The Royal Family #8

[hannah123]

Also, the Northern European monarchies are far smaller than ours, and have gotten rid of most of the fluff that surrounds the BRF- getting rid of the HRH and only expecting the monarch and the heir to do Royal duties- and dont have the sheer number of Palaces and Royal residences ours do. This is the model I think the BRF should take, but I don't think the hangers on will give up easily. The BRF hang around the dodgy absolute monarchies in the Middle East, so we know who they want to emulate, and its not some bicycling low key Dutch Royals with jobs outside the Royal Family.

In fairness to Charles he’s been wanting to slim down the BRF for decades, and now we’re getting to a point it’s in the not so distant future there are outlets and people accusing him of racism against Harry’s children. Even Archie not being a Prince was part of that plan and Meghan tried insinuating it was racism.

I sometimes think the guy can’t win because if it’s not Diana being brought up, it’s his brother or his son and he seems to disagree with his mother a lot but in favour of how the public view things.

 

[Wackie Jeaver]

I would much prefer the monarchy to an elected president tbh. Their motto (for those in line) seems to be do no harm; obviously there are the ones who completely dont do this (Andrew, Harry, Meghan, Princess Michael and Prince Michael) but for the most part they seem fairly harmless, often times quite helpful, and above all stay out of politics.

 

[mindlessness]

Actually it very much is largely along party lines in Australia.

One poll earlier this year had 52% of LNP voters wanting to keep the monarchy and only 27% wanting a republic. By contrast 41% of Labor voters wanted to become a republic with 34% wanting to keep the monarchy and 46% of Green voters wanted to become a republic with 30% wanting to keep the monarchy

‘No sense of momentum’: Poll finds drop in support for Australia becoming a republic

Support for Australia becoming a republic has slipped, according to a poll that reveals only a third of Australians are in favour.

www.smh.com.au

52% is not a large majority of LNP voters,* The article I linked interviewed a Liberal MP who is part of a parliamentary friendship group for a republic. Republican sentiment exists across the political spectrum. Moreover, I'd wager public sentiment will change once Charles is king too. Which is my point. As I have said previously, I think once the Queen dies, Australia will reevaluate its relationship with the Royal Family and that it is likely we will have another Referendum on the Monarchy.

*Not to mention, that's just one poll. I'm sure we all know after the last 5 or so years (Brexit, Trump) that polls aren't always accurate

 

[Great_Kate]

I do think the BRF appears to tend to the Middle East/Arabian Monarchies more than their European counterparts. Be it because those royal families love to come to Britain and are really into horse racing, long standing ties due to the history with the British Empire or maybe its just looks and not actually true. The BRF always look a bit separate from the European families though. The Scandinavians cling together a lot. But they are also all around the same age and the countries have strong ties with each other anyway. That might make it easier. But they all seem to meet each other much more often than the BRF. I assume it has to do with the BRF still working on a bigger scale but also if you look at the “new” kings and the others in waiting they are all around the same age. Same for their children. The BRF is always in between age wise. They are also very well educated (politics, economics..) and have spent time in different countries whereas the working royal family of the UK have mostly been educated at home and don’t have that international/business scope in their education. Their working set up is different es well. Less engagements, less working members, less intertwined with politics (not necessarily cheaper on their subjects though surprisingly). I think this is most definitely the way the BRF should go. Will it happen under Charles? I think that’s a bit ambitious. He might set things up though that will play out when it’s Wiliam’s turn. He will easily be 75 till he takes over (I mean she is old enough to drop dead from old age every second, but it seems she won’t). Or die before her even. 72 is not a completely surprising age to die and he doesn’t look super healthy.
The BRF are dysfunctional enough that there biggest asset is if people don’t think about them too much. Which is probably true for the majority so I think they are safe for now.

 

[NonDairyQueen]

and above all stay out of politics.

They don't though. They don't hesitate to interfere if a law is going to affect their interests, whether it be environmental protection, race discrimination legislation or tax legislation. If they want their interests protected, they will interfere in politics, and the government will do whatever they want.

 

[TYL159]

52% is not a large majority of LNP voters,* The article I linked interviewed a Liberal MP who is part of a parliamentary friendship group for a republic. Republican sentiment exists across the political spectrum. Moreover, I'd wager public sentiment will change once Charles is king too. Which is my point. As I have said previously, I think once the Queen dies, Australia will reevaluate its relationship with the Royal Family and that it is likely we will have another Referendum on the Monarchy.

