NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm posting this here becuase i'm often suprised by the number of people who are suprised by this piece of information.

Taken from "In defence of the monarchy" by Alan Gouldman

Another issue on which royalty is criticized is their apparent lavish lifestyle, which is regarded as a drain on taxpayers, but is this really so? Remember that whoever is a country’s head of state will reside in a palace or elegant mansion, often wear a special decorative uniform along with a sash, possess a fleet of luxury cars, receive a large salary, enjoy considerable security arrangements along with many other perks. So it really makes no difference if a country is headed by a monarchy of a presidency, if republicans find it acceptable to bestow such perks on their presidents, then they can hardly complain when the same applies to a royal head of state. Besides its most often the case that a palace is owned by the government, not the monarch who although allowed to live there is in reality a tenant, good examples in England include Buckingham Palace & Windsor Castle. Regarding the civil list we need to remember that this costs much less than people are often lead to believe. For example in Britain this list pays not just the for the royals salary but also for, the upkeep of palaces, staff, administration costs etc. Yet while this might seem to be a serious drain on the taxpayer, we must take into account that the Queen through an arrangement going back more than 200 years, surrenders the income from her Duchy of Lancaster estate which owns a vast amount of property, to her government. As these revenues bring in more revenue for the government than it spends on maintaining the royal family, including the homes they live in, the UK taxpayer actually ends up making a substantial profit from the monarchy, yet the Queen also voluntarily pays income tax on her portion of the civil list! Who ever heard of a republic making a profit from its president in a similar way?! Again as I have said before a monarch tends to work tirelessly throughout life, including a great deal of charity work, even if they abdicate. Yet for serving a much shorter term in office a former president is guaranteed the payroll of a lifetime from the state &, after retiring does not need to do any more work again. We must then come to the conclusion that a royal lifestyle is not as lavish as it would otherwise seem, indeed a measure of comfort is the least we can show for devoting a lifetime of service to the people.

Lie about Republicans #1

We are only republicans because we think it would save money.


It's an untruth. I know no republicans that are so because of percieve fiscal savings.

To argue that we should keep the monarchy on cost alone is like telling someone they should keep a dictator because a transition to democracy is too expensive

Wow, I didn't know about the Duchy of Lancaster! Heh... now I can go unleash some monarchistic thwackage on one or two friends of mine.

Because the monarchy has so much power at the moment. Riiiiight.

And because democracy has worked out so wonderfully for us. Well, whoop de freakin' do, since the reduction of power to the monarch our empire has shrunk like wool in the wash and our society is more fragmented and irresponsible than ever before. So big applause for whoever it was that came up with that idea! Yeah! :rolleyes:

Because the monarchy has so much power at the moment. Riiiiight.

Yeah, that's why I am against the monarchy [/sarcasm]

And because democracy has worked out so wonderfully for us. Well, whoop de freakin' do, since the reduction of power to the monarch our empire has shrunk like wool in the wash and our society is more fragmented and irresponsible than ever before. So big applause for whoever it was that came up with that idea! Yeah! :rolleyes:

AFAIK there is little evidence to suggest that the fall of the Empire had anything to do with the fall in monarchic power. You may as well be against Thatcher since before she was elected there was no AIDs crisis.

Also, Imperialism is not good imo.

The monarchy is one of the few things which is still recognisably British. For all people's talk about how they don't like Americanization, and 'those foreigners' (Ie, immigrants) are ruining everything, I can't figure out what's so terrible about keeping one of the perennial things which is not and can not be eroded. *Shrugs* I don't care either way, frankly, but I think most of the anti-monarchy bashing is envy of people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

To argue that we should keep the monarchy on cost alone is like telling someone they should keep a dictator because a transition to democracy is too expensive

Similarly, though, to argue that the monarchy should be eliminated on cost alone is like saying we should disband the civil service because it is too expensive. Obviously, cost alone is not the issue, and I believe that is the point that is being brought out here.

