28 Sep 2009
As the Guardian revealed this weekend, the royal family is to be exempt from any cuts in public spending next year. Despite the swingeing cuts planned by all major parties, it seems that Palace officials are currently negotiating an increase in the £12.7m annual Civil List payment which pays for the Queen, according to the report.
Thanks to a bizarre deal under the 1972 Civil List Act, parliament is unable to vote on decreasing the amount of taxpayers’ money that goes directly to the royals. MPs can currently only vote to increase it or leave it the same – and it seems that heavy lobbying from the palace has persuaded Treasury officials to opt for the former.
Let’s be quite clear about the amount of money the monarchy currently costs us. The Civil List is just the start. There’s also security costs, costs to council tax payers for royal visits, unpaid tax and lost revenue from the Duchies.
All this comes to around £183m a year, equivalent to 10,726 new nurses, 3,660 new GPs or 18 new schools. With politicians now talking of “savage” and “painful” cuts in public spending, it is a disgrace that the royals are likely to get their hands on even more of our money.
Please write to your MP today and ask them to:
- do all they can on your behalf to oppose the increase in the Civil List payment
- ask the Chancellor Alistair Darling for an explanation as to why the monarchy is the only public body statutorily exempt from a cut in funding
- support Republic’s royal finances reform charter.
If you have time, please also contact the Shadow Chancellor George Osborne and the Lib Dem’s Teasury spokesman Vince Cable to ask if they would cut royal costs before public services.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm and is filed under Royal Finances. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Comments are now closed.
Facebook
Twitter
September 28th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
As always, the royals WILL get more money, as there are too many sycophants who will endevour to make sure that this happens; thereby making sure that they will have a better chance of a ‘gong’; I find it utterley abhorrent and disgusting – in particularly, as James Gray has already mentioned: “.. it seems that Palace officials are currently negotiating an increase in the £12.7m annual Civil List payment which pays for the Queen….” she obviously feels like she needs this, as she must be down to her last half a billion!
September 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I think you’re being most unfair. Have you seen the cost of corgi food these days !
September 28th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
I stand corrected; my apologies go to you, Nigel!
September 28th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
In the wake of Gordon Brown’s humiliation in failing to secure a one to one with his (according to the BBC) ‘opposite number’ ( the President of the U.S.A.), could this be a White Hall knee-jerk carrot to hawk the Royals around International Conferences ? To press the flesh and get the protocol right ? So that a British Premier can then be on hand to gate-crash and show his Colgate ring of confidence to the world as he embraces the Chief?
This manoeuvre by the civil service is about gearing up to facilitate future arse licking without loss of face.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
I am an American with dual citizenship who has lived in the UK for the last 22 years. The reason that Parliament can only increase the money paid to the royals is that we live in a genuine monarchy, not a constitutional monarchy and not a parliamentary democracy.
Monarchies survive when the king or queen is decent and fair, when the king or queen is utterly ruthless or when the king or queen has enough patronage to buy off powerful people.
The monarchical dynasty founded by the rapist, arsonist and murderer William the Conquerer has survived using all three strategies. Liz and Phil and their “Heirs and Successors” are direct descendants (source: Bamber Gascoigne’s Encyclopedia of Britain, pp 550-51).
William the Conquerer bestowed a royal charter in 1067 to the Corporation of the City of London, putting it above the law. There are more than 900 royal charters currently in force in cities, universities, institutes, the BBC, organisations of professionals (solicitors, accountants, auditors, insurers, bankers) and organisations of commercial interests (brewing, construction, IT, transportation, energy). There are 108 Worshipful Companies in the City and almost all of them have royal charters.
The charters themselves almost always order ministers and judges to always favour the chartered body.
The almost invisible men of the City support the monarchy because the monarchy lets them drive government policy in return for their “support”. Parliament is pretty much all mouth and no trousers.
Expose this and the whole rotten setup may collapse.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
…saying that, Nigel: I wonder what is being spent (from the public purse – naturally) on the provision of keeping the corgi’s in the manner that they have become accustomed to: I bet it is more that what I am getting at this moment in time, as I am ‘living’ on Jobseekers Allowance: £65 a week!
September 28th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I think that Suzon Forscey-Moore hit the nail on the head, Re: “…The almost invisible men of the City…” Invisible being the operative word! Just who the hell is running this country of ours?
September 28th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
“The almost invisible men of the City support the monarchy because the monarchy lets them drive government policy in return for their “support”. Parliament is pretty much all mouth and no trousers.” Suzon F-M
YES! Suzon, along with the invisible tier of self-interested, unaccountable people who have unminuted meetings in secret and manipulate all around them on behalf of preserving their own version of the status quo.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Please do let us know if/when you get a response from your MP – and especially Osborne and Cable.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Suzon is absolutely right. We even have an antiquated 19th century electoral system, not democracy, which is heavily weighted against people having too much say in the way we are governed – from the Windsors, through the corrupt so-called Lords, to the equally corrupt House of Commons.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Unbelievable in the current economic climate that more money should be needed by the so-called royals, it is does not take much research to see that an awful lot of their current allowance is being wasted. Much is being said in Brighton about the need to cut expenditure on public services, surely the royals should be at the top of that list.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Having just moved into Vince Cable’s constituency, I wrote to him fairly soon after reading Saturday’s Guardian. I asked to demand a freeze on civil list increases and to campaign for a review of that truly bad piece of legislation called the 1972 Civil List Act, which seemed cynically designed to stop a Labour government cutting funding for the monarchy. I’ll let you all know when I get a reply.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Thanks Gareth – fantastic.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I think in this current climate it is a disgrace to even think about asking for more money. I feel that they should use their own, if they want to do the job they should pay for doing it themselves. I expect that if they did they might go by car etc., instead of using other modes of transport. Of course it would be better if they didn’t do the job at all. As far as i am concerned they always only think of themselves and do not even consider that people are hard up, hospitals are not up to scratch, schools could benefit, the extra money should fund this not them. Their is so much extra monies could do to help this country but I expect they will get it ( and they know it) because nobody has the guts to refuse them. Its about time we did.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Oh dear we are onto moaning about the modest funding our monarchy receives again, it makes me laugh according to the Royal finances page linked to in this article 100 of the 183 million goes on security anyway. If we didnt include security then 83 million is small over an entire year for our monarchy.
Whilst im sure some savings could be found, lets not get carried away. This disgusting labour party took Her Majesty’s Yacht away, clearly cuts can be made but its simply unreasonable to expect her majesty to be catching the bus. Its MPs who must make sacrifices, as David cameron rightly put it we dont expect to see ministers being driven around like they are members of the royal family.
There are far better savings that could be made, as ive said before when we stop wasting billions becaus of the global warming myth or spending millions on treating scum in prisons like they are in 3 star hotels. Then and only then should the monarchy start taking a hit. Its a case of priorities.
September 28th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
@Simon
This issue is not global warming, or prisons. The issue is the funding of the royal family.
Can you explain to us why you believe the Civil List should be increased and why the Queen can’t be paid a salary like most heads of state?
September 28th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“This disgusting labour party took Her Majesty’s Yacht away,…”
I agree, Simon. How could the evil Labour Party do such a despicable thing to a poor, defenceless pensioner? If they could do that to her, what will they do next? Take away one of her palaces? Make her pay her full wack of tax? Stop her trying to bore us rigid while we’re trying to eat our Christmas dinner?
Nobody should be treated this way, least of all the really hard done by Mrs Windsor who has suffered enough. This is supposed to be the 19th Century, after all.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
It what sense is £83m ’small’?
The British head of state could be run on a budget of around £10m. Currently the budget is around the same as that of the House of Commons, which includes 650 working MPs and ministers. Are you seriously suggesting one head of state has to cost as much?
And why is it a case of priorities when making cuts? Why do we have to wait one more day before slashing this budget?
September 28th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
The issue is where are serious cuts needed, to the modest funding for the royal family or some of these other areas which are far more costly and which many have a bigger problem with.
To be honest i have no feelings on the method of payment, if a salary was to be given to the Queen and all members of the royal family who carry out duties then i would be fine with that. But im sure ur problems with the cost would still continue. What salary do you think the Queen and senior royal family members should be paid?
There may be justification for an increase because of rising costs, the article talks about a huge surplus but they have had to raid that surplus to cover rising costs and that money wont be there for ever.
The civil list is a tiny amount of money, clearly more important is looking into the 100 million security bill to see if savings can be found there.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
We need a Republican party, with a constitutional agenda and a set of policies. Perhaps close to many European liberal democratic parties. We need a strong parliament, and affordable legal system, and a president whose powers are limited, the real power being with the prime minister. If the Royal family members wished to be voted as president as ordinary citizens, who know they might even get the job; as well as a budget set by Parliament. Lobbying is good but a new party would be a real wake up call.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Dave, i agreed with some of what you said.. i do not understand how they dare to do such things at the same time and supporting giving a TV in every prison cell or paying 100s of millions out on benefits to people who refuse to get jobs and work hard.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Just 10 million? This is the 6th largest economy in the world, i think we can afford to look after our monarch and the royal family slightly better than that.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
peter shearmur, i agree.. there should be a republican party where those who are unloyal to their queen from the mainstream parties can join, instead of infiltrating parties which support the monarchy.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Simon, if you stayed at a hotel with the same facilities as Armley, Strangeways or Wormwood Scrubs, I hope you’d demand a refund!
But as James has said, this is not about Global Warming Theory or Penal Correction. It’s about the fact that private companies are laying off staff. As are local authorities. Unemployment is rocketing upwards (even under the rigged govt figures) towards 3m. And many of those in work live under the threat of reduced hours, lower pay and redundancy. All in the name of cutbacks. But hey – as long as the Royals can recieve more tax pounds, what’s the problem.
Of course, this extra cash will probably not make a difference to most here or elsewhere. However, there is a bigger principle at stake here. At a time when MP’s can be quite rightly probed and questioned over expenses, with the resulting public annoyance, not to mention bankers bonuses, why do some still see an increase in the Civil List as a minor issue?