*Not to mention, that's just one poll. I'm sure we all know after the last 5 or so years (Brexit, Trump) that polls aren't always accurate

52% of LNP voters wanting to keep the monarchy to just 27% of LNP voters wanting a republic is actually a huge 25% majority for keeping the monarchy with LNP voters.

Yes there have always been a few Liberal republicans within the Coalition (remember Malcolm Turnbull led the Republican side to defeat in the 1999 monarchy referendum) but most Liberal voters and the overwhelming majority of National party voters are monarchists. Howard, Abbott and now Morrison have all been monarchists as leaders of the Coalition. It is Labor leaders like Hawke, Keating, Rudd, Gillard and now Albanese who have been republicans.

Note too on that poll more Labor voters, 34%, wanted to keep the monarchy than the 27% of LNP voters who wanted a republic.

William as by then Prince of Wales and Kate are also very popular in Australia so would play a big part in the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy campaign if there is another referendum after the Queen dies, not just by then King Charles.

You mentioned the 2016 votes for Brexit and Trump, remember it was working class and lower middle class voters especially in suburban and rural areas who won those elections for Leave and Trump. Remember in Australia it is working class and lower middle class voters, especially in rural areas, who tend to be most pro monarchy. It is liberal upper middle class city dwellers who are the most likely to be republicans, just as it was liberal upper middle class city dwellers who were most likely to be for Hillary in the US or for Remain in the UK.

In the 1999 referendum for example the ACT voted 63% for a republic and Victoria, containing Melbourne, voted only 50% for the monarchy and NSW, containing Sydney, voted 53% for the monarchy compared to a 55% vote for the monarchy across Australia. Rural Queensland however voted 63% for the monarchy and Western Australia also voted 58% to keep the monarchy

 

[mindlessness]

52% of LNP voters wanting to keep the monarchy to just 27% of LNP voters wanting a republic is actually a huge 25% majority for keeping the monarchy with LNP voters.

Yes there have always been a few Liberal republicans within the coalition (remember Malcolm Turnbull led the Republican side to defeat in the 1999 monarchy referendum) but most Liberal voters and the overwhelming majority of National party voters are monarchists. Howard, Abbott and now Morrison have all been monarchists as leaders of the Coalition. It is Labor leaders like Hawke, Keating, Rudd, Gillard and now Albanese who have been republicans.

Note too on that poll more Labor voters, 34%, wanted to keep the monarchy than the 27% of LNP voters who wanted a republic.

William as by then Prince of Wales and Kate are also very popular in Australia so would play a big part in the Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy campaign if there is a referendum after the Queen dies, not just by then King Charles

Shall we agree to disagree? Because I do think the death of the Queen will change things. Which I've said many times. But I don't really feel like rehashing this with you. It's boring.

 

[TYL159]

Shall we agree to disagree? Because I do think the death of the Queen will change things. Which I've said many times. But I don't really feel like rehashing this with you. It's boring.

The divide in Australia is much like that in the UK. The more conservative you are generally the more pro monarchist you are, the more pro Labour/Labor you are then generally the more republican you are.

That divide will remain whether Charles or the Queen are monarch, though yes I do accept the monarchists might need to use William and Kate too in their campaign if there is another referendum in Australia, Charles and Camilla alone would probably not be enough for monarchists to win again

 

[NonDairyQueen]

In fairness to Charles he’s been wanting to slim down the BRF for decades, and now we’re getting to a point it’s in the not so distant future there are outlets and people accusing him of racism against Harry’s children. Even Archie not being a Prince was part of that plan and Meghan tried insinuating it was racism.

I sometimes think the guy can’t win because if it’s not Diana being brought up, it’s his brother or his son and he seems to disagree with his mother a lot but in favour of how the public view things.

I agree actually. It was a stupid and petulant thing for H &M to complain about when it was clearly part of a plan to slim down the monarchy. I think HM should not have given HRH's to William's children either- they would have got them when Charles was King, and would have allowed Charles to say that only George was going to be expected to be a working Royal. As it is, Charlotte and Louis are going to be the ' spare' children, and we have seen the damage that has done to to other 'spares' in the past. I think only time will tell re monarchy/Republic but I think, as Great Kate said, they are safe because most people don't care about them enough to change the system. They will have to decide to give it up, which I doubt they will, because it seems only Harry doesn't know just how priveleged and lucky they are and how protected they are by the establishment.

 

[Anyways888]

Does the slimmed down monarchy actually save the tax payers money? I read somewhere that the BRF actually spent more money during the pandemic.

 

[Boredofgrey]

Does the slimmed down monarchy actually save the tax payers money? I read somewhere that the BRF actually spent more money during the pandemic.