Because the monarchy has so much power at the moment. Riiiiight.

And because democracy has worked out so wonderfully for us. Well, whoop de freakin' do, since the reduction of power to the monarch our empire has shrunk like wool in the wash and our society is more fragmented and irresponsible than ever before. So big applause for whoever it was that came up with that idea! Yeah! :rolleyes:


Since the rise of the British Empire occurred well after the monarchy lost absolute power, I can't see how that had anything to do with it. I think a couple of world wars might have rather more to do with it.

Also, Imperialism is not good imo.

Imperialism brought the Industrial Revolution to India.

The monarchy is one of the few things which is still recognisably British.

A lot of Scandinavian countries have a Monarchy. So does Nepal.

the Queen through an arrangement going back more than 200 years, surrenders the income from her Duchy of Lancaster estate which owns a vast amount of property, to her government. As these revenues bring in more revenue for the government than it spends on maintaining the royal family, including the homes they live in, the UK taxpayer actually ends up making a substantial profit from the monarchy

a) I'd like to see figures.
b) whoever owned everything currently owned by the queen would pay tax on ALL of it, and would that come to more or less than what the queen currently pays?
c) the expense isn't a great part of the argument


Having said that, I'm a monarchist because heads of state should be seen to be useless.

Imperialism brought the Industrial Revolution to India.

as in "hey fuzzywuzzy, see this rifle, it's the industrial revolution. so do as your told or i'll blow your head off".

How many Indians benefitted from imperialism as opposed to the ones who suffered more?

Imperialism brought the Industrial Revolution to India.

I didn't say that the monarchy did no good, I said it is not good.

Anyway, when European explorer traders arrived there they found a fairly modern civilisation (by the standards of early modern Europe) with a roughly equal level of technological safistication. Even if it was never incoporated into the empire it is unlikely it would be a backwater in the year 2005 that didn't have an industrial revolution.

I think most of the anti-monarchy bashing is envy of people who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

Really? You really think people base their views of how democracy should work on being jealous of Prince Andrew?

Really? You really think people base their views of how democracy should work on being jealous of Prince Andrew?
Well I'm jealous of Charles. I wish my mother wouldn't turn up to my wedding too :(

In Soviet Russia(or should that be Britain?), a little something tends to ignore you!

Since the rise of the British Empire occurred well after the monarchy lost absolute power, I can't see how that had anything to do with it. I think a couple of world wars might have rather more to do with it.

True, the monarchy lost absolute power long before. However, it did still have a large degree of influence, both in terms of national loyalty and political clout.

And, yes, two world wars did negatively impact on the Empire - but as the monarchy's power became progressively undermined, so did our own national power. Which is never a good thing.

And apart from the industrial benefits conferred on subject nations, a massive degree of social dynamism was engendered by imperialism. So, imo, it's extremely good.

True, the monarchy lost absolute power long before. However, it did still have a large degree of influence, both in terms of national loyalty and political clout.

Why does it need political clout?

And, yes, two world wars did negatively impact on the Empire - but as the monarchy's power became progressively undermined, so did our own national power. Which is never a good thing.

All your doing is looking at two things, realising they happened at roughly the same time and assuming that there must be a causal link between the two.

And apart from the industrial benefits conferred on subject nations, a massive degree of social dynamism was engendered by imperialism. So, imo, it's extremely good.

Im not great at Imperial history, but what is this social dynamism (honestly, I have no idea, not trying to lead you on or anything).

Also, you have not shown that the nations that gained industrial benefits wouldn't have got them anyway and that they were a good thing for the country to start off with.

And apart from the industrial benefits conferred on subject nations, a massive degree of social dynamism was engendered by imperialism. So, imo, it's extremely good.

the industrial benefits? are you joking? where is the benefit in working 12 hours a day building a railway that you only get to ride on between your home and your job where you work in a factory / plantation / whatever that is owned by a foreigner who takes all the profit home?

