Charles is King of 15 countries - but for how much longer?

[RuamRudy]

7 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

https://royalcentral.co.uk/features/insight/think-a-republic-would-be-cheaper-than-monarchy-think-again-40065/

 

France more

Italy more

Germany about the same

Poland the same.

I am going to go out on a limb here - but might a website called royal central possibly have an inbuilt bias?

 

We don't even know how much the monarchy actually costs us at present because of Byzantine accounting. Although, I guess, we do have a feel for the amount of taxes Charles was due when his mother died that he shirked. I suspect, however, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[John Drake]

19 hours ago, kwilco said:

  

Basically compared to the coronation in 1953, nobody is that bothered.

 

Those "fans" of pomp and ceremony are looked upon as slightly unhinged. or sad.

 

The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees, a relic of an old outdated family who isn't expected to be King for more than 10 years at the most - this is a "rump" monarchy. Inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living is dropping and the future as an isolated Britain with a doddery old king looks anything but rosy. Any freedoms and future of democracy are looking bleak as the government hastily introduces draconian laws to stop free protestors, corruption is rife and the welfare state is under attack  - no wonder coronation celebrations are hugely undersubscribed – the public has things to worry about other than Charles – a figure we have known for 6 decades and quite frankly aren't excited about in the slightest.

 

Already, he seems exhausted. There's something about the entire situation that seems broken. 

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

I am going to go out on a limb here - but might a website called royal central possibly have an inbuilt bias?

 

We don't even know how much the monarchy actually costs us at present because of Byzantine accounting. Although, I guess, we do have a feel for the amount of taxes Charles was due when his mother died that he shirked. I suspect, however, that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Royal finances are published every year.

 

The Royal family, via the Crown estate, are net contributors to the UK economy. It averages out to about £220m a year. 

 

If there were a process enacted to abolish the Monarchy, it is as yet unclear what would happen to the Crown estate. Republicans obviously say it would become state property, others say not. One thing for sure is the Royals would still have a lot of personal wealth and would likely not suffer financially. 

 

The UK economy obviously would suffer, it would need to support a head of state along with their staff. The economy would also, potentially, lose the income from the Crown estate.

 

So, if one's reasoning for abolishing the Monarchy is financial, it's probably time to re evaluate.

 

If one's reasoning for abolishing the Monarchy is democratic, why not start a movement for a referendum. Just don't complain if there is one and the result is 52/48 in favour of the monarchy. ????????????

 

 

[RuamRudy]

21 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The Royal family, via the Crown estate, are net contributors to the UK economy. It averages out to about £220m a year. 

Can you provide backup for this?

 

22 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

One thing for sure is the Royals would still have a lot of personal wealth and would likely not suffer financially. 

Then maybe they could start to pay their taxes? That would be a nice change. 

 

22 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

The UK economy obviously would suffer, it would need to support a head of state along with their staff. The economy would also, potentially, lose the income from the Crown estate.

Do you have evidence for this? Currently the economy needs to support a head of state and numerous nonentities plus those nonentities' flunkies. Replacing a massive money pit with a much smaller and more accountable one would surely make economic sense? As for the crown estates, those endeavours will, presumably, continue to function. Only the income would be returned in full to the country, it's rightful owner. 

 

25 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So, if one's reasoning for abolishing the Monarchy is financial, it's probably time to re evaluate.

 

Not my sole reason, but your argument to the contrary is definitely unconvincing at present. 

 

25 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

If one's reasoning for abolishing the Monarchy is democratic, why not start a movement for a referendum. Just don't complain if there is one and the result is 52/48 in favour of the monarchy.

Such a movement already exists: https://www.republic.org.uk/

 

But I fear, much like brexit, until we get democracy within the UK electoral franchise, we won't see any meaningful reform to the drain that is the royal family either. Until then, the UK electorate will continue to vote for the most damaging of results and any plebiscite for abolishing the monarchy will be thwarted by the very people who would benefit from it (see Brexit, PR referendum, any election which saw the Tories take office etc). 