September 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
The lively dialogue of the Republic’s website should recognise that the incoming Bullingdon Boys are about to restore a golden age of monarchy. You think Cameron ( who apparently has a tinge of blue blood himself) will not encourage the monarchy. If the itinary proves too exhausting for an octinagarian Queen, then the scene is set for aggrandisment of King Chaz?
The local old Etonian boy made good will book a ticket for the monarch in the belief that this will optimise prestige, pomp and circumstance.
September 28th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
imatt, i agree it wont make a difference to most here or elsewhere, there for we shouldnt worry about funding for the monarchy.
Leo Goatley, i agree the conservatives and David Cameron will look after our monarchy far better than this labour party has.
I am hoping the conservatives expand the Queens birthday celebrations. It needs more advertising, more troops to take part, should make it a far better national holiday. Have lots of school trips arranged to go and watch it etc
September 28th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
@ James
Out of interest, where does that statistic about the schools, nurses, etc. come from cos I’d be interested in repeating that elsewhere (just want to cover myself)!
@ Peter
I disagree with establishing a new party. Few new parties have real success, the exception perhaps being Labour which represented millions upon millions of people who were offered the opportunity to have a life rather than fight for survival. This is not the most important issue and it is not the only issue: I will vote for the party at the next election based on whether they have the best policies for all the major issues. I believe it is far more pratical to keep winning the arguments and waiting for a major party to pick it up as a policy (and this WILL happen, have no dobut about that).
Simon, Simon, Simon whatever shall we do with you?
“paying 100s of millions out on benefits to people who refuse to get jobs and work hard.”
The terms “pot” and “kettle” spring to mind.
My granddad is currently in an ambulance on the way to hospital. The college I am working at is facing financial pressures which could lead to people losing jobs. Can you tell me why Mrs Windsor should get yet more money ahead of these things?
September 28th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Liam Finn, then there are more important things you should be spending your time on than seeking to remove or undermine the British monarchy. Besides its not about lack of funding when it comes to such things, its seen huge levels of investment in recent years, its just alot of money pumped into things like the NHS has been wasted.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Hi Simon, as far as I am concerned this is not about loyalty, it is about principles. In a democracy there should only be loyalty to a set of working principles that assert control from the people and with equal opportunity to apply for a post on merit not by class or birth. Thus we should control state budgets, including those of the head of state not an obscure fluke of history.
The constitution should protect us, as should a fair and affordable legal system, not class privilege or rank.
Loyalty to principles will endure, but loyalty to the queen does confuse this issue, and its true meaning is somewhat obscure.
I do not render unto Caesar, but to my rights and duties as a citizen under fair and workable principles of natural justice, that are set out and defined in simple and understandable terms. Then I am loyal to all in our society, not to just one facet of class and history, whatever its merits may have been in the past. I am also loyal to you as a constituent in that I wish your rights to be the same as mine. This also applies to the royal family, we might even vote for one of them as president one day, but on the same terms of merit and competence as any other citizen.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
@Liam
Those figures are arrived at by dividing our estimated total cost of the monarchy by entry level salaries for those jobs. Those salaries are not uniform so it’s a rough guide rather than an exact calculation.
@Simon
What are you talking about? In what sense is the state obligated to “look after” the Windsor family beyond the level to which we ‘look after’ any other citizen? And what does the size of our economy have to do with it?
The size of our economy is to do with the hard work of ordinary people, so perhaps we should instead ask the Windsors to count themselves lucky for enjoying a good run and then ask them to pay their own way in the future. Then the money we save can be spent on new schools, nurses, police officers and so on.
Can you explain this apparent pathological need to pamper and protect the Windsors?
September 28th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
peter shearmur, are you loyal to your country as well as its citizens? If you are do you condemn Republic for taking no position on the future of this country and pandering to Scottish, Welsh and English nationalists who seek to destroy this country?
September 28th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Graham Smith, Our monarch and royal family is a great British brand, we must protect such wonderful institutions and people, yes that means spending a modest amount each year to maintain the monarchy. We have that system, you may all disagree with the system but we have to fund it!
September 28th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Simples, as they say!
September 28th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Simon I would welcome a federal republic in this country.
I would also welcome large areas of mutual benefit and co-operation such as the EEC
I am not loyal to any country but take its ( a society’s) actions and what it purports to be on its merits at any moment in time. I do consider that Britain has great merit as a democratic society. I am loyal to my society and its laws. The problem with open ended loyalty is to define what it is one is being loyal to, my country above others, my race, jingoism, sentimentality. We are talking here about politics not prep school house loyalty, not religion, not my country right or wrong. Much of our history has been a complete cock up, the ultra loyal first world war period being a case in point, lions led by donkeys. No I am not loyal to a fixed entity I am loyal to principles of justice reason and opportunity. We are free agents not slaves, loyalty is submission, it resists change whereas the nature of the universe it to change.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
@Simon
And Germany is the 4th biggest economy in the world and only spends £9.9m per year on their president. How can we be a smaller economy than them and spend 18x as much?
September 28th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
@Graham Smith
Just a point on the figures you use. You say that this is your “estimated” cost of the monarchy divided by entry level salaries for nurses etc.
Can I suggest that you might be over-egging the pudding a little here? First of all, where did this “estimated” cost of the monarchy come from? Secondly, you really shouldn’t just use entry-level salary for a nurse and use it, alone, as the basis for “£x million = y nurses”. On top of the salary there are costs such as employer’s national insurance contributions and pension contributions, plus training costs. It is simply not the case that you could take £183m, give it to the NHS and, hey-presto, 10,726 nurses! Not to mention that you later say a head of state could be run on £10m, which presumably comes from the £183m already being spent, meaning you’re £10m down on your hypothetical nurses budget before you even begin recruiting.
I’m not quibbling with the figures in an attempt to defeat your argument. I’m a republican. No, I’m quibbling with your figures to make your argument stronger. If you give the opportunity to an opponent to question one aspect of your case, you give them the opportunity to say “look, they’ve exaggerated the cost of the monarchy or how many nurses it could pay for, why believe them on anything else?”. Your (our) case is not well served by questionable rhetoric, spurious comparisons and unreferenced “estimates”.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
I’ve wrote to Frank Roy, my local Labour MP. This leopard has a history of changing his spots to further his career.
I will post his reply and my letter to him if and when he replies.
He used to be in the Hibs walk (AOH Marching band) but was conspicuously silent when the WOSBA tried to exercise it’s democratic right to march in his constituency.
In Scotland, Labour MPs are pretty much safe due to their excellent use of the sectarian card and can depend on the catholic vote and at the same time depend on the protestant vote because Scots do not have short memories when it comes to Margaret Thatcher and the decimation of Scottish Industries and trade unions.
Unfortunately the SNP does not have the courage to propose getting rid of the monarchy as this would alienate large chunks of the protestant electorate.
The only Republican party with any clout was the SSP until Tommy Sheridan scuttled the movement.
Unfortunately, it will be a long time before a Republican Party will rise from the ashes of sheridan’s actions. Protestants generally view the word ‘republic’ as a swear word due the sectarian history in Scotland.
Sorry for seemingly going off topic, but it does have an effect in Scotland that does not exist in England. As I said, I will post his reply along with my letter to him
September 28th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
@James Russell
Thanks for your comments.
The estimate of £183.2 million is not spurious at all. It is all broken down on our Royal Finances page see http://www.republic.org.uk/financescampaign.
You’re right to say that abolishing the monarchy would not suddenly mean we go out and employ thousands of nurses. We have never said it is a simple choice in that way. We use those comparisons – which are, as Graham said, “rough guides” – to put the cost of the monarchy into context.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:49 pm
@James Russell
The figures are there to make a point, they’re not really an accounting exercise. We’re not suggesting the money would be spent on the NHS at all, simply drawing comparisons to counter the casual attitude of monarchists who think £183m isn’t a lot of money.
I take your point though, but I would add that we shouldn’t have to estimate anything. The total cost should be budgeted for by parliament, reported by the government and fully audited by the National Audit Office. Then we’ll all be able to see in black and white what the true cost is.
September 28th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
@ Simon
“there are more important things you should be spending your time on than seeking to remove or undermine the British monarchy.”
Yes, I am well aware of the other issues. If you read my post properly you will notice that I have said this myself. You should also remember that I have told you several times that I am doing something about the other issues in terms of campaigning and charity work. This does not make the monarchy justifiable.
I noticed you ignored my observation of your scrounger comment. Conveninent.
“If you are do you condemn Republic for taking no position on the future of this country and pandering to Scottish, Welsh and English nationalists who seek to destroy this country?”
Are you planning on condemning Fathers4Justice for not taking a view on this issue? How about Unicef? I’ve noticed as well that the RSPCA hasn’t come out with a declaration of committment to the union too recently, either. Simon: this is a one-issue campaign, not a political party. It represents both unionists and those who wish for independence. Why should Republic take a view on this when its goal is simply to represent those who want to live in a democracy?
“Our monarch and royal family is a great British brand, we must protect such wonderful institutions and people, yes that means spending a modest amount each year to maintain the monarchy.”
There is nothing great about the monarchy and you are unable to provide a reason for its greatness. The monarchy – apart from being an unpatriotic, expensive brake on democracy – gives off this image of England still being a place where everyone lives in castles and plays croquet in the afternoon whilst enjoying a jolly good spot of tea.
You’re yet to explain to me why the Windsors should receive more money when other public services are facing cuts. The argument about waste is not a true argument: are you saying because there has been some waste in the NHS it should receive no more funding? If so, let me take your argument and apply it to the Windsor family: they obviously aren’t worthy of any more money because they too waste it.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
To Martin Dillon
I agree with your points. The use of the term republican has connotations with ethnicity, violence, and religion in a British sense, also a great many republics have been rubbish with no democratic principles to speak of.
We need a new word for a political system that asserts the principles of natural justice, perhaps “constitution party” would be a better term.
Catholics and protestant might however agree on the following:-
“The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it. All the citizens, being equal in [the eyes of the law], are equally admissible to all public dignities, places, and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents.”
The French Constitution
Indeed they might benefit from a secular constitution, whereas ours such as it is is steeped in protestant religion.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
This website is appallingly socialist. We all know the Guardian is your bible.
Just look at your supporters. Not one Tory MP/MEP in there.
