The Royal Baby

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 24 Jul 2013, 03:03

It seems there is a touching faith around here in the integrity of the present scum that has risen to the top of the political cesspit that we call British democracy.

Who else but those politicians would frame the office of an elected head of state ?

Would they promote an executive presidency - where people like Blair and Thatcher become the natural candidate with a greater consolidation of power ?
Or would they seek a 'Van Rompuy' solution, where a non-entity gets a sinecure and even the marginal constraints the monarchy still holds are lifted from the present executive ?

For example, there might be one or two here aged enough to recall the catastrophe of Thatcher taking Downing St, and how, within three days of doing so, a small item appeared dead centre on the Times' front page, less than two column inches, reporting how Mrs Thatcher had requested an audience at the palace for the following day to ask for the allegiance of the armed forces to be transferred from the Monarch to the office of the Prime Minister.

That this was a multifaceted rejection of protocol to the extent of being intentionally offensive, is beside the point. It was only through having a separate long established power centre, inherently superior to any politician, that Thatcher's nascent megalomania could be deflected.

If anyone wonders why the monarchy is so popular with the public, they should take a look at just what we get offered as candidates at the 'democratic' elections.

Regards,

Lewis

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 24 Jul 2013, 07:42

I like what Natalie Bennett wrote.

Billhook, I can see what you mean about the lack of candidate choice in elections- but we the electorate should try and change that. I don't like the idea that we should stick with the royals because they are the least worst option (and in any case I don't think they are). I think we could have a democratically elected head of state for a fraction of the cost of the royals. I think the current system is so outdated and is so patently anti-equality that it needs to be changed. Plus it feeds into two other unhealthy parts of British life- the fawning over aristocracy and celeb culture.

BTW any Bristolians who dislike the gushing coverage on the beeb, may want to join Republic's protest outside the BBC in Clifton, this Saturday at 11am.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Jul 2013, 07:50

I do actually quite like Duchy Originals biscuits.

Post by **clv101** » 24 Jul 2013, 08:07

nexus wrote:I think we could have a democratically elected head of state for a fraction of the cost of the royals.

I always thought the royals were a net positive, the value to tourism and the UK 'brand' outweighing the Sovereign Grant.

Also note that the royals don't own the Crown Estate anymore. This ~£7 bn portfolio was surrendered to the state and is now held in trust with proceeds going to the Treasury. The Sovereign Grant is 15% of the income account net surplus of the Crown Estate.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 24 Jul 2013, 08:25

The value to tourism is very difficult to actually quantify, although monarchists constantly use it as a justification.

Many overseas tourists come for the full historical UK package- the world class museums, galleries, great houses, royal palaces etc rather than because we currently have a monarchy.

Post by **clv101** » 24 Jul 2013, 08:40

I'm no monarchist, I don't support a monarchy as a form of government. However, I do think the institution is a net-benefit to the country (within the convention economic terms of reference). I regard them as a 'living fossil', an important part of this country's history and a significant part of the UK's international brand.

Disbanding the institution to 'save' a few £10s of millions doesn't seem like a smart economic move.

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 24 Jul 2013, 08:44

What about disbanding it because of their "significant unaccountable powers and influence"?

Meanwhile celebrity culture and a relentless public relations machine have given a new lease of life to a dysfunctional family institution, as the X Factor meets the pre-modern. But instead of rising above class as a symbol of the nation, as its champions protest, the monarchy embodies social inequality at birth and fosters a phonily apolitical conservatism.

If the royal family were simply the decorative constitutional adornment its supporters claim, punctuating the lives of grateful subjects with pageantry and street parties, its deferential culture and invented traditions might be less corrosive. But contrary to what is routinely insisted, the monarchy retains significant unaccountable powers and influence. In extreme circumstances, they could still be decisive.