I’m ambivalent about them so not supporting but assuming they cost more than usual as bought nothing in from a tourism perspective?

 

[Great_Kate]

Does the slimmed down monarchy actually save the tax payers money? I read somewhere that the BRF actually spent more money during the pandemic.

It’s not exactly that easy. The renovation of BP is the big additional cost factor for 2019 and 2020. 2019 is definitely year we’re the cost really jumped up big time. It’s a ten year renovation plan, so the cost will be that high till it’s finished I guess. As it’s the official office of the UK HoS it would have been on the tax payers anyway. That doesn’t mean the people themselves get more money in their actual purse. But it’s true, they have never gotten cheaper. Maybe they will after 2029 though (if they are still around).

Does the slimmed down monarchy actually save the tax payers money? I read somewhere that the BRF actually spent more money during the pandemic.

It’s not exactly that easy. The renovation of BP is the big additional cost factor for 2019 and 2020. 2019 is definitely year we’re the cost really jumped up big time. It’s a ten year renovation plan, so the cost will be that high till it’s finished I guess. As it’s the official office of the UK HoS it would have been on the tax payers anyway. That doesn’t mean the people themselves get more money in their actual purse. But it’s true, they have never gotten cheaper. Maybe they will after 2029 though (if they are still around).

I think the myth that they bring in more money in tourism has long been debunked? But they do secure the livelihood of many reporters, authors, bloggers/Twitter people, people producing and selling merch around them. And actual employees. Staff is a huge cost factor. It’s hard to say how many employees they actually have and there a various short term jobs (like summer work as a guide in BP). The few “hard” numbers add up to almost 2000 people (BP staff 1.200, Duchy of Cornwall managing staff 150, Crown Estate managing staff 450). That’s not including most of the administrative staff for the individual family branches or people outside the UK. I think it also doesn’t include several trusts or foundations. That’s thousands of people that would be out of a job. You can definitely question it they need so much staff, but one should always remind themselves that they are talking about the livelihood of families here when they decide a position is redundant. Not re-hiring would be the socially better way to reduce this cost but it takes time and there will always be periods where it rises. You can only keep up that much garden space with so few people, but you might need IT personal that you didn’t need in the decades before.

I don’t think a HoS or Royal family needs to be validated by how much money they bring in. They are no sales men. But they need to look extremely busy and invested in return. And W&K definitely can do better at that front. Every mediocre influenced has a better organised online presence. It would be so easy to use those outlets for great PR. Tied in with more(!) and better set up engagements they could finally look as if they are really into their roles apart from the bare minimum. I will give it to them though, they try. And they are showing that they have seen the writing on the wall and try to change the way of being a working royal. Away from tons of single engagements with individual charities and more big topic, connective work. Heads Together was an (unsuccessful) first try. Earthshot and Early Years still have room for improvement. It’s going to be interesting to watch how they develop.

 

[Anyways888]

I don’t think a HoS or Royal family needs to be validated by how much money they bring in.

I disagree with this but agree with everything else in your post.

 

[Great_Kate]

I disagree with this but agree with everything else in your post.

But how much money does Macron bring to France? Or Joe Biden to the US? Or for a more accurate comparison (as they are both not just HoS but also active politicians and their role is not apolitical) the German President? An apolitical HoS represents and can maybe try to support the economy through “soft” diplomacy. But basically their value does not come from making the nation money, but a professional representation and contributing to the country’s reputation (and in some cases because the country wants to have a false safe for their distribution of power).

 

[NonDairyQueen]

But how much money does Macron bring to France? Or Joe Biden to the US? Or for a more accurate comparison (as they are both not just HoS but also active politicians and their role is not apolitical) the German President? An apolitical HoS represents and can maybe try to support the economy through “soft” diplomacy. But basically their value does not come from making the nation money, but a professional representation and contributing to the country’s reputation (and in some cases because the country wants to have a false safe for their distribution of power).

I half agree and half disagree! I think when it comes to the HoS then no, they are HoS and need to be able to have access to money and a standard of living, just like their Presidential counterparts. However, if the Queen is asking for 25% of the Crown Estates because she has to pay for the rest of her family, then yes, they need to be doing useful work that demonstrates value, and proper value, not just pr guff. Re whether a slimmed down monarchy costs less, I was reading in ' And What do you do?' by Norman Baker, and he said Prince Charles has been lobbying for all of the revenue from the Crown Estates to be given to the Monarchy. So what he wants is fewer Royals, but a 75% pay rise!