Your severe lack of impartiality and idealistic leanings to the left (bordering on the far-left is the case with a lot of your users) means you will never be taken seriously.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:45 pm
@ All
Can I just say that on the basis that you’ve got to spend money to save money I have made an extra donation to Republic in order to further support the campaign – its absolutely ridiculous that our Head of State services are neither properly costed nor properly transparent as are most parts of our government – even though Republic is a single issue group its effectiveness and strategic importance in securing a more representative democracy is enormous. We need Republic as they are the only organised group that has the skills and the organisation to challenge this type of nonsense.
@ James Russell
Your NHS accounting is right. We estimate staff costs using the midpoint of the banding for the job plus a service cost (ie; what it costs to administer a job) plus an estimate of any regular variable costs – travel training etc. But we know that Graham’s point is well made – at the moment all that money is wasted on an outdated and unworkable system – even if we costed our own head of state services as twice the current spend I believe that we would still get much better value for money as we would choose who did the job and they would have a mandate to represent us and not themselves.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
@ anti-republican
I for one am very into free markets and you’ll find that meritocracy is a very respectable conservative position in British politics – in fact it was Thatcher rather than Blair who marginalised the Royals by becoming our first presidential style PM so the tired old lefty bashing is a poor approach -
September 28th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I can’t think of anything more important than getting rid of the monarchy. Do you want to live in a democracy or not? It’s as simple as that. I’d really like to. It sounds like a very good idea to me, but I, like you and every other ’subject’ of ‘her majesty’ have never been allowed a democratic vote for head of state.
Indeed, I’ve never been able to understand why democracy is such a GOOD thing that we must bomb other countries into it, yet also such a BAD thing that nobody in Britain has ever been allowed a democratic vote for head of state. Are we as a nation really so stupid that we must forever be denied the right to a democratic vote for head of state? You may be, but I’m certainly not.
September 28th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
@ Anti-Republican
Republic is not a socialist movement. It is a democratic movement. Although there may well be some socialists who are members of Republic – no doubt due to the socialist belief in equality instead of superiority based on passing through a particular womb – I am not a socialist and neither are many others on this site.
I have read comments on this site before and on articles concerning the monarchy/republicanism which have had comments from republicans who have said that they are tories.
I think the lack of Tory MPs says more about the Conservatives than it does Republic.
Please can you point out exactly what things you class as a “severe lack of impartiality” and “idealistic leanings to the left” so that we can respond to these accusations properly?
Can you also please justify the theory of choosing a head of state according to DNA while you’re at it?
September 28th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I find simons comments disgracefull the monarchy should be abolished they are a bunch of parasites living off the back of hard working people the queens fortune is so vast why do the royals want more well its greed i suspect all simons wants is his knighthood or some other royal favour get real look around you people are losing their jobs houses why should we pay more
September 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
To Liam Finn
From Peter Shearmur
Re Anti Republican
Again I find I agree with you, what is left wing anyway,how people love labels I suppose it saves using grey matter, and if it is not being used, probably not worthy of a response until some rational argument is applied.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
@ Peter
I agree with you about the labels. I think, certainly in Britain, left- and right-wing can no longer be used with real conviction to describe politics. They’re more a case of convenient prosecution tags for people to insult others with. (I realise that there are some major exceptions here)
September 28th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Without a monarchy a start could be made to bring the ‘honours system’ to an end and allow the current myriad crop of ‘Lords, Ladies, Knights’ and recipients of lesser ‘honours’ to simply wither on the vine: a quick cull could be seen as too brutal.
We would then have the opportunity, after many centuries, to fashion a true republican democracy.
The monetary cost of the monarchy, paid out of our taxes (but not the banker’s) is not of the essence, but is in itself outrageous.
September 28th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
I will reply to other peoples posts later on, but i just wanted to say a quick word in response to Eddie Dougall.
I support the monarchy however i oppose the house of lords and would love to see it fully removed from our parliamentary system, although what to replace it with is unclear. There is far far far more support in the mainstream for doing something about the Lords than monarchy. The idea that you can take out the Queen to make all the other problems go away in the future is clearly the wrong way to do things.
Whilst i accept the fact that people here think being a constitutional monarchy makes our country undemocratic… i would love to hear if people think the house of lords which actually makes alterations to our laws unlike our monarch is more or less of a democratic problem in this country. Surely the unelected house is more of a problem?
September 28th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
As I don’t know the Royal family and can’t comment on what they are like as people I can only really use secondary sources that report conversations and give verifiable facts
Lets just remember that we would not for one second tolerate the behaviour of the Windsor family from an elected head of state – here are some sample charges I have seen over the years:
The Queen Mother’s racism, snobbery and misuse of public funds.
Prince Phillip – Racist remarks and hypocrisy with respect to wildlife.
Prince Charles – interference in political affairs on a massive scale and disrespect for democratic processes. Hypocrisy over carbon conservation on a massive scale. ‘Charities’ that support causes that are contrary to democratic public policy.
The Wessexes – shady business dealings and trading on their titles to make money.
The Yorks – the non-job as trade ambassador misappropriation of public funds.
Harry – public drunkenness, racist remarks the Nazi dress up affair. Academic plagiarism.
William – misuse of public property.
Elizabeth herself – emotionally abusive parenting with Phillip, probably emotionally unsuitable for the role of head of state -
Its a family that is remarkable only in its mediocrity and the damage that is done to them by not setting them free to disappear into history gracefully,
That I pay a penny for this lot is absolutely disgraceful.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
@ simon
. This disgusting labour party took Her Majesty’s Yacht away, clearly cuts can be made but its simply unreasonable to expect her majesty to be catching the bus. Its MPs who must make sacrifices, as David cameron rightly put it we dont expect to see ministers being driven around like they are members of the royal family.
There are far better savings that could be made, as ive said before when we stop wasting billions becaus of the global warming myth or spending millions on treating scum in prisons like they are in 3 star hotels. Then and only then should the monarchy start taking a hit. Its a case of priorities.
Yes we should hang draw and quarter the Labour party for taking the queen’s yacht away. Are you in touch with reality? What exactly did the queen do other than to be born into the royal family to deserve such luxuries? Nobody expects Mrs Battenberg nee Sachs-Coburg-Gotha to catch the bus. I wouldn’t mind her trying, and with any luck it will float to deep waters and sink. But seriously, she could consider driving. And with her no longer being the monarch, the security costs would no longer be as high. She would hopefully disappear into obscurity. Sarah Ferguson manages quite well enough.
As to your assertion that global warming is a myth. It’s less of a myth than xtianity or it’s Abrahamic brethren. It is fact, backed up by scientific analysis. The fact that you are willing to treat it as a myth and yet accept the validity of the monarchy in a democratic state shows that your are detached dangerously from reality or having a laugh.
If you have lived in a prison then you will know that prisoners are not treated any better than in 3 star hotels. Again, evidence that you are out of touch with reality, or having a laugh.
The point about the cost is it is year on year on year and for what. An undemocratic society where people have power and money not because of their skills to do the job but because of the family to which they are born into. The same goes for the house of Lords. That should be abolished as it is clearly being abused with peers being given out by present governments for donations and other underhand favours.
I myself am Scottish republican and would like to see the UK broken up. That does not mean I am in agreement with most of the people on here but we do agree on one thing. The monarchy is surplus to requirements in the 21st century. Britain is not a democracy. It can’t be with unelected heads of state and without proportional representation. The PR is only my opinion. Republic is a pressure group and has many different political hues within it. But it works for me because I am against the monarchy, not just because of the unaudited and unaccountable finance we provide for it. But because it is fundamentally undemocratic. When Venezuela, Argentina, and many other South American Countries can now claim to have more democratic systems than both the US and Britain, we have to have a good hard look at ourselves. Where we clearly fall short is our monarchy and first past the post system and the fact that only the economic elite and chosen few can run for office. Where the US fall short is the fact you need a truckloads of cash to run for even the smallest office.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Thank you Martin Dillon for being honest. As someone who seeks the destruction of my country that has been around longer than the United States of America i can not show any respect or support for your views and i see no reason to destroy our monarchy when many of Republic supporters on this site seem to be separatists aswell.
As i have mentioned before, peoples loyalty to their country is VERY seriously in question here and yet people make out as though they are trying to free the people of this country from some form of oppression.
I think there are a huge number of charges this labour party is guilty as hell for, whilst seeing some of them swing would cheer alot of people up its not something id advocate or support. Labour being slaughtered at the next general election will be punishment, and if the break up of the united kingdom does happen.. It will be labour that has blood on their hands.
England will never elect a labour government again, it will swing to the right and you can be sure this republican nonsense will be crushed here once and for all if that happens.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
I would love to see some republicans who care about their country stand up for it against separatists and other traitors.. Ofcourse we can not expect miracles can we?
Bringing an end to monarchy appears to be just phase one of what many people here are plotting.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
@Simon says:
“England will never elect a labour government again, it will swing to the right and you can be sure this republican nonsense will be crushed here once and for all if that happens.”
I think that smirks of violent repression of dessent, Tianaman Square style.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Swinging to the right, never electing labour again and putting to bed this republican nonsnse was if the UK broke up which would be because of them. Sadly im sure in the coming decades we will suffer more left wing government, however as a supporter of the United Kingdom that is the price im prepared to pay for the continuation of the union.
No eclub, violence is not needed to put republicanism to bed in England. Its far far more difficult to put it to bed in the UK though, Scotland is infested with republicans although still a minority thankfully.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
I presume your family are a paragon of perfection and unity, Tim? Just like all the families of elected heads of state?
As long as this website continues to allow personal jibes against members of the royal family, which provide little substance to the monarchy debate, you will never gain a shred of support from the general public.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Simon, your language is disgusting. I’ll pick up on that last one: “infested with republicans”. Are you trying to suggest that people who believe in democracy are like vermin? Could I honestly turn round to you and say you are a deluded, sycophantic, unpatriotic, disrespectful, selfish, reactionary, ignorant dipstick and expect not to usher in a flood of posts rightly denouncing me? I would not say that because it would be wrong to treat somebody like that.
It is you, sir, who is the traitor because you have such little faith in the British people. (That is not a personal insult: that is a comment made upon your views backed up by your views).