 

[xylophone]

21 hours ago, kwilco said:

  

Basically compared to the coronation in 1953, nobody is that bothered.

 

Those "fans" of pomp and ceremony are looked upon as slightly unhinged. or sad.

 

The main difference between the two coronations is that back in 1953 it was seen as part of a new beginning - a young girl as Queen the end of rationing and the Festival of Britain the new NHS - we were coming out of the effects of WW2 and people were looking forward to a new united Europe.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees, a relic of an old outdated family who isn't expected to be King for more than 10 years at the most - this is a "rump" monarchy. Inflation and recession are taking hold, the standards of living is dropping and the future as an isolated Britain with a doddery old king looks anything but rosy. Any freedoms and future of democracy are looking bleak as the government hastily introduces draconian laws to stop free protestors, corruption is rife and the welfare state is under attack  - no wonder coronation celebrations are hugely undersubscribed – the public has things to worry about other than Charles – a figure we have known for 6 decades and quite frankly aren't excited about in the slightest.

 

Now it's an old git with weird eccentric ideas who talks to trees ..........And wants to be a tampon!!!

[youreavinalaff]

15 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Can you provide backup for this

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

 

16 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

As for the crown estates, those endeavours will, presumably, continue to function. Only the income would be returned in full to the country, it's rightful owner. 

As yet unconfirmed.

 

17 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Replacing a massive money pit with a much smaller and more accountable one would surely make economic sense?

Already addressed with my link above. The Sovereign Grant is a small percentage of the money received from the Crown estate.

[kwilco]

6 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

I believe Canada to be a bit more pragmatic.???? The country is bilingual with a large 'French" population yet I don't see call for a revolution and guillotines. 

Having a British head of state keeps them culturally separate from their loud neighbours to the south.

Always someone with a racist viewpoint.

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Always someone with a racist viewpoint.

Racist? Can't see racism there.

[kwilco]

  

While I was living in Queensland I stayed in a pub in Northern Queensland for a couple of nights and got to chatting with the locals.

They told me the pub was called the Republic and had changed its name from the Empire and what did I think of that?

Clearly a reference to the monarchy.

My first response was that it was their country and that they should do democratically what they deemed right…. And none of the Britain’s business

I then asked who they thought might end up as president. - Bond? Packer? Rinehart? Murdoch?

The whole pub went quiet.

In the end the republican vote in Oz was split because the monarchists introduced a choice of ways of electing a new President – i.e. by general vote or appointment by parliament.

 

This is something that needs discussing in the UK.

Firstly there is the constitutional role of the “CROWN” – the monarch being the current representative of that part of the constitution – and yes, the UK does have a constitution, it’s just not all in one place/document.

An elected president in UK could in effect have exactly the same powers/duties/role as the monarchy does now, we just wouldn’t have to look at the same face all the time.

We could have a US style president – someone who has a massive amount of power (33% in fact), or like Italy, where the President - Sergio Mattarella (heard of him?) – has very little actual power but serves as a bulwark against the various corrupt and loony parties in that benighted country.

So rather than look t the Presidents from a nationalistic or racist point of view, it is better to look at their constitutional role in their country.

The monarchy in UK is relatively lower power and seems to work quite well, the question is do we really need to breed them or should we start electing them?

[kwilco]

38 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Racist? Can't see racism there.

Most raicist can't....or at least they're in denial.. heven't you noticed how racists spend a lot of their time denying things are racist?

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, kwilco said:

Most raicist can't....or at least they're in denial.. heven't you noticed how racists spend a lot of their time denying things are racist?

OK, so please explain how reference to France, Canada, UK and America can be racist?

 

 

[kwilco]

31 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

OK, so please explain how reference to France, Canada, UK and America can be racist?

 

 

QED

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, kwilco said:

QED

OK. I can only assume you used the incorrect terminology.

