[This Is Not Here]

Cost
Official costs of the royals 37.4 As disclosed by the royal finances 2005/06:Royal Finance Report

Additional security costs 100.0* Estimated by the Times in 2004:The Times article

Unpaid tax 0.5 The Prince avoids Corporation Tax on the Duchy estimated to be around £500,000.IT Week news story

Unpaid tax (Queen) Unknown (£5m+?) The Times article

Grants in Aid to Prince Charles 2.0* Given to partly cover costs of official residence and travel:BBC News story

Costs to Local Councils (for royal visits) 10.0* Official cost of Queen's visit to Brighton in March 2007 was £11,451, as disclosed to Republic via a Freedom of Information request.
Extrapolating this cost for each visit undertaken in 2006 by the Queen's (425) and Prince Charles (500) would mean costs to local councils of £4,866,675 and £5,725,500 respectively. Telegraph article
Therefore the figure given is a conservative estimate based on these costs, particularly as it does not include visits undertaken by other royals (total number of visits is claimed by the royal press office to be near to 3,000).
Royal site It is also worth considering that in 2007 a visit by the Queen to Romsey left the local town council with a bill for £58,000, including £5000 for a new toilet. Daily Mail article




TOTAL 149.1 -

*Estimates

Here are the costs of Saxe-Coburg -Whoops!- I mean Windsor family- comparable European heads of state:
UK £150m (£37m officially)
Ireland £1.5m
Austria £3.5m
Finland £7.9m
Germany £9.9m

What we could buy with 150 million pounds:

8792 new nurses; or
7575 new police officers; or
7450 new teachers; or
3000 new GPs; or
462 new hospital beds; or
15 new schools

[gualbert]

Doesn't the royal familiy own the UK?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

yes, but then who would be the centralizing political figure for the British world including the Commonwealth Nations?

Colonialism aside, the contemporary monarchy in the UK is a genius political move at unity and coalition building, people can throw all their muck at the ministers, and enjoy the unifying presence of the Queen and the Royal family, I say 149 million pounds is a very small price to pay to unify millions of people under a common British identity and government, even though many are Africans and Asians, much more unifying than a few thousand nurses and teachers.

The apolitical power of the monarchy is the very source of its political potency. People do not hold the monarchy accountable for the ills in government like they do the ministers. If the US had a comparible political figurehead, there would be so much less division amongst Americans, instead it is every-man-for-himself politricks, Democrat vs Republican vs Everybody else, there is no common ground, the Queen for many British citizens is that common ground.

This was the exact same genius which the Ethiopian monarchy employed, and today, the republic is in the shambles of ethnic nationalism and division, where as under the monarchy there was a common sense of national identity which is now lost.

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by gualbert

Doesn't the royal familiy own the UK?

NO!

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

yes, but then who would be the centralizing political figure for the British world including the Commonwealth Nations?

Colonialism aside, the contemporary monarchy in the UK is a genius political move at unity and coalition building, people can throw all their muck at the ministers, and enjoy the unifying presence of the Queen and the Royal family, I say 149 million pounds is a very small price to pay to unify millions of people under a common British identity and government, even though many are Africans and Asians, much more unifying than a few thousand nurses and teachers.

The apolitical power of the monarchy is the very source of its political potency. People do not hold the monarchy accountable for the ills in government like they do the ministers. If the US had a comparible political figurehead, there would be so much less division amongst Americans, instead it is every-man-for-himself politricks, Democrat vs Republican vs Everybody else, there is no common ground, the Queen for many British citizens is that common ground.

Exactly how does the royal family unify anything? What evidence do you have for this, I've presented you with cold hard facts, and to be quite frank part of me wants you to do the same with your arguement.

[gualbert]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

NO!

Well, not anymore.

[This Is Not Here]

They still own some rediculous percentage of the land in Britain, something like 10%. But this means nothing in the greater sceme of things, the government and the people of Britain have the political power to abolish the monarchy and reclaim this land.

[This Is Not Here]

It depends what you mean by the royal family or 'the crown'. One things for sure, 70% of UK land is owned by 1% of the population.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

evidence for your point is easy to find, just get some financial data, where as the inference I have made is not so overt.

I don't have so much evidence to support something so obvious. The monarchy is a potent symbol of British identity, if not at home for the pissed of youth, definitely abroad for the members of the Commonwealth. This is particular in places like Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, and also Jamaica, Trinidad and St Lucia, all places where I know people who testify accordingly.\

Again, as I said before, in the US there are no apolitical symbolic figureheads, it is just politricksters, and this creates an environment of division. At least the common experience of the monarchy adds a paternalistic (well in this instance maternalistic) flavor which adds common ground.