September 28th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
@ Juice
The only personal slurs made against the Windsor family are those that are made with evidence to back them up. I made a comment about Mrs Windsor a few months ago but could not back it up so withdrew it. Why should we be allowed to denounce aspects of politicians that we do not like yet not be allowed to do the same with our head of state?
September 28th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Why do you even bother, Republic?
A Tory government is practically guaranteed an election victory next year, and I can’t imagine it would be less than two terms, probably three. Britain is shifting towards the right, which typically encompasses monarchism.
This doesn’t even consider the fact that the monarchy has overwhelming support. I’m afraid I can’t see your 20% or so supporters and a few Labour politicians having the ability to totally overturn our political system.
You indulge in a futile activity.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Simon, I’m no traitor. It is those in Scotland and Ireland who are not republicans who are traitors in my view. Coming from both Scotland and Ireland, I consider it my patriotic duty to be a Republican. I’m not a nationalist I’m a national liberationist. You clearly are an english nationalist, judging from your posts.
I note that you had nothing to say about my point that many South American countries have far more democratic systems than both the UK and the US.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
@ Har Har
I assume that you’re a Tory. Did you think in 1997, “ah, waht’s the point in backing teh Tories, they’ll never get back in”?
Our support keeps growing because our arguments are strong. Can you give us a defence of the monarchy please?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
@ Liam
That still doesn’t alter the fact that they’re petty personal attacks which provide very little substance to the monarchy debate and alienate your organisation from the vast majority of the general public, who could probably be considered Elizabethans, rather than Monarchists. Does the Queen deserve the adoration she receives? Possibly not, she hasn’t wrestled a group of Nazis with her little finger, whilst disarming a nuclear bomb planted in central London. But the plain fact is, a large proportion of people do respect the Queen. I personally believe that the juvenile personal insults against her do little to advance the interests of your organisation in converting the general public to your cause.
‘Evidence’ does little to provide any substance to fallacious personal insults, Liam. A person may suffer from a visual deformity, which is reinforced with medical evidence. Does that entitle me to call them ugly or attack their appearance? Your logic is flawed, if you believe providing ‘evidence’ propels you to the moral high ground when spouting personal insults.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
@ har har
Just because it appears to be futile does not mean it is not worth trying to do. If I child is being swept away in a strong current, no matter how futile it may be to save him/her, I’d like to think that I would at least try.
As J F Kennedy said, ” we chose do do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” Or words to that effect. Who would have thought we would have a man on the moon in the 60’s? Waste of money yes but no more a waste of money than your monarchy.
Who would have thought the IRA would have put their weapons beyond use this decade? Even more incredible, who would have thought the Loyalist paramilitaries would have done the same?
If it’s right, it is worth trying.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Dera Har Har, You could well be right,but is still worth fighting for. History shows us that often, the unexpected becomes the expected. Who knows? The lessons of the suffragettes and Obama are two examples.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
The Zeitgeist, which monarchists claim harbours such love for Elizabeth Windsor, is a volatile, swaying in the breeze thing which was in fact very malevolent towards every adult member of your royal family in the wake of Diana’s death, for instance (though I’ve heard tales of how folk hated them since the 20s, living memory) – anything could have happened. Anything can still happen – and it will. It just takes a moment, something to catch, and the only possible future will come. You lot are just clinging in desperation and wasting our time. Personally I think we should really get on with preparing the fish and if moronarchists have not been invited to a blog topic, tell them their names are not down and they’re not coming in, I think we have more important things to spend our time and energy on, especially when they’re just arsing.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
@ Simon
The USA was founded in 1776 and the UK by the act of union in 1800 with a partial break from Ireland in 1921 – I think you’ll find that our current state to be younger not older than the USA and actually less stable in terms of its territorial composition – in fact centralised rule from Westminster and a London dominated culture is driving the country apart as folk in Scotland, Wales and Cornwall see resources concentrated in South East England and feel they can do better on their own. If you have read some of my previous comments you’ll see that I think that the union is stronger within Europe as a protection against a resurgent Russia and a balance to US and Chinese Power.
Simon I think you do really well in the debate here- but as you’ll see from my previous post I don’t think the Windsors are a great advertisement for the country and we could do a lot better. I really don’t get your attachment to them and I don’t see why your loyalty to them would be greater than your committment to a political arrangement that would keep the union together rather than drive it apart ?
September 28th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Tim Sharp, see not only is this place swarming with separatists who seek the destruction of the United Kingdom, people seem to want England broken up with “cornwall” being considered a nation lol.
When i say 300 years i am ofcourse talking about the act of union between England and Scotland. That is when i consider my country to have been born, which was before the United States of America.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Ah, I see, Marjory. So, Republic’s apparent vision of equality, free speech and democracy should only extend to those individuals the organisation agrees with? That’s a rather fascist mentality, for a democracy-advocating repleblican – look, I can do it too! I can transform terms into childish diatribe.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
@ Juice
Certainly not but neither have my family been supported by unearned taxpayer’s money as they have all been hard workers as far back as I can trace. My underlying point is obvious which is that the Windsors are both damaged and damaging in their present position and we need to cut them loose.
Liam is pretty good in that he will recant if proved wrong but you will see that my list contains a list of some of the more substantiated complaints – most are covered by Johann Hari or are otherwise on the record. My secondary point is that any of the behaviours listed would cast doubt on the character of an elected representative, some would lead to impeachment or deselection or not being voted in again. You’ll see aagain and again that the some of the shadier deals rapidly get buried in a way that we would not expect in head of state services – Andrew’s property deals with Crown Estates for example should have been fully transparent. If you pay taxes Juice and you do – direct or indirect you should be very concerned about who they are being spent on.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Simon, although (like Tim) I think you’ve made some interesting points, I must (like Liam) condemn some of your recent remarks.
Let’s start with “infested with republicans”. You’ve said many things conveying the impression that, like me, you support the monarchy whilst believing that our system of government needs major reforms to make it more democratic, and that ultimately the wishes of the people vis-a-vis the monarchy will and should prevail. Surely, then, you do not believe that republicans should be branded with that pejorative label for voicing their beliefs?
As for “crush this republican nonsense,” I’m sure you did mean it in the peaceful sense, but let’s be realistic here: whilst we both very much hope that the Conservatives will ‘crush’ Labour in the general election, it’s not as if the Labour Party will cease to exist; likewise, if the swing to the Right results in a massive decrease in support for republicanism (not that it necessarily will, but for the sake of argument), Republic is not going to wind up (I’ve previously asked if they would do so in the event of a referendum defeat, but that’s another matter entirely, and I respect their honesty with regards to their insistence that they would continue campaigning, as well as their right to do so). Therefore, such words will inevitably evoke images of violent suppression.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
@ Simon
So older by 76 years then by strategically using the 1700 act – phew thats a lot – come on Simon answer the question do you think on balance that centralised government from London enhances or endangers the union ?
September 28th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Still avoiding the inconvenient truth Simon. Anyway, I’m off to bed for my beauty sleep Lenin knows I need it. I hope by tomorrow you will have addressed the fact that Latin America has 12 Nations, most of them more democratic (including Cuba) than the UK with it’s monarchy.
Then I will show you how Cuba is a more democratic country than the UK.
September 28th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
@ Martin
look forward to reading that in next weeks Granma (Cuba’s official newspaper)
September 29th, 2009 at 2:53 am
@ Tim LOL
September 29th, 2009 at 8:34 am
On Sunday night in Dublin someone chucked a petrol bomb through a window of the Department of Finance (the Irish equivalent of the Treasury) and so far is still at large, undetected.
I was reviewing a number of Irish message boards and a lot of the reaction seems to be quite favourable towards the bomber, with many speculating that this is a person who has either lost a job or home in the recession and has had enough of the cutbacks to pay for the fat-cat lifestyles still enjoyed by the political elite.
Petrol’s cheaper here than in Ireland.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:23 am
“I am hoping the conservatives expand the Queens birthday celebrations. It needs more advertising, more troops to take part, should make it a far better national holiday. Have lots of school trips arranged to go and watch it etc” Simon
Saints preserve us. WHY on earth do you want persistently to instill notions of empty authority, inexorable conflict and military might into our impressionable children? Arguably, people like you are the reason why peace and intelligence cannot transcend the brutishness, from generation to generation.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:30 am
“Your (our) case is not well served by questionable rhetoric, spurious comparisons and unreferenced “estimates”. James Russell
I can see part of your argument. BUT the whole point is that there should be no need to estimate anything. A full, public audit is the democratic way of accounting for how public money is spent.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:40 am
“Britain is shifting towards the right, which typically encompasses monarchism.”
‘Har Har’ appears to have answered your question regarding socialism Anti-republic, albeit it is far to problematic to be wholly credible.
“Your severe lack of impartiality and idealistic leanings to the left (bordering on the far-left is the case with a lot of your users) means you will never be taken seriously.”
Unless you provide some evidence of what you are talking about here, no-one will take YOU seriously.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am
@har har
Everyone is welcome to this blog so long as they abide by our moderation policy. We certainly welcome those who disagree with us. Why do you take the view of one contributor to be the view of Republic?
@Martin Dillon
Fascinating though that might be Cuba’s political system is way off topic.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Where I live the cuts will soon begin to bite, all in the name of balancing the books. Care homes for the elderly are closing, day-centres for both the elderly and those with special needs are closing, and I can’t help but compare what is happening to the lives of these vulnerable people, and how they are treated, with what our political elite are doing with our money and in our names. On the subject of the proposed increase to the civil list I have written to my MP, to George Osborne and to Vince Cable, and should I get replies from any of them I will publish them here. It is long overdue that we as a society got our priorities right, and our priorities should not include increasing the civil list while ordinary people are suffering hardship.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:49 am
i would love to hear if people think the house of lords which actually makes alterations to our laws unlike our monarch is more or less of a democratic problem in this country. Surely the unelected house is more of a problem?
I’ll have a go at this notion, Simon. The Queen, in granting royal charters, is actually giving legal force to the monarchy and nullifying Parliament. Those charters pre-excuse “non-recital” (the legal term is concealment and in plain English it’s secrecy) and “mis-recital” (the legal term is deception and in plain English it’s lying).