Do you think Indians in the 19C had the same amenities as brits?

... For example in Britain this list pays not just the for the royals salary but also for, the upkeep of palaces, staff, administration costs etc. Yet while this might seem to be a serious drain on the taxpayer, we must take into account that the Queen through an arrangement going back more than 200 years, surrenders the income from her Duchy of Lancaster estate which owns a vast amount of property, to her government. As these revenues bring in more revenue for the government than it spends on maintaining the royal family, including the homes they live in, the UK taxpayer actually ends up making a substantial profit from the monarchy, yet the Queen also voluntarily pays income tax on her portion of the civil list! Who ever heard of a republic making a profit from its president in a similar way?! Again as I have said before a monarch tends to work tirelessly throughout life, including a great deal of charity work, even if they abdicate. Yet for serving a much shorter term in office a former president is guaranteed the payroll of a lifetime from the state &, after retiring does not need to do any more work again.

Somewhat underhanded here using the example of the UK monarchy and then presenting what I assume is the American model of paying a president after they have left office as the only alternative, no? Sticking to the UK we see that the Prime Minister doesn't receive a lifetime wage for serving their term, nor if we look to our closest neighbours - Eire - the president there is paid only for the term they serve.

Bear in mind this is only an extract from the longer essay.

Bear in mind this is only an extract from the longer essay.

Well yes, but the whole point of this extract seems to be 'the UK makes money from the Royal Family, and therefore they are a good thing'. The same could have been said of slavery: the question is whether it is worth maintaining class divisions and views of humanity which allocate a higher natural value to one group of people instead of another on the basis of their bloodline or marriage into that bloodline purely for the sake of thirty pieces of silver.

Well yes, but the whole point of this extract seems to be 'the UK makes money from the Royal Family, and therefore they are a good thing'. The same could have been said of slavery: the question is whether it is worth maintaining class divisions and views of humanity which allocate a higher natural value to one group of people instead of another on the basis of their bloodline or marriage into that bloodline purely for the sake of thirty pieces of silver.
Unfortunately the monarchy is not what sustains that. Basically i posted this because it set out clearly that the monarchy does NOT cost britian money. Most of the people i talk to don't know this, they have no idea about how the monarchy works and simply believe that we pay them out of the kindness of our hearts.

As a constitutional law student, what strikes me is the practical element to all of this.

It would be almost impossible for the UK to abolish the monarchy unless it entirely rehauled the constitutional system that has operated for so many centuries. A lot of our constitution is based on precedent and convention. There is no written constitution. The system of electing of a President and the roles that the President would be expected to fulfill and his powers would either a) be in a normal Act of Parliament and therefore be completely under the control of the government of the day, (a terrible thought for anyone concerned by constitutional security) or b) be in a written constitution that would require a supermajority to overturn, as in the USA or elsewhere. If it was the latter then we would need some kind of Supreme Court with the ability to strike down laws, and that destroys the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty (where a parliament is allowed to make any law that it pleases, as at the moment), and open the judiciary to politics, as in the USA's Supreme Court.

Neither option appeals to me.

The system that we have at the moment works very well precisely because of the limited 'ceremonial' powers that the monarch retains. The power to dissolve Parliament (always done at the PM's request, by convention rather than law), the giving of the Royal Assent to parliamentary bills (again, always done, by convention) and the power to appoint a PM (always the leader of the party that can command a majority of the Commons, again by convention) - all these things ensure that our government is run smoothly, our Parliament is not inhibited by the courts, and our liberties are preserved.
We get our system for 20p a year per person from the Treasury. Absolute bargain. We are very, very lucky.

Breaking this system would lead to uncertainty. How will the courts interpret the rules? If the President had the same powers as the monarch does now, would he assert his authority more, trusting in his popular mandate? Would that destroy the system's balance? We don't know. Why find out? The current system works because it is based on centuries of precedent, binding and non-binding. Abolishing the monarchy would destroy that.

