parliament was demonstrating his fluency as part of his citizenship application.  To be fair with his ancestry he might well qualify.

My fave quote of that was

Dowden said portraits will “serve as a visible reminder in buildings up and down the country of the nation’s ultimate public servant”.

He added: “They will help us turn a page in our history and pay a fitting tribute to our new sovereign.”

what’s he doing?

Not getting stuck at Dover 🙂

I hope Freddy is Ok not heard anything about him for awhile

He had a crash and they've cancelled production

Eight million? Drop in the ocean. the true cost of the royals
Royalists & brexiteers, **** right off.

Edited, ho hum, if only I could get links to work,

Royalty and Brexit are very similar imo - you won't know what you've lost until it's gone....

Things that shouldn't be mentioned on stw - royalty, Brexit, Shimano Vs SRAM  & if a gravel bike is actually a 90's Mountain bike. They are all just too decisive.

Royalists & brexiteers, **** right off.

Alternatively, Royalty and Brexit have the similarity that if you vote to get rid of something, you'd better be bloody sure you understand what it is that will replace it. A headline amount of savings painted on the side of a bus to be invested in public services won't fool anyone....

Sometimes the lesser evil is to work with and reform what you've got.

We ought to have a referendum on continuing with heredity monarchy, and rather than needing ID just bring your National Insurance No.

Anyone voting to keep it pays extra and those of us against it don't have to pay their 'share' - that'd find out whether those saying they "support it", really support it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/

Anyone voting to keep it pays extra and those of us against it don’t have to pay their ‘share’ – that’d find out whether those saying they “support it”, really support it.

If we are just going on monetary value of the royals your argument falls down at every hurdle, much like the pro Brexit argument..... The grant which funds the royal household, paid by the taxpayer in 21/22 was 107million, so £2.50pa (approximately) per voter.....</span>

60% of international tourists, from which my buisness benefits to the tune of around 15k a year, say that the monarchy is part of the reason they visit the UK. So upto 9k of my trade pa could be indirectly due to the royals. And that's as a very very small village shop in the middle of nowhere. Some of that 9kwpuld be vat so goes back in the UK coffers, and some will be used for in paye etc.

Of course you could add in to royal costs things like policing events and security etc, but those events also bring trade and value to the UK.

A proportion of 60% of our £106billion international tourism industry is significant.

For those thinking of voting 'no' in your fantasy referendum would actually have to 'pay there share' of the taxes and income lost....  So the royal in tourism value have a direct impact of upto £63,600,000,000  - would you vote 'no' if the bill was £2.5k pa in compensation for those voting that votes yes?

Now, as for the moral and social argument I can see why someone would be anti royal.

Royalty and Brexit are very similar imo

The overlap between supporters of both is going to be high.
Oh wait you dont mean that.
Perhaps you mean Johnson trying to prorogue parliament using the royal prerogative?
Or both Elizabeth and Charles interfering in laws for their personal gain?

That the royals have been busy trying to suppress people finding out how much they interfere on the grounds that it will damage their position of impartiality says it all really.

We could get rid of them and replace them with cheap lookalikes. That way tourists are fooled, we keep their money and save a few quid.

That the royals have been busy trying to suppress people finding out how much they interfere on the grounds that it will damage their position of impartiality says it all really.

This could be said about any person or organisation with wealth and influence - says more about capitalism than it does monarchy.

The Monarchy is very flawed and needs reforming, but I've become very cynical about anyone telling me to vote against something because they think it will free up money for other public services.

This could be said about any person or organisation with wealth and influence – says more about capitalism than it does monarchy.

The monarch has the ability to interfere with legislation that financially impacts them, it’s specifically a monarchy problem.

As regards tourist revenue, France seems to do okay, just picking one republic.

60% of international tourists, from which my buisness benefits to the tune of around 15k a year, say that the monarchy is part of the reason they visit the UK

Buckingham Palace gets circa 550k pa whereas Versailles gets +10m.

says more about capitalism than it does monarchy.

Cool you point me to the law that gives the preview option to all the others and I will take the claim seriously otherwise it seems a rather poor attempt at deflection.