Several key crown prerogative powers, exercised by ministers without reference to parliament on behalf of the monarchy, have now been put on a statutory footing. But the monarch retains the right to appoint the prime minister and dissolve parliament. By convention, these powers are only exercised on the advice of government or party leaders. But it's not impossible to imagine, as constitutional experts concede, such conventions being overridden in a social and political crisis – for instance where parties were fracturing and alternative parliamentary majorities could be formed.

The British establishment are past masters at such constitutional sleights of hand – and the judges, police and armed forces pledge allegiance to the Crown, not parliament. The left-leaning Australian Labor leader Gough Whitlam was infamously sacked by the Queen's representative, the governor-general, in 1975. Less dramatically the Queen in effect chose Harold Macmillan as prime minister over Rab Butler in the late 1950s – and then Alec Douglas-Home over Butler in 1963.

More significant in current circumstances is the monarchy's continual covert influence on government, from the Queen's weekly audiences with the prime minister and Prince Charles's avowed "meddling" to lesser known arm's-length interventions.

This month the high court rejected an attempt by the Guardian to force the publication of Charles's "particularly frank" letters to ministers which they feared would "forfeit his position of political neutrality". The evidence from the controversy around London's Chelsea barracks site development to the tax treatment of the Crown and Duchy of Lancaster estates suggests such interventions are often effective.

From great Seamus Milne article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... f-politics

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 24 Jul 2013, 08:48

CLV:

I always thought the royals were a net positive, the value to tourism and the UK 'brand' outweighing the Sovereign Grant.

Evidence?

This is from the Republic site:

This question should simply have no place in any debate about our constitution. As former Economist editor Bill Emmott observed: "This [argument] is embarrassing because it suggests we should maintain a constitutional arrangement for purely commercial reasons." In other words, monarchists seem to believe we should sell our democracy for the price of a postcard.

Unfortunately this argument is repeated too often for us to simply ignore it. So let's take it on face value and answer the claim that monarchy is good for tourism.

Quite simply there isn't a single piece of evidence to support the claim. The question that monarchists cannot answer to their advantage is this: would tourism suffer if the monarchy were abolished? We can't tell the future, but we can point to a number of facts, statistics and arguments which allow us to safely conclude that tourism would not only continue successfully in a British republic - it would probably benefit from the abolition of the monarchy.

The 'tourism argument' for a republic
A simple piece of reasoning is a good place to start.

Tourists come to see the sights and to pay for experiences while on their holidays.

In so far as the monarchy provides any tourism value it is in the shape of palaces and castles.

Buckingham palace is closed to tourists for most of the year. When it is open the visiting public are only allowed to see a small fraction of the rooms. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that if the palace were open all year round, and if the entire palace and gardens were open to the public, tourist visits would increase considerably.

Why wouldn't they? It would be a far better bang for the tourist buck.

This point is demonstrated by contrasting the success of the ex-royal Tower of London with Buckingham palace.

Buckingham palace is falling down and the palace officials have been demanding more cash from the government. As a tourist attraction it doesn't even make it into the top 20 in the country. The Tower of London's funding is entirely independent of government grants and the tourist revenue they bring in allows them to maintain the buildings to a high standard, while providing tourists with an exceptional experience.

VisitBritain, the body responsible for researching and promoting Britain as a tourist destination, surveyed 26,000 people about what attracted them to Britain. The monarchy was well down the list. A spokesperson from VisitBritain said the palace is: "one of those iconic photo destinations and we try to discourage 'tick-box tourism' - just going and having your photo taken somewhere and moving on." So even though people may go to see the sights, the monarchy is of limited value to the tourist industry as it does not generate revenue and is not the reason people visit Britain.

Even if there were a small minority who came to Britain for the monarchy - a minority no doubt outweighed by the extra tourists who would come to see a fully accessible palace - such tourism only benefits central London. The monarchy can do little for tourism in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions.

