WingNews logo WingNews
top | item 32818685

(no title)

matthewh806 | 3 years ago

I would say both; you can oppose the procession itself for all of its pomp and archaic tradition at a time where the country is dealing with a cost of living crisis and also have that also be more broadly a protest against the monarchy in general.

A large portion of the life of the royal family is public, even funded by the taxpayer, so to me it makes sense to allow for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Perhaps you can argue that a memorial service isn't the most appropriate time (though, I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint given just how much this memorial is rammed down our throats) to protest, I do think its where its likely to generate the most coverage. There is never going to be a more appropriate time to get people to listen

Edit: Just to clarify the point further - Not all of the arrests being discussed were made in Edinburgh (where the procession took place). Its debatable how much impact a person holding a blank sign in Oxford has on the events in Edinburgh (though I would wager its infinitesimally small). Equally, holding a sign with a swearword on it doesn't really "disrupt" in any meaningful sense either. A lot of people defend the police action on the grounds that it "may" have lead to violence via provocation and the person was arrested for "their own safety", but in that case why follow through with the charge? Rather than "de-arresting" (whatever that means) afterwards

discuss

order

robocat|3 years ago

> a cost of living crisis > funded by the taxpayer

To respond only to your financial arguments: there are different ways of looking at the costs and benefits of the UK royals.

Firstly, taxation:

“the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m”. Last tax year HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) “collected £716.0 billion in taxes”[0].

Let’s assume the “cost of living crisis” affects 10 million people. £100 million given to them would mean an extra 10 quid per person per annum. A worthwhile difference, but hardly solving the problem. There’s way more pounds of flesh or fat to cut elsewhere in the budget.

Secondly: costs and waste are easy to see, but gains are often not seen. Does the UK earn more from the royals than the royals cost?

“[The royals] contributed an estimated $2.7 billion annually to the U.K. economy prepandemic. The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism, but Haigh notes there are other financial benefits, such as free media coverage of Britain (which was an estimated $400 million in 2017). There are also many valuable royal warrants granted by the monarch—essentially a stamp of approval on high-end consumer products like Barbour jackets and Johnnie Walker whisky. [snip] The economic advantages for companies and institutions in the royal family’s orbit far exceed the $550 million cost associated with the family’s massive operating expenses, according to Haigh.”[-1].

Of course, there are non-monetary costs and gains of the monarchy that are much harder to value.

Pure ownership in dollars “How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works”[-1³] can be compared against the wealth of other dynastic wealth families. It doesn’t make the top 10 in the world[π]. And probably not #1 in the UK[§] with the first royal family showing at #12 (although there are non-$ benefits such as status of being royalty, and non-$ costs/risks).

Even in New Zealand we are all paying a few dollars a year for costs related to the monarchy[1].

[-1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielshapiro/2021/03/10/inside-...

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmrc-tax-and-nics-r...

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand

[π] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052416/top-10...

[§] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list

Edits: added details.

matthewh806|3 years ago

Fair & valid points overall. I did hesitate to put the comment about the taxpayer bearing some of the burden for funding the monarchy because I realised I would quickly be out of my depth when someone with more insight into the numbers came along :D

But the reason I did so was to underline the point that the public have a right to attend, whatever their point of view, since its likely that a % of the cost for the proceedings will fall on the taxpayer

User23|3 years ago

That’s not how money works in the UK. The taxpayer isn’t funding the monarchy or anything else. If anything the Crown is funding the taxpayer via the Bank of England.

Edit: evidently people are confused. Here it is from the horse’s mouth: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/m...

IncRnd|3 years ago

Except the Royals themselves say something else. You linked to a webpage about how money gets created which isn't germane to the provenance of the already existing money that is owned by the royal family.

Take a look at "the official web site of the British Royal Family. Written and managed by the Royal Household at Buckingham Palace, the site aims to provide an authoritative resource of information about the Monarchy and Royal Family, past and present." [1]

That website has a webpage devoted to the "Royal Finances" [2] that says, "There are three sources of funding for The Queen, or officials of the Royal Household acting on Her Majesty’s behalf, in both a public and private capacity. These are: the Sovereign Grant, the Privy Purse and The Queen’s personal wealth and income."

"The Sovereign Grant: This is the amount of money provided by Government to the Royal Household in support of The Queen’s official duties, including the maintenance of the Occupied Royal Palaces: Buckingham Palace, St James’s Palace, Clarence House, Marlborough House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington Palace, Windsor Castle and the buildings in the Home and Great Parks at Windsor, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks."

[1] https://www.royal.uk/about-site

[2] https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0

ivanbakel|3 years ago

In the sense that the Crown leases the Crown Estate to Parliament in exchange for a guaranteed income? Sure.

In the sense that that arrangement could be reversed without massive upcry, a constitutional crisis, and the dissolution of the monarchy? Not realistically. The government has de facto control of the Estate, and the monarchy receives a de facto taxpayer-funded income (plus their private ownership through other property.)