Buying / influencing your way into the house of lords is a direct example, or any other unelected board of power.

Who you know and the money you have to wield, has more impact than titles.

Much like Brexit, it is very easy to to be negative, with one liners - power, interference, cost to the public etc than it is to be pro without complex in-depth discussion which is very dull and doesn't make great headlines.

Buying / influencing your way into the house of lords is a direct example

Nope. There is absolute no comparison between the two.

Its also unclear whether they use that far more limited power. In several high profile cases they are known not to participate in the law making. It seems just a prestige thing.

A proportion of 60% of our £106billion international tourism industry is significant.

If the case for the royalty attracting tourists and generating huge income for the nation's coffers is so strong why aren't the royalty more involved?

There is a real possibility that tourists coming to the UK don't even get to see the King of England. His Royal Highness could at specific times stand on the balcony at Buckingham Palace and wave at the tourists, I'm sure they would find it hugely satisfying.

A visitor centre could be opened in Buckingham Palace with a shop selling royalty-themed memorabilia.

If the UK monarchy is a serious tourism asset it doesn't seem to have been fully exploited to its maximum potential.

Edit: I don't understand why King Charles isn't required to always a crown when on monarchy related business, in the same way that someone working on a building site is required to wear a hard hat - its a job requirement.

Hmmm if we're going to start 'disbanding' rich institutions that have undue, and undemocratic, influence in this country I'd like to suggest we remove the Church of England from all aspects of government and day-to-day life.

I'd be happy to retain the Royal family if we could get rid of the Church of England.

 I don’t understand why King Charles isn’t required to always a crown when on monarchy related business, in the same way that someone working on a building site is required to wear a hard hat – its a job requirement.

I kinda agree to this, much In the same way princesses and the like have to wear tiara's at formal events with evening gowns. I'd like to see a more everyday crown worn at regal events (although not daily).

The monarchy are not using the queen mother's crown for Camilla due to colonial jewels (one massive diamond particularly). I also doubt that tiaras will be worn at the event either by Kate and other HRH's. Charles seems to want to reduce the pomp and pageantry of the monarchy, which imo is a good thing.

I’d be happy to retain the Royal family if we could get rid of the Church of England

Just the church of england? All religious institutions?

Just the church of england? All religious institutions?

I'd like to see all religious institutions removed from positions of governmental or legal influence. They can do their worshipping in a place of worship rather than Parliament. I'm sure they're of great comfort and importance to a lot of people, but "god said so" has no place in creating legislation in a modern society.

Oh alright then, all religious institutions ;o)

Leave the Royals until that's all sorted.

Get rid of both. All religious institutions and the rf would be a good start to getting rid of the c0rrupt1on in this country

I’d like to see all religious institutions removed from positions of governmental or legal influence

Is there any religious institution which is in that position other than the Church of England? Genuine question.

I wondered how many pages I would read before I got to some flag waving flat earther citing the Royals 'bring in tourists and therefore pay for themselves' argument. And that's ignoring the absolutely sickening wealth they've awarded themselves, whilst back here on planet earth we have many walks of life struggling to survive, kids living in poverty, elderly who can't heat their homes, homeless people etc etc. All while they sit in their palaces and being above the law. They are far worse than any religion. Parasites.

Do these tourists come to meet the king for tea and cake?
Or perhaps it was one of the warped unhinged family and whichever oddball paedophile they've befriended recently that they've come to see? Laughable. People are so gullible its terrifying.

I'm sure the country would survive without them. Hardly playing a pivotal role are they?
Most of the time they're too busy trying to save their own necks and cover their dirty grubby little tracks like paying off someone 'they've never ever met' with 12 million quid.

Wondered when the name calling would start, like I said at the beginning of the thread - royal family seems to be a regular no no topic on STW (unless it's a prince Andrew one, then we are all agreed).

I’d like to see all religious institutions removed from positions of governmental or legal influence

Is there any religious institution which is in that position other than the Church of England? Genuine question.

Only CofE is established, nominating Lords Spiritual to the House of Lords, being about half of bishops. They get offered regular peerages on retirement, to continue to sit as Lords Temporal (i.e. the rest of them).

