I’m wondering if the citizens of Britain ever get frustrated and annoyed at supporting the Royal Family? I don’t know how much power the Queen has in the legislation of their country. But it appears to a foreigner like myself, that the Royal Family are only figureheads, supported in a lavish lifestyle by every citizen. With recent developments, it’s clear the British public are ready for drastic changes. Would they ever consider justifying the abolishment of their current monarchy? If they did, how would that be accomplished?
It’s one of the more popular monarchies in the world, particularly Elizabeth II. Certainly not while she is Queen, at least. It would be more likely that Australia drop her, and even that is a low chance.
Denmark and Norway’s monarchies are similarly popular. I’m not sure which country is most likely; the most recent was Nepal, which became a republic in 2008.
I’m sure someone will be around to better explain the numbers, but the British Crown has it’s own income and isn’t really a big burden on the taxpayers.
From “How wealthy is Queen Elizabeth? Not as rich as you’d think” == CBS News == Sept 9th, 2015
However:
Tourism …
It’s all fungible, though, so not really. Assuming that a republic was cheaper than a monarchy (this isn’t a given, though), the revenues that the monarch is permitted to collect from state property would be available for other purposes.
As of April, though, they weren’t ready for this change. And the monarchy has had a scandal-free run for the last 10-15 years, so support is going up rather than down. More people wanted a republic in the 90s.
And realistically, even a figurehead president would usually be a current or former politician, and I’m not sure the current mood is compatible with creating a fancy new job for a politician to hold.
Unless we went the whole hog and created an American style Executive Presidential legislature, I doubt that anyone would see any advantage to switching. The Brexit vote was almost entirely based on immigration fears and we may well live to regret it.
My personal opinion is that Charles would be wise to pass on his crown to his son, William, who is a lot more popular.
Yes this could certainly happen during the reign of Charle’s who is quite unpopular. And I can see a lot of commonwealth countries deciding to remove the UK monarch as head of state while he is “the crown” as well.
While Charles might be unpopular enough to increase the anti-monarchy sentiment during his reign, there are a couple of factors mitigating that.
-
William is very popular. Eliminating the monarchy would deprive William of his reign and that won’t sit well.
-
Given the length of ERII’s reign, Charles probably won’t be in there too long. So not a lot of time for momentum to build, esp. with William waiting in the wings.
It would take several events to really change things. King Chuck doing a lot of stupid stuff like interfering in politics. And William going into Prince Playboy mode or some such.
QEII gets popularity ratings that any elected politician would strangle their own mother for. Charles is seen as a bit odd, so we’re going to have an eccentric King for a while. He’s a thoughtful man (albeit wrong about loads of things) so it’ll be a change to have a monarch who actually has had public opinions about stuff. The UK will be able to handle that.
The next generation: William, Kate and Harry - well I think those crazy kids have got their heads screwed on right. Much less formal, much more open, friendly - it’s possible that Charles’s big contribution to the long history of the monarchy is to have brought up a couple of decent sons. Camilla has helped there too - and that must have been an awkward gig.
Maybe the young Prince George and Princess Charlotte will turn out to be monsters, but even if that happens the monarchy is secure in the UK until about 2080 or so.
The argument I use to my Canadian friends about the monarchy - if we dropped them, we’d have to go to an elected “president”, similar to Italy and Israel. What do those two countries have in common? (Besides a screwed up dysfunctional parliament due to proportional representation) Typically, the figurehead president has no more power than the monarchy. But, it seems that the position becomes a happy hunting ground for recycling boring used politicians.
From my previous citation:
Bolding, italicising and underlinatation mine
This revenue she lives off of is in fact from her own holdings. I seem to remember during some recession many years ago she was taken off their welfare program. The revenue from State property is already being used for other purposes.
QEII is worth $425m in her own right, not including any State assets.
It may appear so, but that perception is wrong, on several levels.
For one thing, the US Presidency costs far more than most people realize.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/its-ridiculously-expensive-to-fly-air-force-one/ar-BBtIbqa
Also, the British monarchy actually subsidizes the public budget. Several years ago, the Queen turned over some assets or income, in exchange for a fixed amount of money each year. The British taxpayers are financially ahead on the deal.
Depends on your definition of “scandal”.
For instance, Prince Charles has been quiet recently about underwear worship, but continues to be a major embarrassment on the subject of health care.
We did a thread a while ago which showed that the per capita cost for the British monarchy was considerably lower than the per capita cost for the US president.
If they abolished the monarchy, they would still need a head of state, paid for at public expense.
The drastic change was essentially a conservative one: a return to Britain alone, not part of Europe. I wouldn’t think that mindset would extend to abolishing such a key component of the British government and historical traditions.
An Act of Parliament, passed by both Houses and given Royal Assent by Her Majesty.
By “several years ago”, you mean “since the reign of King George III” (although technically it is renewed at every monarch change). See CCP Grey’s video on the topic.
Since this is a matter of opinion, let’s move it to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I didn’t realise Prince Andrew was worth that much…
There’s likely to be a more stripped down monarchy, along the lines of the Scandinavians and Dutch when The Queen passes. That said, visitors seem to love Buckingham Palace and the Changing of the Guard, so certain traditions may be kept going.
Is it a correct assumption that the parts of the U.K. least supportive of the royals are Scotland and Northern Ireland – the parts that just might leave in the wake of Brexit?
…and that without EU limits against it, UK could bring back capital punishment against the UKIP Leaders who caused it?
“You can keep UKIP but lose The Royals, or you can keep The Royals & lose the Nazis. Choose!”
This is what I was thinking of.
From the full official report.