 

You meant to say " discrimination by nationality" rather than "racism" 

 

Bearing in mind the countries quoted are multi racial and multi cultural, discriminating against the population of said countries cannot be deemed "racist".

[RayC]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Royal finances are published every year.

 

The Royal family, via the Crown estate, are net contributors to the UK economy. It averages out to about £220m a year. 

How is this figure of £220m/ year derived?

 

Imo a better way of viewing the Royal Family is that they are shareholders (and employees?) of a commercial organisation which pays them a generous dividend.

 

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

If there were a process enacted to abolish the Monarchy, it is as yet unclear what would happen to the Crown estate. Republicans obviously say it would become state property, others say not.

I accept that unless the Royals are put up against a wall or exiled - I do not support either option - then the process for abolishing the Monarchy will require a lot of thought. Part of that discussion would presumably encompass the Royals 'shareholding' in the Crown Estate; however, I don't see why this should prevent the Crown Estate continuing its' commercial activities?

 

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

One thing for sure is the Royals would still have a lot of personal wealth and would likely not suffer financially. 

Agreed

 

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The UK economy obviously would suffer, it would need to support a head of state along with their staff. The economy would also, potentially, lose the income from the Crown estate.

No obvious reason why the UK economy or commercial activities of Crown Estate should suffer.

 

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

So, if one's reasoning for abolishing the Monarchy is financial, it's probably time to re evaluate.

I would suggest that there is little evidence to support that conclusion.

 

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

How is this figure of £220m/ year derived?

 

Imo a better way of viewing the Royal Family is that they are shareholders (and employees?) of a commercial organisation which pays them a generous dividend.

 

I accept that unless the Royals are put up against a wall or exiled - I do not support either option - then the process for abolishing the Monarchy will require a lot of thought. Part of that discussion would presumably encompass the Royals 'shareholding' in the Crown Estate; however, I don't see why this should prevent the Crown Estate continuing its' commercial activities?

 

Agreed

 

No obvious reason why the UK economy or commercial activities of Crown Estate should suffer.

 

I would suggest that there is little evidence to support that conclusion.

 

 

The link I provided shows figures from the last 10 years. I'm proficient enough at maths to have worked out £300m minus £80m is £220m.

 

When you speak of the Crown Estate continuing to create revenue, thus the economy not suffering, you are neglecting to consider the funds remaining the property of the, possibly abolished, Monarchy. That situation will not be known until such an event occurs. 

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

OK. I can only assume you used the incorrect terminology.

 

You meant to say " discrimination by nationality" rather than "racism" 

 

Bearing in mind the countries quoted are multi racial and multi cultural, discriminating against the population of said countries cannot be deemed "racist".

QED!! Spend ages trying to say something isn't racism!

You'll be saying "I've got nothing against them but...." next!

Edited May 5, 2023 by kwilco

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Most raicist can't....or at least they're in denial.. heven't you noticed how racists spend a lot of their time denying things are racist?

AS you seem to accuse everyone and everything as being "racist" , its can be expected that numerous responses will be denying your constant accusations 

[youreavinalaff]

57 minutes ago, kwilco said:

QED!! Spend ages trying to say something isn't racism!

You'll be saying "I've got nothing against them but...." next!

Racism is discrimination by race. USA,UK,France and Canada are not races. They are countries. Those people coming from those countries have that country's nationality.

 

If I'll be saying " I've got nothing against them" about whom would I be speaking? Thanks.

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Racism is discrimination by race. USA,UK,France and Canada are not races. They are countries. Those people coming from those countries have that country's nationality.

 

If I'll be saying " I've got nothing against them" about whom would I be speaking? Thanks.

"its a religion so its not racist" - you're coming out with classic after classic.....

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

Racism is discrimination by race. USA,UK,France and Canada are not races. They are countries. Those people coming from those countries have that country's nationality.

 

If I'll be saying " I've got nothing against them" about whom would I be speaking? Thanks.

It might be an idea in a UK related thread to apply the definitions according to UK law.