I'd assumed there'd be a spot for Chief Rabbi as I remember a couple being in the lords, but on googling find that that's as Lords Temporal for stuff they've done. Likewise some prominent Catholic bishops have been offered peerages but not have taken them. (Surprises me.)

Wondered when the name calling w

Not name calling to question the value to tourism. There might be some, but it does seem to evaporate when you drill into the numbers. I mean I like going to Spain and have wandered round big buildings in Madrid a bit, but I'm not sure that their royal family have a right lot to do with this really.

I think we're tenth on the list of popularity for international tourism, France being first. How about as an experiment we trial a French approach to royalty and see if we go up or down?

I am conflicted. On the one hand the royal family is a pointless anachronism we should and could easily do without for many good reasons.

On the other hand I suspect he is bound to make the blood boil of all the DM reading anti everything swivel eyes loons. He is just too woke, too pro environment to be king.

60% of international tourists, from which my buisness benefits to the tune of around 15k a year, say that the monarchy is part of the reason they visit the UK.

All depends on the wording, doesn't it but if you do a survey at Versailles you'll find that 100% of the visitors are there because of the French monarchy.

Tourists, tick anything that interests you when you visit London:

Shops
Museums
Royal palaces
Olde-worlde pubs
Boat trips
Swinging Carnaby Street
Seeing the Pearly King and Queen
Experiencing authentic Cockney rhyming slang
Red London buses

I’d assumed there’d be a spot for Chief Rabbi as I remember a couple being in the lords, but on googling find that that’s as Lords Temporal for stuff they’ve done. Likewise some prominent Catholic bishops have been offered peerages but not have taken them. (Surprises me.)

I think the point is that anyone can be offered a peerage. But other than the Church of England I don't think that any religious institution has an automatic right to a peerage.

Evgeny Lebedev was offered, and took, a peerage. He sits in the House of Lords as an independent but it doesn't mean that former KGB officers have a constitutional right to governmental or legal influence.

Bishop Levedev?

And I thought Elvis was the king? Hope the weather is good over coronation weekend, lots of biking opportunities while everyone is inside watching him get a posh hat

All depends on the wording, doesn’t it but if you do a survey at Versailles you’ll find that 100% of the visitors are there because of the French monarchy.

Yes it does - I suppose you could say 100% of the visitors to UK palaces and royal castles are also their due to UK royalty - but equally the entrance fee also goes into public purse much like it does in Versailles.

equally the entrance fee also goes into public purse much like it does in Versailles.

Well obviously there are no entrance fees to visit Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.

But you do raise an important point..... we need to get rid of the royal family so that tourists can be charged for visiting places such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, the benefit to the public purse would be huge.

I reckon that the King's bedroom and his toilet would be big crowd pullers. I can just imagine the multitude of Japanese tourists taking selfies of themselves sitting in Charlie Boy's poop/throne room.

Versailles

Yes, it's linked to the French monarchy, but it's an impressive building in its own right- makes Buckingham Palace look like a 3rd rate outhouse.

How about as an experiment we trial a French approach to royalty and see if we go up or down?

Good idea- if it doesn't work we can just look for the next in line through the extended family in Europe like they did when Anne died and brought in the current German family.

I wondered how many pages I would read before I got to some flag waving flat earther citing the Royals ‘bring in tourists and therefore pay for themselves’ argument. And that’s ignoring the absolutely sickening wealth they’ve awarded themselves

Do you suppose they'd have the same international appeal if they lived in a 3-bed semi in Barry Island?

Like them or not - and I'm not particularly a fan myself - it's well documented that they're a net benefit to the country financially. US tourism alone probably pays for them, I've been to the US many times and quite often as soon as I open my mouth the second question (after "where are you from?") was "ooh, have you met the Queen?" They're obsessed.

We've had this argument before. (Unsurprisingly, as we've had most every argument before.)

I am fairly sure that the Greek tourist industry hasn't suffered since they abolished the monarchy in 1973, so I doubt that an experiment is necessary.

King Charles III once said, "Greece is in my blood", ironically the Greek people don't want anyone with his blood interfering with their legislative procedures.