As we've said, Buckingham palace doesn't make it into the top 20 of tourist destinations. Of the top 20 tourist attractions in the UK only one royal residence makes the grade, Windsor Castle at number 17 (beaten comfortably by Windsor Legoland, in at number 7). It has been estimated that royal residences account for less than 1% of total tourist revenue.

Finally let's speak up for the ingenuity, creativity and hard work of ordinary people in this country. It is our heritage, our culture, our attractions that people want to come and see. We don't need the Windsor family to lend a helping hand for us to bring in tourists. We're doing pretty well without their help and would do better still if they handed the palaces back to the people who paid for and own them.

Post by **clv101** » 24 Jul 2013, 09:05

I don't have evidence, it's just what I've always thought. I don't feel very strongly either way, I'm not motivated enough on this issue to do my own analysis.

If you are interested in evidence though I suggest the Republic site should be pretty much the last place to look. I suspect they were decided on their conclusions before any analysis!

nexus · Post by **nexus** » 24 Jul 2013, 09:45

Agreed, but I haven't seen the monarchists producing any well sourced evidence for their assertion either.

Post by **clv101** » 24 Jul 2013, 10:10

nexus wrote:Agreed, but I haven't seen the monarchists producing any well sourced evidence for their assertion either.

I think there are very few actual monarchists in the UK.

Only around 10-20% support the idea of a Republic, but of the 60-70% who think we should keep the monarchy I doubt very many of them at all would want to replace our symbolic constitutional monarchy with one that actually had real power of governance.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 24 Jul 2013, 10:18

We continue to have a monarchy in the UK for primarily two reasons:

A deep seated cultural conservatism

A deep seated cultural apathy

Billhook · Post by **Billhook** » 24 Jul 2013, 11:20

Steve -

the underlying reason for both of those you suggest is that we (the great majority of British Commoners) do not trust any politician with holding supreme power. This seems to me, as a constitutional monarchist, an eminently sensible and healthy outlook.

We see on a daily basis that the republican model, with its original basis in slavery and petty nationalism, is no kind of panacea nor any guarantee even of justice or basic liberty.

The fact that politicians have yet to return the crown estates to the monarch, as was the agreement when the income from them was ceded to the treasury only for the duration of WW1, means that they have far less direct influence for their essentially long term perspective, than we should be seeing.

And how many politicians give a damn for more than 5 years hence ? Or for the rights of young people who will inherit the mess they are generating ?

The practical goal for constitutional reform in Britain is not IMV the distraction of republicanism, it is surely the adoption of a tri-cameral parliament to include a house of peers, a house of commons, and a house of heritors - with the latter comprising elected young people unaffiliated to any party.

Regards,

Lewis

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Jul 2013, 11:44

The economic arguments, expressed in terms of money, are, as we on this forum should know, not very important. Money spent on royals is circulated round the economy like any other money.

The important thing is their impact on the planetary ecosystem and in this respect their energy use is a better proxy of their worth. Do they tend to travel in helicopters or trains? Or stay at home and within bicycling range? Do they manage their estates for the benefit of habitat conservation or for killing animals for fun. Do they farm their land organically and oppose the use of GMOs? Are they mindful of their role as custodians of our architectural heritage? Do they provide opportunities for youth education and enterprise or engender a feeling of envy? Is horse-racing a sport that deserves promotion?

Nothing's simple.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 24 Jul 2013, 17:13

There's a point in HHGG where they find the President of the Universe. If I remember rightly, the guy's completely indifferent to the vast amount of power he weilds. Arthur Dent is rather surprised by this, but is then offered the perfectly sensible explanation that anyone who sets out to seek such powers is inherently unfit to weild them.

I was reminded of this when Tony Robinson (aka Baldrick) set out to find today's descendent of a royal son who, centuries ago, should have inherited the crown (his elder brother, it transpired was illegitimate). He traced the line down to Mike Hastings-Plantagenet, a sheep-farmer in Australia.

Ever since then, I have wondered whether this guy should be offered the chance to run the country...