 

 

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

AS you seem to accuse everyone and everything as being "racist" , its can be expected that numerous responses will be denying your constant accusations 

So what do you think is a constant?

 

to be honest I can't even remember what the original comment was, but it is so predictable how racists spend so much time arguing they aren't racist.

 

Those of you who understand comparatives and superlatives will know what I mean when I say there is "stupid" "stupider" and "racist" and some on the this thread fit the role so well.

 

One they've got over that (i doubt they ever will) they will be able to look at the role of Charles in a constitutional monarchy without make absurd, racist comparisons to other countries based on reason rather than racism.

Edited May 5, 2023 by kwilco

[Chomper Higgot]

I had hoped to be in the UK for the Coronation, unfortunately my travel plans had to change so I’ll miss the event. 
 

I will however raise a glass of a fine single malt to toast King Charles.

 

I rather like the man.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

The link I provided shows figures from the last 10 years. I'm proficient enough at maths to have worked out £300m minus £80m is £220m.

 

When you speak of the Crown Estate continuing to create revenue, thus the economy not suffering, you are neglecting to consider the funds remaining the property of the, possibly abolished, Monarchy. That situation will not be known until such an event occurs. 

As I said earlier, the process for abolishing the monarchy would require careful thought. Whatever may be the eventual ownership of the Crown Estate, I can't think of any reason why it should have to cease its' trading activities in the meantime.

 

Looked at your link again, I still can't see where you get your figures from. The revenue paid to the Exchequer from the Crown Estate over the past 10 years is £3bn whereas the Sovereign Grant for 22/23 is £86.3m.

 

Anyway, the actual amounts are besides the point. It all boils down to whether one considers this to be an example of the Monarch's largesse or whether one thinks that this is income which should rightfully belong to the State in the first place. This obviously depends on the individual's point of view 

[Mac Mickmanus]

20 minutes ago, kwilco said:

but it is so predictable how racists spend so much time arguing they aren't racist.

 

 

Excuse me .

Are you saying that I am a racist ?

Was that a reference to me personally ?

 

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It might be an idea in a UK related thread to apply the definitions according to UK law.

 

 

Racism is discrimination against race. It doesn't matter where you are or where you come from. 

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

So what do you think is a constant?

 

to be honest I can't even remember what the original comment was, but it is so predictable how racists spend so much time arguing they aren't racist.

 

Those of you who understand comparatives and superlatives will know what I mean when I say there is "stupid" "stupider" and "racist" and some on the this thread fit the role so well.

 

One they've got over that (i doubt they ever will) they will be able to look at the role of Charles in a constitutional monarchy without make absurd, racist comparisons to other countries based on reason rather than racism.

You really don't understand the meaning of "Racist" do you?

 

I certainly am not racist.

 

If I said I don't like America or France, I'm not being racist. I have not mentioned race. 

 

 

[youreavinalaff]

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

"its a religion so its not racist" - you're coming out with classic after classic.....

Who mentioned religion?

 

Anyway, being anti one religion or another is not being racist. It's discrimination by religion.

 

If, and only if, I said I don't like Jews, I'm being antisemitic. Not racist. Have a read about recent comments by Diane Abbott. You may learn something. 

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Racism is discrimination against race. It doesn't matter where you are or where you come from. 

That’s not what UK law says.

 

 

[RuamRudy]

Regardless of your feelings towards the monarchy, this should outrage every one of us - peaceful demonstrators arrested and their placards confiscated. Fascist regimes don't happen over night, but the UK is definitely on the road to dystopia.

 

 

[placeholder]

18 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Who mentioned religion?

 

Anyway, being anti one religion or another is not being racist. It's discrimination by religion.

 

If, and only if, I said I don't like Jews, I'm being antisemitic. Not racist. Have a read about recent comments by Diane Abbott. You may learn something. 

rac·ism

noun

 

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

   https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+racism&oq=definition+of+racism&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.6476j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8