Monarchy - Yes or No or In-between?

[Jason]

With the coronatin of King Charles III of England, this debate rages. Opposers claim the royalty is unfair, silly, outdated, and cost too much money. In fact, some nations are debating seriously becoming a republic. For instance, public opinion in Canada, at least, shows only 21 percent want to keep a monarch.

 

[Arantor]

I used to be more monarchist. Not ardent go-out-and-flag-wave - though when in 2002 for Queen Elizabeth II's 50th jubilee, the royal car passed through my town and I went out to join the crowd and wave. I had a certain affection for the institution because it was a reminder on some small level of the traits that Britain wanted to project to the world - stiff upper lip, carrying on in the face of adversity, doing one's duty, all that stuff. These were values I respected - even if the reality was a little more uncomfortable.

After Her Majesty's passing, however, I found myself re-evaluating it. Whatever influence she herself had brought to the institution, that quiet calm, that reserved thoughtfulness, it had been eroded by the utter swamp of Her Majesty's Government in the last few years.

I found myself considering that I had been less a fan of the institution and more of how Elizabeth herself carried the institution; Charles is not one of my favourite individuals, he's got a reputation for being a bit of a meddler in ways I'm not sure I agree with, and the whole acrimony with the rest of the family isn't helping.

At this point, between the bad blood, Prince Andrew's indiscretions, and the wealth of the family vs the cost of the coronation being borne by the public at a time of cost of living crisis... no, I think the institution needs to rethink its place in the modern world, very seriously.

For a nation whose government is so hellbent on the neo-liberal dream of privatising everything, why not make the Crown into a company, lock stock and barrel, make Charlie the CEO, leave his money to him and his, and then anything has to be earned like any other company. No exemptions on taxes. I wouldn't strip him of his money; I think that would be cruel because it's not his *fault* that he and his were born into that life, so I wouldn't make them try to survive on the same playing field as the rest of us, but I'd certainly look at stripping out the more egergious 'benefits'.

 

[Jason]

I used to be more monarchist. Not ardent go-out-and-flag-wave - though when in 2002 for Queen Elizabeth II's 50th jubilee, the royal car passed through my town and I went out to join the crowd and wave. I had a certain affection for the institution because it was a reminder on some small level of the traits that Britain wanted to project to the world - stiff upper lip, carrying on in the face of adversity, doing one's duty, all that stuff. These were values I respected - even if the reality was a little more uncomfortable.

After Her Majesty's passing, however, I found myself re-evaluating it. Whatever influence she herself had brought to the institution, that quiet calm, that reserved thoughtfulness, it had been eroded by the utter swamp of Her Majesty's Government in the last few years.

I found myself considering that I had been less a fan of the institution and more of how Elizabeth herself carried the institution; Charles is not one of my favourite individuals, he's got a reputation for being a bit of a meddler in ways I'm not sure I agree with, and the whole acrimony with the rest of the family isn't helping.

At this point, between the bad blood, Prince Andrew's indiscretions, and the wealth of the family vs the cost of the coronation being borne by the public at a time of cost of living crisis... no, I think the institution needs to rethink its place in the modern world, very seriously.

For a nation whose government is so hellbent on the neo-liberal dream of privatising everything, why not make the Crown into a company, lock stock and barrel, make Charlie the CEO, leave his money to him and his, and then anything has to be earned like any other company. No exemptions on taxes. I wouldn't strip him of his money; I think that would be cruel because it's not his *fault* that he and his were born into that life, so I wouldn't make them try to survive on the same playing field as the rest of us, but I'd certainly look at stripping out the more egergious 'benefits'.

I suppose it would be fine if it was something that totally benefited society. For instance, the lottery in many American states claims to support education. Well, is the monarchy costing taxpayers or is it some business that benefits the public?

 

[Arantor]

Yes, the monarchy has a direct cost to the nation; the coronation was taxpayer funded, and various arrangements exist not only to reduce/remove the royals' businesses paying tax, but also to grant them funds.

Yes, there is also an argument that tourism is driven by the royals. But how *much* is entirely unknown (and indeed, unknowable) and I think we can say at this point it's almost certainly a net cost to the UK taxpayer to have them.

 

[Jason]

There is a lot of social justice debate also regarding the monarchs. However, aside from that, it just doesn't seem to benefit the public anywhere. However, to play the devil's advocate, I will say they a lot of elected officials are practically born into privilege.

 

[guyyanthony]

nmmm... i'm not really sure how to answer this but i'm in the middle here...

i love everything, and anything relating to the royals its just so fascinating!!