To give but one example of the Queen’s “supporters”, the Worshipful Company of Fuellers’ submission to the DTI became the template for the DTI’s white paper. It contains the same flaws. It promotes nuclear energy on the grounds of protection from terrorism (ignoring vital facts such as supply of uranium) and ignores the possibility of terrorists attacking the vulnerable LNG pipeline being laid through Wales.
Why are the bankruptcy laws so biased toward creditors? Worshipful Company of International Bankers? Why does the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 give developers the upper hand? The Worshipful Companies of Architects, Builders’ Merchants, Constructors, et al?
In a democracy where people have the right to know the truth, these vested interests would be registered and regulated for the lobbyists they are.
If I have gone off-topic here in responding to Simon, apologies. But there is a moral reason to not pay the descendants of William the Conquerer one penny of tribute. Giving them money is simply rewarding criminal behaviour. The glory of England that you are so thrilled by, Simon, was gained by murderous violence and theft.
Those with power can do no wrong? No basis for intelligent government.
The monarchy is both secretive and dishonest. It has to be because it is defending the indefensible.
September 29th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
What a mixed bag we republicans are, many of the comments actually favour the monarchy, rather than wanting to abolish this anachronism. If you compare us to modern European countries which have divested themselves of a Medieval Millstone, we do pretty poorly.
Why would anyone want an unelected head-of-state, much-less make excuses for the misfits that occupy the royal palaces? There’s even some regard for the tourist industry, has anyone not visited the palace of Versaise or travelled on the excellent transport system in France? they do very well without (more to the point – why is the spell check favouring US spelling?)
If you like a bit of pagentry, how about re-encting the Peasants Revolt, where through a bit of Royal trickery the peasant armies dispersed and the clock was turned back with the most cruel and brutal reprisals. It took a plague to get something back from the despotic rulers, maybe we need another plague to finish the job and there are a few on the horizon…
September 29th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Marjory
Do you abhor dissent and disagreement? Sounds as though you are a not altogether tolerant person.
“Moronarchists”. Isn’t that just too close to silly student politics?
Paul
September 29th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
@Frank
I’m not sure there are republicans who support the monarchy.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I never said we shouldn’t debate, I said if the topic is, for instance, asking for republican-minded people from this group to give their ideas for a prospective event, I do not think that particular thread should be allowed to be hijacked, sabotaged and disrupted by people who are not invited to it and clearly have the opposite objective. It does waste time and energy which people don’t have an endless supply of and could be better spent.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
@Simon
In addition to what Suzon has said, if you think for one minute that there is a scrap of difference between an unelected upper house infested with royally-sanctioned worthies, interfering undemocratically by debating and tinkering with legislation, and the covert involvement of the monarchical set-up you are embracing naivety of the highest order.
The world of hypocritical privilege, facilitation, access and elitist hierarchy, that you appear to applaud unequivocally, lies behind a staged performance of false probity Simon. As Suzon correctly suggests there are more anomalies contained within it’s precincts than you can shake a stick at. To paraphrase James Whitaker, the Windsors are utterly ruthless. Can you imagine a political situation intrinsic to the maintenance of power which they would not be involved in? Who argues against them? They won’t entertain it.
The secrecy they insist upon, the network they protect and which protects them, lies in a twilight zone far removed from your notions of which institution might be democratically worse.
And Republic is quite clearly drilling down a little deeper than you might be aware of, certainly past the auratic presentation with its layers of subterfuge. From what I read you might well be a typical example of what could be described as monarchical success story. Well done!
September 29th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Nick Palmer MP has been notified and urged to take action.
September 29th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
I understand that at queen Elizabeth’s coronation,that school parties were indoctrinated and were taken en masse to line the processional route. They were told to wave flags,and cheer etc. All indoctrination of children. Can anyone imagine this sort of thing happening today,?( sorry I mis-spelt it as “toady” first time ! ).
September 29th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Looks like the sort of thing that N.Korea or China are criticised for… does this mean we are now a Communist State?
September 29th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
@ Juice
“That still doesn’t alter the fact that they’re petty personal attacks which provide very little substance to the monarchy debate ”
I’m afraid I disagree. For the vast majority of people in Britain the issue of the monarchy is of non-importance, the majority feels ambivalent about the monarchy. For many, the Windsor family ARE the monarchy. Therefore there is nothing wrong in destroying this myth of a perfect, infallible family.
I would actually like to suggest that it is YOUR logic that is flawed (not just because you’re a monarchist) because you seem to tie in something that would very definitely be an unwarranted personal insult like a disability in the same category as those which attack the Windsors’ capabilities for the job, their corruption, their views, etc.
@ Marjory
I’m afraid I entirely disagree. Monarchists are very welcome here. It would just be nice if some of them could try and provide us with a justification for the monarchy which not a single one appears capable of doing (maybe because there isn’t any justification).
@ Simon
The House of Lords is another issue that needs addressing (and I plan to do so at some point but I’m going to the match now)! Don’t forget: there may be other issues, it doesn’t make the monarchy right!
September 29th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Interesting. Should racists be very welcome on an anti-racism blog? There’s a big difference between what most people in the country actually are which is never-really-thought-about-it-much-at-all-ist and someone who is a committed dyed-in-the-wool prepared to justify it monarchist. Yes for those who are the former the arguments will probably win them over once they do think about it, but the latter are a waste of time and bearing in mind what they believe in which is an oppressive, stifling, evil thing, some of them are actually going to be evil. In essence the debate was over hundreds of years ago. Let’s go forward, and leave them behind. Great, now I’m going to have Spinal Tap in my head all night.
September 29th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
@ Liam @ Juice
I think it is entirely legitimate for taxpayers to ask and have questions answered about the use of their funds. I can appreciate that the FOI exemption for the Windsors is partially the result of the role confusion between their role in what I like to call Head of State Services and the fact that they are a Hereditary family. Senior civil servants, professionals and politicians acccept that they have to behave in a particular way – both in and out of work and learn these skills during their careers. I am sorry if I am annoying to those monarchists who will hear no ill spoken of the WIndsors but they are currently in the business of providing a service paid for by the taxpayers and in the absense of sensible debate in which the Windsor family could contibute I am reliant on what I read and believe to be likely on the basis of the evidence. It is absolutely clear that many members of the family had sympathy with National Socialism in Germany even after the supression of the German Jews had begun. In fact just about everything I have read about them suggests that they are horribly conservative and have historically taken a very arrogant line with the people who feather their nest (that’s us) – and they have no interest in behaving in a transparent way. They are not fit for purpose and we deserve better.
It is entirely possible for a member of the family to renounce all titles and privileges and to get on with being a private citizen. I would very much advise Charles Windsor that it is in his interests and ours to do so.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Hi Tim
I’m well aware of the Duke of Windsor’s Nazi sympathies, but would be morbidly intrigued to know of reliable, unbiased sources suggesting that other prominent members of the family shared them – and I say ‘prominent’ NOT because any possible syampathies on the part of lesser Royals should be swept under the carpet, but precisely the opposite, i.e. most of us will know and all of us should know about how some of Prince Philip’s close family were prohibited from attending his wedding in 1947.
Even if I could find hard historical evidence I’d still struggle to believe it’s true; NOT because I am blinded by my (pragmatic) monarchism, but because I simply cannot square the image of Churchill – who hated Hitler & Nazism more than the Pope hates Satan – breaking down in tears upon being told of George VI’s death, with the image of any of the king’s close kith-and-kin (bit of a tongue-twister!) other than his disloyal, amoral elder brother, being even mildly sympathetic to the genocidal dictator and his abominable doctrines.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Just missed the last chance to edit! So I’ll add that, if I were to read compelling evidence supporting the widespread republican claims of Nazism in the Royal Family, I would support – at least in principle – any attempt to pressure the government into declassifying official Royal documents buried in the archives. Make no mistake – as far as I’d be concerned the burden of proof would still be very much on the ‘prosecution’ (i.e. republicans), but full transparency would obviously be required for you to be able to present your case, and for the pragmatic monarchist lobby (small though it may be) – and ultimately the British people – to respectively scrutinise it, and come to a verdict.
September 29th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the
manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do
not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong
has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of
Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people
by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly
wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.
… Winston Churchill to the Palestine Royal Commission (1937)
Is this the kind of attitude we want to reward with financial support? For me the answer is no. Entitlement is an anti-democratic notion which the taxpayer should not endorse.
I do not envy the royals all their various palaces, but I do wish that they would at least be honest. What is the real number of “in house” royal servants? According to one official source Buck House has around 300 and according to another it has closer to 500.
As long as they accord themselves the right to lie to us (their published accounts are not audited and do not include the military), why should they have any claim?
It as though a thousand years from now, the descendants of George W Bush would be entitled to be subsidised by the people of Iraq.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Suzon, I’m assuming that was a direct response to my post. If not, my apologies. If so, then I offer the following words:
No thoughtful man can doubt the fact that the Jews are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Winston Churchill, The Illustrated Sunday Herald (1920)
Granted, his vehement Zionism may indeed have given rise or in other ways been linked to questionable attitudes towards the Arabs; and indeed, by today’s standards, his deep admiration of the Jews may be deemed positive racism. But when it comes right down to it, are those really the words of a man who would come to regard a king whose family was awash with Nazism, almost as a brother? Methinks not.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Matthew – it really bugs many less sophisticated monarchists who claim that the Windsors are the epitome of British patriotism when it is pointed out that their record is rather dismal in terms of advocating for anything other than their own continuance at our expense:
Prince Phillip
Breaking the silence on his family’s Nazi connections:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379036/Prince-Philip-pictured-Nazi-funeral.html
The funeral was in 1937 the Nürnberger Gesetze were in place in 1935. In Phillip’s defence I am not holding him personally responsible for attending a Nazi funeral but I doubt that the Duke of Windsor was the ‘bad apple’ and I suspect that it was his marriage to Mrs Simpson rather than his political views that set him apart as casual anti semitism and racism were culturally normal in Europe at the time. I would love to see all archives about the Windsors open as we pay for them and I don’t believe they are entitled to enhanced secrecy.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Suzon, I’m assuming that was a direct response to my post. If not, my apologies. If so, then I offer the following words:
No thoughtful man can doubt the fact that the Jews are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
No, Matthew, I was writing my post before I read yours. My objection is to the idea that any one “race” is more worthy than any other. Human beings are so varied within and outside of any issues of colour or nationality, it simply makes more sense to be egalitarian. After all, the most talented or privileged amongst us can be struck down by disease or accident and be reduced to helplessness.
