the two aren’t really comparable though. They serve hugely different purposes, two totally different institutions with a totally different history. The comparison doesn’t work at all.
the NHS *is* expensive because it provides essential health services.
but part of the reason it’s expensive is because it bears the brunt’s of cuts. An oft quoted example is elderly patients not being able to be discharged because they can’t get a home assessment. There aren’t enough social workers to sign off that their homes are safe. So the NHS doctors can’t discharge them, so they take up a bed an extra few nights at costs which can range up to the hundreds. This then puts pressure on less essential services and makes it longer to wait for a bed for new admissions.
the NHS can’t operate properly because it doesn’t have the peripheral services it needs to function correctly.
the Royal Family, on the other hand, are nothing like the NHS. They provide a purely constitutional “service” which doesn’t really have tangible or many intangible benefits IMO. They hold a priceless art collection in trust. They own vast estates. They have a rich source of personal wealth. They receive huge funding from the state and in return… they serve a ceremonial purpose. They head up charities and get some good PR for their causes whilst also for themselves.
with the correct legislation, there’s absolutely no reason why the U.K. would be bought up by China/Russia. The assets the royal family holds could, therotically be transferred to another trust holder. A charity? The government? Either or. They don’t have a monopoly on being good at holding estates in trust. They already outsource many aspects of it (Royal Historic palaces).
sorry but there’s no real reason to not believe that there could very realistically be a transfer of assets from the royal family to a public body that was seamless and effective. It’s worked elsewhere (Versailles, The palace of Belem.. any European former royal residence etc).
would the money be funnelled to the NHS? No. Would it need to be? No.
if we were to remove the royal family, we’d likely see knock on effects that aren’t connected to their immediate wealth ownership .
for example, a huge point of contention in the U.K. is the unequal distribution of wealth, geographically. Why is this the case?
because London is the centre and subsidies the rest of the U.K. it generates the most wealth, has the most investment and so on.
why?
Largely because of its history of being central government. Because of the Westminster system.
and why do MPs and Civil Servants need to be based on the Westminster system, and being based in London?
because there’s a monarchy and it’s based there.
inagine a world where parliament could be held in multiple locations. Where investments could be made in multiple locations. Where the underlying culture of the U.K. was one of meritocracy instead of having a head of state appointed based on nepotism. What sort of cultural shift might we see for the better if we decided that actually, people aren’t born more or less special. How might that contribute to the dismantling of classism that is prevalent in the U.K.?
there are financial benefits to removing the royal family for sure. But I think the less tangible, knock on effect benefits could be much much more valuable.
---