[This Is Not Here]

"In his book, 'Who Owns Britain' (2001), Kevin Cahill takes a long, hard look at UK land ownership. His findings surprised many: the Royal Family for instance owns UK land equivalent to an average-sized county. Just six thousand people own two-thirds of the entire supply of UK land - forty million of the sixty million acres of UK land are owned by a clique comprised of the Crown, aristocrats and a few institutions."

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

This is particular in places like Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, and also Jamaica, Trinidad and St Lucia, all places where I know people who testify accordingly.

Probably because they own the land they're living on.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

Probably because they own the land they're living on.

not likely, do you know any island folk or Africans? and further, you were aware that the majority of commonwealth folk I know are here in the states, so they are diasporic (ie, probably do no own shit at home)?

I am not trying to glorify the queen, just comment on the solidarity which the monarchy creates. Regardless of the opinions of more radical folks like ourselves, the monarchy offers this aspect to British identity. I think that it is something which can be built upon, and should not be destroyed. If we adapt the monarchy to fit the needs of even the radicals, we can use its unifying common experience to better the people, rather than sink into division.

In Ethiopia, the monarchy was by no means perfect, but what replaced it was far more worse and divisive, my only warning is to be careful when tampering with such ancient institutions, they stick around for so long for good reasons often.

[PAULYBEE2656]

be grateful you have a monarchy and not some half witted idiots ruling your country!!!!

seriously tho.... the royal family will have to come to terms with the situation at some point wont they... or will they, they are still incredibly popular with the british public!

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

so they are diasporic (ie, probably do no own shit at home)?

Weren't you trying to claim the commonwealth was unifying?

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by PAULYBEE2656

be grateful you have a monarchy and not some half witted idiots ruling your country!!!!

seriously tho.... the royal family will have to come to terms with the situation at some point wont they... or will they, they are still incredibly popular with the british public!

In 1997 over a quarter of the British population wished to abolish the monarchy. Thats probably because they were all murdering eachother at that time, but it's still not incredible popularity, is it?

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by PAULYBEE2656

be grateful you have a monarchy and not some half witted idiots ruling your country!!!!

We have both.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

Weren't you trying to claim the commonwealth was unifying?

yes, and that is what proves my point entirely!

I know folks from Ghana, Uganda and Kenya, or from Trinidad, Jamaica, and St Lucias, and while these folks are all in the diaspora, and all live removed from their homes and are here in the US, the unifying experience of being under the monarchy has stuck with them in a positive way, even though these were once colonies! That is some powerful shit man I tell you, to leave a good residual taste rather than a bad one in those folks.

My point is this:

The experience of the monarchy is so unifying that it creates a british identity where there is no real cause. Are Ghanians or St Lucians really British? Are they Anglos? No, but they are most definitely British, and the queen has been a major part of that. She gives them a sense of commonality and British identity, which extends far beyond the circumstantial British influence of colonialism in their homelands. They have carried this solidarifying British identity across into exile, and remain British despite being African or Caribbean and also now subsequently Americans...

again, that is some powerful shit.

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

In 1997 over a quarter of the British population wished to abolish the monarchy. Thats probably because they were all murdering eachother at that time, but it's still not incredible popularity, is it?

since when is 75% NOT incredible popularity?

[This Is Not Here]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

I am not trying to glorify the queen, just comment on the solidarity which the monarchy creates. Regardless of the opinions of more radical folks like ourselves, the monarchy offers this aspect to British identity.

Speaking as a British citizen, I've never seen any evidence of this being so.

[Glice]

If a 500,000 tourists spend £300 while they're here (that is, slightly less than it'd cost to stay in London for a week except in hostels) then you've put £150m into the economy. I'd say the number of tourists coming for buck-ing-ham palace is slightly lower, and the amount put into the British economy per visit is slightly higher.

I'm not particularly a royalist, or a Tory (the above is a classic Tory argument) but I suspect weight cost/ benefit is much more intrangible than just positing the explicit cost and assuming there's no benefit.

Personally, I find the political benefit of sovereign monarches to be the most spurious of arguments, but then, if we don't have our strange customs (not just the Queen, the whole of Whitehall) and Britishness then we kind of disappear into the bay of France.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by This Is Not Here

In 1997 over a quarter of the British population wished to abolish the monarchy. Thats probably because they were all murdering eachother at that time, but it's still not incredible popularity, is it?

Hey hey - statistics lesson - if a quarter don't want them, three-quarters do. Granted, that's not quite 'most people' but it's certainly the sort of majority that's seen Mugabe run his country into the shit for a few decades.