The elite’s best argument is null and void: entitlement. It’s a mere claim and without merit.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/naziroot.htm
Is worth a look too – but I agree that George VI was probably not a secret Nazi although this claims that the family collectively are still supressing important documents.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:22 pm
Perhaps the Queen should refuse money from the Civil List and take the UK government to court and demand full ownership of the Crown Estate under the legal agreement between King George III and Parliament.
I wonder how the Treasury would cope with a drop in £200m per year.
September 29th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
@ Herx
She would be suing herself. In any case Crown Estates = Nation’s assets.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:03 am
@ Tim
If the government abolished the monarchy and the Queen no longer received money from the Civil List, it could be argued that the government was in breach of the legal contract between parliament and King George III.
Every succeeding sovereign has renewed the arrangement made between George III and parliament, so it is still very much enshrined within law.
I am sure she would have a case in the EU court, and if the monarchy was abolished (which is the aim of your organisation), she wouldn’t be suing herself.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:37 am
She orders the judges (and ministers) anyway. She da boss. It’s in the royal charters.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:57 am
Anyone who supports a monarchy is a rascal; and any rascal in government should be thrown out. The British Monarchy includes the entire system. The house of Lords, house of commons (eeew house of commons? why keep that name???? commons??), the government, the political parties, THE WHOLE THING is the monarchy, and no need arguing with Simon; do what Pauline Godfrey did last month; go to the streets. The republic of Plinthland, for example, was such an awesome example; we need more street actions. I commend Graham for many many magazine, television, and internet actions and a lot of them very aggressive Republicanism, from challenging Prince Charles shenanigans to royal accounting faux pas, and recently, FOI weaseling out plans for the monarchy. Bravo, Graham. Keep it up. I HOWEVER, ask for more street actions. Here’s why:
I suspect that those who support the monarchy thinks its all fun and games; it’s like a fairytale, cute, traditional, customary stuff; they don’t actually know the Queen truely believes that she owns the damn country. A vast majority of the monarchists do NOT know it’s for real. So, in my opinion, (and my opinion is as accurate as any monarchist’s poll; only an official ballot can prove either side right), I believe Republic has over 78% support in UK, while true monarchism is somewhere in the late teens, and I don’t mean their behavior.
Street action will galvanise the right course. The monarchy is unbelievably, deeply, cunningly, cleverly embedded in the entire system. How is that no member of parliament is lamenting the Monarchy in legislation? NOT EVEN ONE? There’s nowhere else in the world that could be true. Only in UK!
And please don’t go thinking, as an American, I should not fight for your liberty and freedom. I’m going to whether you like it or not. I am a part of you, Human Kind. Thats why I’m in.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Finally, I want to add that, Republic should expel all members of parliament from the organisation. No one who pledges allegiance to a monarch should be a member of the Republic. I know many misguided people think it’s ordinary to be a republican; verily I say unto you, it is more honourable to be a republican than to be a member of parliament with obligations of a vassal to a monarch. In 2010, play hard ball, don’t just accept anybody into this body; if a parliamentarian would not introduce legislation for change, instead pledges merrily along, to worship a monarch, I’m sorry, they should be kicked out of the Republic. I challenge anyone to show any organ of the United Kingdom that is not a part of the monarchy. As far as that is the case, demonstrations and marches are in order. Not even a slight change is possible without them. This thing is so fouled up that, not even a single token can be attained. Pledges, anthems, you name it. None.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:00 am
@eclub
Stunts, demos and rallies are being organised… watch this space.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Herx
The Civil List traded the Regent’s gambling, building and womanising debts, (especially the wife of the appointed architect , Nash,) for what is now the Crown Estate held in trust with revenue going to the Treasury capital being the property nominally of the Crown. In return the government took over responsibility for the armed forces. It could be argued that the Crown Estate helps to pay for the Civil List. The problem is mainly constitutional not legal, if we have a constitution that is paramount some legal issues are subsumed. There is no doubt that even under a republic for a short term at least the present Royal Family would be entitled to some form of pension, given that they have served the state (generally well) under its existing rules. There would need to be a period of transition. A constitution would protect the individual, this would include new citizens and subjects including the royal family who are now not strictly speaking subjects or citizens, although in general they are bound by our laws. Once their unusual privileged status in law went, they would require to be treated fairly by us the people. They could also offer themselves as candidates for a presidency, they might even be voted in! To be Republican does not mean that we would not necessarily be either unfair or fail to give credit where credit is due. Change can have a velvet glove, but the debate is somewhat academic in terms of today’s politics. I wonder if this country will ever really grow up politically.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:39 am
e club
I like your sentiments but street action in this country directed against the head of state is possibly treason. However a peaceful demonstration is unlikely to be treated as such. It would only take a few hotheads to make us traitors in Law, it would be interesting to see how our system coped with that, I suspect that European Law would have to step in to protect the individuals against the state in some circumstances. Direct action works in France where power came from the streets originally, it might create difficult scenarios in our little island, the mind boggles. Change can be managed by persuasion and reason, I am unsure that demonstrations are not persuasive or reasonable at all times, however they may feel good to the demonstrators, they can often have the opposite effect than that intended by hardening resistance to change. Reason is our best weapon, unreasonable people have no answer for it.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:49 am
@peter
The Treason and Felony Act was effectively scrapped a while ago, although it’s technically still on the statute books. The courts ruled that the Human Rights Act made it inoperable.
As for ’street action’ I’m not sure we’re talking about the sort of thing you see in French strikes. Stunts and demos do have their place in most campaigns. I do agree though that intelligent and persuasive argument is what will win the day.
September 30th, 2009 at 10:53 am
It would just be nice if some of them could try and provide us with a justification for the monarchy which not a single one appears capable of doing (maybe because there isn’t any justification).
You are spot on, Marjorie. In 1880 a royal commission was established (by Victoria, of course) to look into the secrecy and privileges granted to the men of the City. The majority report did argue that some accountability should be accepted by the livery companies. However it is the dissenting report (signed by Baron Rothschild, a Lord Mayor of the City and two others) which is of interest because it is the best defence of privilege that money and therefore clever minds could muster.
It failed to do anything but claim entitlement by right. You can even find the argument used by the banksters of today: We deserve to rake in the money because we are the best at what we do.
So did the Queen favour the majority report or go along with the men of the City? Well, since Rothschild may have been bankrolling Eddie at the time, one can’t be too surprised who won that argument.
The late Lord Young argued that aristocrats were to be preferred over meritocrats because artistocrats were aware that it was only a matter of luck that they were wealthy while the meritocrats believed their wealth was solely due to their own efforts.
Unfortunately, the aristocrats at the top of the pyramid show no signs of humility that I can see.
September 30th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Which is why some people in Republic do want more street action – Pauline’s stint on the plinth was street action and so will the Trafalgar Square day be. Other people have said they want to do more pro-active things like that and suggested it before that. Intelligent and persuasive argument will win with the person in the street which is where I think we should be, but it will not win by constantly engaging with ardent monarchists, potentially active sabotagers, as the best defence of privilege that money can muster are no more than mischief-makers – they are not having a reasonable argument with you and they know that, you will only end up going round in endless pointless circles with them. The casual yet pervasive, unthinking acceptance of incumbent monarchy has dulled us to the true nature of what it really is, does and represents. That’s just the way it is – yet it used to be the way it was that only men who owned land could vote, the accepted status quo, slavery was accepted, children down mines and up chimneys, apartheid, the colour bar, it’s less than 100 years since women got the vote. Perhaps in another 100 years time, or much sooner, there will be a group called the BMB (Bring Monarchy Back) and they will be as reviled and abhorred as the BNP is now – as if they did exist in a properly enlightened future, they should be. Let’s get our minds into that headspace now, stop bending over backwards to the apologists for evil, those who implacably oppose us, and get on with getting rid of them.
September 30th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
@Marjory
You have been added to my list of favorite republicans.
Very brave, eloquent and sensible comments. Thanks.
Concensus: Intelligent and persuasive argument on the streets and on the internet. Bravery and Courage, will be the amongst the most important virtues needed in this campaign. It’s not going to be a cute and benign undertaking to attain true freedom. By the way, Republic has shown a lot of bravery and couragenousness, I just wanted to make that clear. All freedom accorded to British Citizens by Europe or/and the Courts will be needed to do this thing (Campaign), all of it.
The Republic of Trafalfagar should be a Mega-Event. Let’s make this one really BIG!!! I will try to organise a ‘pub party’ here in Los Angeles on that day. (Watching it on the BBC of course).
September 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
**courageousness*** Courageous
September 30th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
I agree totally with Marjory. reason and demonstration can go hand in hand.
Change if it ever happens should be reasonable and fair.
In reply to some comments about the Crown Estate its legality is set out by Statute, the Parliament is supreme and can alter any statute or stop it. With regard to the Civil List, a civil list is a list of individuals to whom money is paid by the government. That is our money paid for by us for many years during most of which the monarch paid no tax at all. The Crown estate is taxed 100% by the treasury as it pockets all the net income, the capital value is thus effectively ours although currently held in trust. In practical terms the government could sell it by altering statute and could take the whole of its billions back to us. Margaret Thatcher’s government came close to doing this at one stage, so I am informed. There may well be legal loopholes to be used by monarchy, but The Civil List Act 1837 (1 & 2 Vict. c. 2) was an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, signed into law on 23 December 1837. Thus Parliament could change that too. In any event a constitutional republic would change the legal landscape, it could repeal acts constitutionally without referring to precedent, but the position of the royal family afterwards would require the state to acknowledge that they would have some rights too. I suppose if they kept their personal wealth, and if all other Royal assets were nationalised, they would certainly not be badly off. However, if they would need to pay UK taxes and inheritance taxes too, so in time their position would decay. Am I thinking along the right lines or would fellow republicans prefer something different?