 

[Great_Kate]

I half agree and half disagree! I think when it comes to the HoS then no, they are HoS and need to be able to have access to money and a standard of living, just like their Presidential counterparts. However, if the Queen is asking for 25% of the Crown Estates because she has to pay for the rest of her family, then yes, they need to be doing useful work that demonstrates value, and proper value, not just pr guff. Re whether a slimmed down monarchy costs less, I was reading in ' And What do you do?' by Norman Baker, and he said Prince Charles has been lobbying for all of the revenue from the Crown Estates to be given to the Monarchy. So what he wants is fewer Royals, but a 75% pay rise!

Good point and interesting quote. I think that’s ridiculous and if he wants to keep a crown on his head or even get it in the first place he should better not pursue this. Or maybe let him. I don’t think it would ever get through anyway.

 

[Anyways888]

But how much money does Macron bring to France? Or Joe Biden to the US? Or for a more accurate comparison (as they are both not just HoS but also active politicians and their role is not apolitical) the German President? An apolitical HoS represents and can maybe try to support the economy through “soft” diplomacy. But basically their value does not come from making the nation money, but a professional representation and contributing to the country’s reputation (and in some cases because the country wants to have a false safe for their distribution of power).

No idea but elected politicans actually work for their money. Also, I really don't care what's happening in Germany, I don't live there.

I think some of the BRF could be better diplomats and representatives. Right now their family looks like a joke. The queen is the best in a bad bunch in my opinion. She is very well respected on the world stage mostly because of how long she's been on the throne. Also people who meet her seem to be charmed by her.

Charles is a bore with all his climate change talk and his reputation can do with more polishing.

William and Kate are quite dull and well.... let me just say that I think Will should have been made to study more than Geography at University. I don't think it's endearing when adults who are meant to represent the UK go around acting ignorant about other people's cultures, customs and countries. I also think they have poor social skills. It's not too late for either of them to improve.

 

[NonDairyQueen]

No idea but elected politicans actually work for their money. Also, I really don't care what's happening in Germany, I don't live there.

I think some of the BRF could be better diplomats and representatives. Right now their family looks like a joke. The queen is the best in a bad bunch in my opinion. She is very well respected on the world stage mostly because of how long she's been on the throne. Also people who meet her seem to be charmed by her.

Charles is a bore with all his climate change talk and his reputation can do with more polishing.

William and Kate are quite dull and well.... let me just say that I think Will should have been made to study more than Geography at University. I don't think it's endearing when adults who are meant to represent the UK go around acting ignorant about other people's cultures, customs and countries. I also think they have poor social skills. It's not too late for either of them to improve.

I think The Queen should have abdicated 20 years ago. It's all very well her thinking she's been anointed by God but she's too old to deal with her family issues. Pope Benedict is the Head of the Catholic Church ffs and presumably also thinks he was ' anointed by God' but had the foresight to realise he couldn't go on. HM could have had a unique opportunity to guide Charles in his first few years as Monarch. Agree that what we have is old man who has been waiting all his life for a job he may never get followed by dull probably old man. None of them have anything about them to recommend them apart from existing.

 

[TYL159]

But how much money does Macron bring to France? Or Joe Biden to the US? Or for a more accurate comparison (as they are both not just HoS but also active politicians and their role is not apolitical) the German President? An apolitical HoS represents and can maybe try to support the economy through “soft” diplomacy. But basically their value does not come from making the nation money, but a professional representation and contributing to the country’s reputation (and in some cases because the country wants to have a false safe for their distribution of power).

Can anyone name the German President unprompted? I guarantee less than 1% of the global population outside Germany could despite its size. Appointed largely apolitical Presidents are pointless, nobody knows who they are and they cannot sell the country abroad or represent it on the world stage. So if we did have a President it would have to be one elected by the voters and in charge of the armed forces etc much like Macron and Sarkozy or Trump and Biden but that then brings more party political division to the role of head of state than constitutional monarchy does. So the royal family is fine, the Queen and indeed Charles and William have global name recognition and yet are also apolitical leaving the business of government domestic and foreign policy to the PM, Cabinet and Parliament

 

[Anyways888]

Prince Charles has been lobbying for all of the revenue from the Crown Estates to be given to the Monarchy. So what he wants is fewer Royals, but a 75% pay rise!

Actually now that I think about it I am glad the Queen hasn't abdicated. Prince Charles is too greedy. He has multiple streams of income- money from the Duchy of Cornwall, selling his buscuits in Waitrose, fleecing foreign businessman for thousands of pounds in his cash for access schemes etc. That should be more than enough for him.

I think Diana was on to something when she said he would make a terrible king.