I'm a fan of Charlie - he's done a lot for the environment, the countryside and was way ahead of his time with knowing about climate change. And, no I'm not a flat earther, covid denier or any of those other ridiculous things.

I guess that depends what you mean by "suffered." Your guess is as good as anyone's as to whether their tourism profits would have been greater if they hadn't abolished them.

In any case, we aren't Greece, there isn't a vast swathe of former modern-day Grecian Empire countries and Greek-colonised territories across the globe as far as I'm aware.

I do take your point, but I'm not so sure as it's a fair comparison.

Perhaps they could dial back the 15 palaces and 100’s of lackeys like the European mob who seem able to serve as head of state without the ridiculous display of wealth and privilege enjoyed by the Windsors?

Even better go subscription service and self fund, after all it works for the Kardashian’s.

Perhaps an opening for Andy & Fergie on renovating a Swiss chalet or Billy on how to budget to get a £10m house on an air ambulance pilots salary? Annie on practical badger gassing? The possibilities are endless.

Get rid of both. All religious institutions and the rf would be a good start to getting rid of the c0rrupt1on in this country

It really, really wouldn't. But the government that has been crawling with corruption for the last however many years is very grateful that you think so.

But you do raise an important point….. we need to get rid of the royal family so that tourists can be charged for visiting places such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, the benefit to the public purse would be huge.

Not so true though, most stately homes are limited to about 1000-1500 visitors a day, any more than that and the wear and tear becomes exponential (because you've got people walking on dirty carpet). And you can only open the shutters for so many hours a year as any light coming in is slowly bleaching everything in the room, which is why most houses shut entirely in the winter as the cost/benefit doesn't work out for a handful of visitors on a quiet day. Simply put, a crowd of 10,000+ shuffling past the gates each summers day couldn't translate into them all paying £20 to walk through the house even if you wanted it to.

Then you've got to maintain it. Most NT houses have a small army of conservators and caretakers that have to clean up each morning, and spend the winter painstakingly cleaning each room after a hundred thousand people with their dirty boots, sweat, and whatever else have passed through. Keeping somewhere like Buckingham palace in the kind of state that people would expect to see it would be another level of work.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but I'd not be surprised if the car parks at Windsor didn't make more profit.

I’m a fan of Charlie – he’s done a lot for the environment, the countryside and was way ahead of his time with knowing about climate change. And, no I’m not a flat earther, covid denier or any of those other ridiculous things.

But also homeopathy.

I think a lot of the royals appeal is for the most part we assume they're worthy people because we never hear anything otherwise*, we never her anything at all. Then Andy does his business and Harry writes a book and all of a sudden that whole image is gone.

*better to remain silent and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove any doubt.

The grant which funds the royal household, paid by the taxpayer in 21/22 was 107million, so £2.50pa (approximately) per voter…

Why discuss only the block grant and not all the wealth that has been extorted and stolen over the last few centuries?

The Forbidden City, Versailles, the Kremlin, Neuschwanstein (?), Macchu Picchu...getting rid of their royals didn't seem to undermine their appeal as tourist destinations.

However, as a compromise position, I am prepared to settle for immediate expropriation of all property; a continuation of all royal titles according to existing rules; and a generous annual salary (pegged to the wages of the lowest paid Premiership footballer) for the Monarch...with a bonus scheme tied to UK tourist arrivals.

Not so true though, most stately homes are limited to about 1000-1500 visitors a day, any more than that and the wear and tear becomes exponential (because you’ve got people walking on dirty carpet). And you can only open the shutters for so many hours a year as any light coming in is slowly bleaching everything in the room, which is why most houses shut entirely in the winter as the cost/benefit doesn’t work out for a handful of visitors on a quiet day. Simply put, a crowd of 10,000+ shuffling past the gates each summers day couldn’t translate into them all paying £20 to walk through the house even if you wanted it to.

Sounds terrible how does the Palace of Versailles manage? Or doesn't it contribute to the public purse?

Btw I had no idea that they could only open the shutters at Buckingham Palace for so many hours every year otherwise it will slowly bleach.

It must be awful for the poor ol' King 😟

Why discuss only the block grant and not all the wealth that has been extorted and stolen over the last few centuries?