September 30th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“Unfortunately, the aristocrats at the top of the pyramid show no signs of humility that I can see.” Suzon F-M
No, none whatsoever, because they buy into the club that looks after them. They are the club, the spectacle, which exists for itself and is manifest in everything it anoints with ‘normality’ in the minds of the masses. As Margery implies, arguing with fully-loaded monarchists who, having been dragged along by their noses, are either mindlessly complacent or terrified at the prospect of egalitarian change, is to my mind also, a fairly pointless exercise. They do not actually represent the very large numbers of people for whom republican issues, policies and rationale has remained submerged under the never-ending deluge of controlling propaganda – which is also normative in this society. These are the people we need to target and honestly inform. Far more unmasking is necessary to get at the truth.
From what I read, the unwitting apologists for the Windsors and their very large circle and hidden network are manifestly NOT coming up with any justification for preserving the ‘tradition’ they happen to have internalised.
I look forward to widening the campaign and making a lot more noise. The changing of hearts and minds on this issue for me also extends to issues of privilege and institutional change on other levels, particularly in areas where money and hidden connections have for too long ensured class complacency through misplaced assumption.
Old Boy networks, murky appointments, arcane judicial processes, corrupt business practices, disgusting arms sales, the proliferation of militarism and the maintenance of social division for power and gain are the areas I am talking about, along with a system based on empty honours and values.
Some thought might be given to how public we wish our ideas and proposed strategies to be.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
@Peter S
Do you have any references or info about Thatcher wanting to do something with the Crown Estates? I’d be very interested in finding out more about that.
September 30th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Graham, its not long before the disgusting Human rights act is scrapped by the future conservative government
. Good job too.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@Simon
I’m always fascinated by people who think they shouldn’t have any rights. Is it some kind of political masochism or something?
September 30th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Dear Simon, What about your own Rights? Do you think you should have any ? Suppose some gross injustice befell you?,or your family. ( I sincerely hope it doesn’t,of course). Would you not want some kind of justice for yourself?
September 30th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Simon
You would need to speak to cabinet ministers now retired, if they chose to tell you anything. I am certainly not going to go public on any source of information. As a source of capital it was probably small beer and not worth the hoo ha of pursuit. I do believe it was a serious consideration at one stage.
September 30th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Simon, I’m as intrigued by your last remark as everyone else on here! There may be specific components of our human rights framework that need to be addressed, but how on earth is the Human Rights Act in its entirety or in general principle ‘disgusting’?
September 30th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Simon,
You appear to be the living embodiment of the wholly approved monarchical notion, after Orwell, that some people are more equal than others and that human rights are in some way negotiable. I fear that they may have you right where they want you – making assumptions that human beings are unentitled and unworthy as a first rule. Keep it up Simon. We need monarchists just like you.
September 30th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Devils’s Advocate
If we propose change should we not also think about the details of how to make change? The implications of Republicanism are huge, the principle may be correct but we also need to be pragmatic about how to achieve it. Monarchists can say that they have a pragmatic approach already so good principles are implied within it. Whereas to propose change as a principle with no realistic policy as to how to achieve it is not good enough. There has to be a structure, or the argument that what we already have is pragmatic may be quite a strong case to counter.
An agenda that uses a set of defined principles for a constitution can set out many practical advantages. The Royal family are not entirely irrelevant, they are part of our culture and history, so to make change we have to look at how change can be managed to support the principles in which we believe, and with no injustice to any party including the Royal Family, who are to some extent (for all their wealth) victims of circumstance. I do not propose for a minute that we should not embrace both change and principles, but I would like to consider the basis of a well thought out plan if the majority of the people supported this of course. Which I think implies that a constitutional party should set out its stall for the voters to decide. Lobbying individual MP’s may not be enough. Working from principle and rhetoric is OK, working to make wholesome change happen needs method and organisation.
September 30th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Peter, sorry to make a trivial comment (albeit while still awaiting a serious response from Simon). But are you a senior civil servant by any chance? Because you sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby from Yes Minister!
September 30th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
Individuals without special qualifications are no more than meat to be minced. Professions matter more than the people within them (chartered accountants and such-pay annually to be protected but will thrown to the wolves if and when it’s necessary).
Civil servants have high perches but will not survive if the going gets tough.
Have a look at the current BBC charter which is a great departure from the past as it states that matters should be decided objectively and that the presumption against the subject no longer prevails.
So what are you, Simon, a mere subject like many of us here, or someone of higher status?
September 30th, 2009 at 11:25 pm
When our politicians do stop all their claims for extras (DUCK PONDS) and we have a real system that works, maybe and only maybe we can talk about stopping or cutting the civil list and what the royal family does for this country. Maybe that day is when we become the next state of the USA?
Good luck
October 1st, 2009 at 9:22 am
“When our politicians do stop all their claims for extras (DUCK PONDS) and we have a real system that works, maybe and only maybe we can talk about stopping or cutting the civil list and what the royal family does for this country.[etc]” Paul
How are the prevention of false claims by some greedy politicians and requests not to waste even more money on monarchy connected inversely?
What is a ‘real system’? Would one based on a republic qualify?
What, specifically, is it that the royal family ‘does for this country’? (Random notions of ’stability’, ‘continuity’ and tourism are demonstrably rhetorical and will not do.)
What aspect of Republic’s campaign, or any other factors suggest any form of amalgamation with America?
October 1st, 2009 at 9:51 am
Matthew Showering
Hi
no not a civil servant but have been exposed to them, some of it must rub off. Actually I am merely a surveyor, but as a surveyor I suppose some of the guarded phrases in reports becomes part of one’s way of putting things. Sir Humphrey is a wonderful character, but I think I am also a bit like Arthur Daley too.
I have worked closely with bodies with a Royal tag, including my own professional body, I have also been influenced by nationals within republics such as France, Germany, and Switzerland, which is how the penny actually dropped that an alternative to our system may be more fruitful and democratic. Also it is important to respect and to come to terms with others ideas even if you may disagree with them, it is respect for the individual, so one tries to guard ones enthusiasm with a touch of balance, as Sir Humphrey would say, “on the other hand minister”.
October 1st, 2009 at 9:56 am
Stop Press
Simon Exposed
He is the Duke of Edinburgh
October 1st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
Sorry I replied to Graham as Simon my mistake
October 1st, 2009 at 10:27 pm
I’ve recieved my response from my local MP and it appears He is on our side. I’ll keep you informed with the response.
October 2nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
Perhaps the Civil List (is there a Military List as well?) should be rounded up from £12.7 million pa to £13,000,000.
Then it will contrast nicely with the £130 per week that is HMG’s determination of what a single pensioner can get by on.
October 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Anyone else see the ‘Daily Mail” earlier this week with all it’s praise for the wonderful shadow chancellor’s honest speech about we must all take cuts in public spending and opposite was a page all about the Duke of Edingburgh’s problems in growing his truffles?
Somewhat says it all really!
October 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Keeping the plebs occupied with trivia while the world collapses around us.
Meanwhile war after war, pollution, destruction of the environment, it does not say much for us really, perhaps we ought to go extinct like the dinosaurs, then the world might recover.
We are not a good design unless we fully use our reasoning and our altruistic faculties. Tabloids and the political status quo, plus religions and the class system do not help this. These are attributes of acceptance rather than reason. Mental laziness.
October 9th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Roger: A very good observation. One law for the rich,and one for the poor, or more likely one recession for the rich ,and one recesssion for the poor ! Not a “truffling” matter !.
October 9th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
…brilliant, Barry!…
October 10th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Thanks to “The Daily Mail” this week I was able to understand how life is becoming so tough for the royals these days. After the full coverage of admiration for the wonderful ‘honest’ Tory shadow chancellor who had the guts to explain how we are ‘all init together’ and we will have to accept more taxes and cuts to public services, the paper provided a whole page giving us all a real worry – the Duke of Edingburgh can’t get his truffles to grow!!!!!
At last the reason the royals need more tax payers support. Surely this delightful old gentleman’s truffles are in need of more funds if he is to be content, after all can’t the poor be content with cake??????
What’s few hospiitals, schools etc for the peasants when they don’t understand the real world of truffles?
Come on dig deep the Royal truffles need your money!!!!!!
October 10th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
I think that phrase, “we are all in it together”, will eventually come back to haunt those former members of the Bullingdon Club if they are elected to government and, I have no doubt, republicanism will benefit from the fallout when it does.
October 11th, 2009 at 11:59 am
It might be of interest to see how the Queen economises. From Kitty Kelley’s The Royals:
“Less than three years after agreeing to pay taxes (on her public income, not on her private investments), she decided to fly commercial. By not using one of the eleven jets in the Queen’s Flight, she saved the taxpayers about $3 million on one trip. ‘Her Majesty took over the entire first-class cabin,’ said an Air New Zealand flight attendant, ‘but that’s as it should be. After all, she is the Queen of England, not some bicycle monarchy.’
“But the Queen flew commercial only once. For comfort and convenience, she preferred the Queen’s Flight. So instead she decided to economize on household expenses. She received $70 million a year in public funding for her travel expenses, her security costs, and the upkeep of her eight residences. She started trimming costs by eliminating her employee’s [sic] traditional benefits: her chauffeurs, who earned $9,000 a year, had to start paying for their own shoe repair. Servants, paid $8,000 a year no longer received free bars of soap. And the $60,000 a year courtiers who accompanies the Queen on foreign tours could no longer expect to receive a free suit…As part of her cost-cutting, the Queen reconsidered giving cash bonuses to the two hundred employees at Windsor Castle who had helped save her treasures during the 1992 fire. Instead of money, she offered them a free tour of the castle library. Few accepted.”
N.B. The salaries would be low even if they were in pounds sterling.
October 11th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Dear Peter,
I don’t think Simon could be the Duke of Edinburgh. He would have to swear a lot more !
October 11th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Dear Suzon,
I am surprised her flunkies haven’t been deprived of free toilet paper as well !
October 11th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Barry (Kingsley): are we not getting to the ‘bowels’ of this subject (or should that be citizen!) yet?