A close examination of our constitution shows that what appear to be oddities in our systems are its strengths - the monarch's lack of a popular mandate means that she cannot interfere with Parliament's will, yet she prevents the possibility of permanent dictatorship. It's a system that balances expediency and constitutional security better than most, and I'm very happy with it.

The concept of monarchy is inherently wrong.

The idea people are born with special rights is absurd and left over from the same paths of thought that brought you slavery and the feudal system.

It's offensive to have such a system in place.

Everyone is born equal and should be given equal opportunities.

As a constitutional law student, what strikes me is the practical element to all of this.

It would be almost impossible for the UK to abolish the monarchy unless it entirely rehauled the constitutional system that has operated for so many centuries. A lot of our constitution is based on precedent and convention. There is no written constitution. The system of electing of a President and the roles that the President would be expected to fulfill and his powers would either a) be in a normal Act of Parliament and therefore be completely under the control of the government of the day, (a terrible thought for anyone concerned by constitutional security) or b) be in a written constitution that would require a supermajority to overturn, as in the USA or elsewhere. If it was the latter then we would need some kind of Supreme Court with the ability to strike down laws, and that destroys the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty (where a parliament is allowed to make any law that it pleases, as at the moment), and open the judiciary to politics, as in the USA's Supreme Court.

Why the need for a president?



The system that we have at the moment works very well precisely because of the limited 'ceremonial' powers that the monarch retains. The power to dissolve Parliament (always done at the PM's request, by convention rather than law), the giving of the Royal Assent to parliamentary bills (again, always done, by convention) and the power to appoint a PM (always the leader of the party that can command a majority of the Commons, again by convention) - all these things ensure that our government is run smoothly, our Parliament is not inhibited by the courts, and our liberties are preserved.
We get our system for 20p a year per person from the Treasury. Absolute bargain. We are very, very lucky.

Breaking this system would lead to uncertainty. How will the courts interpret the rules? If the President had the same powers as the monarch does now, would he assert his authority more, trusting in his popular mandate? Would that destroy the system's balance? We don't know. Why find out? The current system works because it is based on centuries of precedent, binding and non-binding. Abolishing the monarchy would destroy that.

A close examination of our constitution shows that what appear to be oddities in our systems are its strengths - the monarch's lack of a popular mandate means that she cannot interfere with Parliament's will, yet she prevents the possibility of permanent dictatorship. It's a system that balances expediency and constitutional security better than most, and I'm very happy with it.

Given that your argument seems to be that the role of the monarch is just to follow conventions, I have to ask why we actually need a person filling the role of the monarch - the same conventions could be applied by parliament itself, or even a ceremonial position without the other trappings of the monarch... hey, we could even call them Lord/Lady Protector.

Unfortunately the monarchy is not what sustains that.

The monarchy are not the thing which sustains the division between the commoners and the royals?

The monarchy are not the thing which sustains the division between the commoners and the royals?
you didnt say that you said classes

And no they don't, it is the upper and lower classes that maintain the class divide, not the royals. I'll admit many of them are superfluous, but they work damn hard for their money.

This thread is meant merely to piont out that the royal family of the UK do not cost the UK money. Nothing more.

you didnt say that you said classes

"the question is whether it is worth maintaining class divisions and views of humanity which allocate a higher natural value to one group of people instead of another on the basis of their bloodline or marriage into that bloodline"

Actually I was refering just to the division between the royals and the commoners - as you will see my comments describe the royal family rather than more general working class/middle class/ruling class divisions. Note the use of the singular 'bloodline' rather than the plural which would be applicable in a wider sense.

Monarchs suck no matter what they cost. Monarchy is even more élitist than republicanism. Assuming government is even a good idea, monarchism is still a stupid idea. The very concept is inherently and strongly élitist.