Just think if one of our ancestors had fought/shagged with someone different, that could have been us!

And that’s ignoring the absolutely sickening wealth they’ve awarded themselves, whilst back here on planet earth we have many walks of life struggling to survive, kids living in poverty, elderly who can’t heat their homes, homeless people etc etc. All while they sit in their palaces and being above the law. They are far worse than any religion. Parasites.

The Royal estates and properties pay a huge amount to the government, out of which the Royal family get the Privy Purse, to pay staff and everyday running of the estates. This goes back to Charles I, possibly Charles II, can’t remember. Plus, the properties are held in trust for the country, they don’t actually belong to any one member of the Royal Family, a great many objects were gifts to the Queen and other members of the Royal household.

The Cullinan Diamond is particularly difficult, because it is claimed by a whole bunch of countries, India was just the last one, it’s origin goes back through a whole load of list of different rulers, so who, exactly, is the rightful owner?

Who would like to suggest a president who they’d prefer to have instead of Charles, ‘cos I’m struggling to think of any at the moment.

Who would like to suggest a president who they’d prefer to have instead of Charles, ‘cos I’m struggling to think of any at the moment.

Well if they have the same executive powers as the current monarch has, ie, none, it doesn't really matter.

I would go for Trevor MacDonald.

Or David Attenborough.

Maybe Dawn French.

Well if they have the same executive powers as the current monarch has, ie, none, it doesn’t really matter.

I would go for Trevor MacDonald.

Or David Attenborough.

Maybe Dawn French.

In reality it would be Liz ****ing Truss

Her overwhelming popularity would guarantee it?

The Royal estates and properties pay a huge amount to the government,

No the crown estates do.

This goes back to Charles I, possibly Charles II, can’t remember.

Rather later. Charles 1st would never have done such a thing since, well, he was an absolutist idiot hence why he ended up losing his head.

Now they could try and claim it back but then they would need to cover the cost of government (which was why the deal was struck in the first place).
The royals only reluctantly starting paying tax on their own property and even then its unclear how much.

Why discuss only the block grant and not all the wealth that has been extorted and stolen over the last few centuries?

Seems appropriate, it's exactly what we did to every other country we could get to.

Who would like to suggest a president who they’d prefer to have instead of Charles, ‘cos I’m struggling to think of any at the moment

I am a republican by instinct, but I wouldn't mind having the royals as an anachronistic head of state so long as they don't have any power or money.

However, this idea that British people are too thick to choose a head of state that is distinct from the Prime Minister is silly. Ireland and Israel have reasonably similarish parliamentary systems to the UK, and have had Presidents as formal heads of state. Michael Martin (the Irish president) and his dogs are quite beloved. Tbf one of the Israeli presidents turned out to be a sex offender, so that wasn't so good.

I would nominate Richard Attenborough, Miriam Margoyles, that England manager that everyone likes, the Chuckle Brother that is still with us, and Fred Dibnah (regardless).

Tbf one of the Israeli presidents turned out to be a sex offender, so that wasn’t so good.

At least having royalty as head of state guarantees that could never happen.

I would like to add Brian Blessed to my list of potential presidents. I think he would be excellent in dealing with visiting foreign dignitaries and opening parliament.

“ However, this idea that British people are too thick to choose a head of state that is distinct from the Prime Minister is silly. “

of late the British people haven’t been very good at voting.

Currently the House of Windsor has exclusive rights(1) to provide head-of-state services(2) to the UK and other places. There is a financial cost(3).

A lot of hot air could be avoided if (1), (2) and (3) are separated. For example in my view the standard of service since George VI has been good. Obviously we will have to wait a bit to see how Charles gets on. But the democratic oncongruence of (1) and the cost are things I have real problems with.

Charles' visit to Germany is an example of an advantage of having a non-political head of state (unlike France and the US for example). That type of soft diplomacy is important, and best done by some one who is above politics.

I think Charles was pretty lucky becoming king in the time of Truss, certainly gave him an easier ride.

I think the country recognised that at a time when a lettuce had become Prime Minister, it was useful to have a head of state that had a reputation for talking to plants.