October 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Dear Stephen,
I see you are a punster,Sir,a bit like myself ! Brings a bit of lightheartedness into the blog I think. I cannot always get my head around all the points about constitutional law and history. Must be a bit careful,however,as I might get rebuked by Graham for getting off the subject.
October 11th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Clarity, Succinct and with due respect to all who have sent in excellent pertinent points, without the hyperbole – with a little humour; keeping the majority interested, Barry!
October 15th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Royals!!!! How about when they suddenly changed their family name during WW1 because the general public is too stupid to realise they are German! It shows the arrogance and incredible hypocrisy yet alone the contempt they hold when it comes to those who pay for them!
I’ve never fully understood how they’ve managed to get away with it for so long. It’s ‘the Establishment’ of course which has everything to lose and controls the media and government in order to keep the ‘gravy train’ going’.
Have you seen how the MPs are whinging about paying back some of the expenses they ‘mis-claimed’. These are by and large millionaires, yet see no reason why they should be made to pay anything back. Just think if an ‘ordinary’ person steals (or manipulates the PUBLIC MONEY system) for monetary gain, they get prosecuted, Not only do MPs not get prosecuted for stealing, they don’t even want to pay anything back after they’re caught with theirs hands in the till! It’s these ‘honourable’ Member of Parliament, who have everything to lose if the Royals are toppled of course. The shamed ex-speaker has duly collected his Lordship and now sits in full regalia in the House of Lords laughing at us poor saps!!!!
Nothing in the media about Royals handouts from the Tax payers of course. Lots of aren’t they wonderful rubbish as usual instead!
Do those in Australia, who oppose the Republican cause, really know how corrupt things are in the UK? Why on earth would the Australians want to continue ‘loyalty’ to it all?
Oh and by the way, I see that although ‘we’ don’t have any money and must cut our essential public services (e.g. those the tax payers use) we have ‘loads of money’ to dish out for more soldiers to go off and fight in the third world in order to ensure …….. Sorry I’ve forgotten why!
Oh yes “Carry on Up the Khyber” which was such a success when our dear old German Queen Victoria was in charge!
Why isn’t Australia shelling (good pun?) lots of money and young men and women to keep the American flag flying in the third world? Come on you must do better. The US President has to justify his ‘Peace’ prize by ensuring that lots of people are still being killed to support corrupt governments that the US can manipulate.
I just had to get this ‘off my chest’. However it does raise the issue of whether a Republic would be any better than the current corruption we live with?
October 15th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
I don’t think any of them are worth any thing, let alone an increase. We would be much better off as a republic.
October 15th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
As a new member of Republic, I thought I would be joining a group which is focused on the constitutional position and making reasoned arguments against the institution of the monarchy. I am astonished, reading many of these postings at how many writers express what seem to be highly personalised grudges against the person of the monarch and her family. Only a deeply principled, reasoned group of people stands a chance (and even then very much against the odds) of convincing our fellow citizens of the merits of a genuine republican democracy.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:04 am
I agree with Andy.
A constitution serves all citizens, a reasoned approach, the addressing of the issues including fair treatment of the current establishment, and the rights of all should be the Republican agenda.
More than that, we should create a true constitutional political party.
You will never get the current sycophantic politicians to act, yet actions speak louder than words.
Change is not easy, personal attacks do alienate the public.
October 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
I thought people would like to know the BBC’s attitude to coverage of public expenditure on the Royal Family.
It seems that the issue falls into the category of “how much national interest there is in the subject matter”.
As such can I urge you to write to the BBC and let them know that spending on the Royals has a great deal of national interest.
The making of a complaint has at least resulted in a response, and who knows, a significant number of complaints may even lead to the BBC addressing the issue as they may then perceive it to be of ‘National Interest”
Perhaps the BBC would like to invite James Grey onto programmes such as BBC2’s ‘Question Time”?
“Thank you for your e-mail regarding BBC News.
I understand you feel that, in light of recently announced public expenditure cuts, BBC News should be putting the question of cutting the Royal Family’s expenditure to politicians.
Choosing the stories to include in our programmes is a subjective matter and one which we know not every viewer or listener will feel we get right every time.
Factors such as whether it’s news that has just come in and needs immediate coverage, how unusual the story is, and how much national interest there is in the subject matter will all play a part in deciding the level of coverage and where it falls within our programmes or news service.
Essentially this is a judgement call rather than an exact science but BBC News does appreciate the feedback when viewers and listeners feel we may have overlooked or neglected a story.
I would therefore like to assure you that we’ve registered your comments on our audience log for the benefit of news teams, programme makers, commissioning executives, and senior management within the BBC. The audience logs are important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content and ensure that your points, and all other comments we receive, are circulated and considered across the BBC.
Many programmes will ask for contributions and suggestions from the audience regarding the news of the day. There are also a number of other ways that you can contribute story suggestions, comments and ideas to programmes and I hope the following selection of websites may be of use:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast/default.stm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/5live/shows/victoria-derbyshire/get-in-touch/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio2/shows/jeremy-vine/
Thanks again for contacting us.
Regards
Stuart Webb
BBC Complaints
__________________________________________
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints
October 16th, 2009 at 11:07 am
@Andy
Are you confusing Republic with people who comment on this blog? We’re not in the business of deleting comments on here unless they go against our moderation policy, and if people want to criticise the royals that’s up to them.
This campaign is focussed on the constitutional and political issues, and raises legitimate concerns about the royals when that helps us make those constitutional and political points.
We make no apologies for criticising the royals when necessary, they’re not above criticism and they do need to be held to account. It’s not possible to separate the incumbents from the institution.
What we don’t do is engage in personal attacks, but if people make personal comments on here then that’s up to them, as I said we’re not in the business of censorship.
@Peter. We do and will get politicians to act. Getting MPs to act on an issue is considerably easier than winning enough seats to make change happen (how many new parties have won seats in the Commons in the past hundred years?!)
October 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
@ Roger Hurst
The BBC depends upon a royal charter. Does that royal patronage influence its policies?
I think it could be useful to make the BBC policy makers aware that there is a growing awareness that “the charter” is a royal charter.
October 16th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Suzon – A very good point and one that needs to be highlighted.
Perhaps someone could explain more about the “Royal Charter” and what it encompasses?
Does it indeed hold the BBC to the “Royal” line?
Does it mean that in order to exist the BBC has to be “Royal”?
What about other broadcasters, do they also have a “Royal” stipulation in their contracts/licenses to broadcast?
Who actually controls the conditions of the “Royal” charter. The Royals or the Government?
Why does the BBC need a charter, “Royal” or not?
Can’t the BBC simply be licensed to broadcast as a Public Service Broadcaster as happens in other countries who have Public Service broadcasters?
Quite a Pandora’s box which needs to be opened.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
@ Roger Hurst
Perhaps someone could explain more about the “Royal Charter” and what it encompasses?
Royal charters are legally-binding contracts which in the majority of cases the monarch orders ministers and judges (in fact, all subjects) to give favourable treatment disregarding wrongdoing. The first royal charter of the dynasty founded by William the Conquerer was granted to the Corporation of the City of London in 1067.
Does it indeed hold the BBC to the “Royal” line?
I doubt that there is direct interference, but there is probably what you could call a chill factor. (If you recall the five hour documentary on the Royal Family that was promoted by showing the Queen flouncing *out* of a photo shoot was subsequently changed to the Queen flouncing *into* the photo shoot.)
Does it mean that in order to exist the BBC has to be “Royal”?
It certainly adds weight to the argument that the monarchy is not just some ceremonial institution.
What about other broadcasters, do they also have a “Royal” stipulation in their contracts/licenses to broadcast?
Not that I know of, but there is a Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers in the City which brings together people from “communications industries [radio and TV], and with book and allied trades including printing, publishing, book selling, book binding, paper making, stationery, packaging and newspaper making”.
Who actually controls the conditions of the “Royal” charter. The Royals or the Government?
The Privy Council Office brokers the charters, negotiating between the profession or vested interest and the relevant minister.
Why does the BBC need a charter, “Royal” or not?
Can’t the BBC simply be licensed to broadcast as a Public Service Broadcaster as happens in other countries who have Public Service broadcasters?
It could be organised differently and should be. Royal patronage covers a multitude of sins.
October 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Thanks Suzon.
Can you tell us why the BBC had a Royal Charter in the first place?
Was it seen as something which needed to be instigated by the King. If so why?
Why didn’t the government of the time simply set up a Public Service Broadcaster when the existing company was ‘nationalised’/replaced?
What was it about broadcasting that set it apart from other media of the time such as the Newspapers?
October 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
To Graham Smith
Thanks for your comments. I agree. All action is good.
What is the proposed new constitution in detail, and does this not predicate the need to also put this dramatic issue into a political agenda? I doubt that the existing parties have the metal to make real change.
I never see any meaningful constitutional debate, although reform of the House of Lords is a step in the right direction. The only trouble is that the evolutionary approach is 300 years out of date. Fundamental reform needs real conviction and principle. These qualities seem, with a few very notable exceptions, to be lacking in the general bunch of MP’s we have been daft enough to vote for.
October 16th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Can you tell us why the BBC had a Royal Charter in the first place?
Was it seen as something which needed to be instigated by the King. If so why?
Our monarchy is feudal (even in the guise of parliamentary democracy) and the royals own everything, including the airwaves. Kings and Queens need supporters and granting charters to powerful groups of people are one way of ensuring support.
Why didn’t the government of the time simply set up a Public Service Broadcaster when the existing company was ‘nationalised’/replaced?
What was it about broadcasting that set it apart from other media of the time such as the Newspapers?
When the BBC came into existence, the royal family was pretty much accepted at face value by the majority of the public. Even today, the mainstream press is still rather deferential. Yes, it exposes some of the excesses (William’s helicopter trips, for example), but there is almost no serious questioning of the established order.
October 16th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Hi Peter
Getting politicians to debate serious constitutional reform is of course part of the wider strategy. It’s too early to start drafting constitutions, but we need to continue to lobby MPs to raise concerns over a wide range of issues. Changes to royal FOI rules and palace demands for more money next year are two issues we’ll be campaigning on, as a way of raising awareness of the broader debate within parliament.