Poll: Do you like the British Royal Family?

[VondeVon]

In the event that happened, the property owned by the crown estate would still belong the crown estate commission. The monarch would not be able to sell or collect revenue from the lands except as dictated by the relevant acts of parliament, which dictate that only a small proportion of the crown estate's revenue goes to the monarch. In essence, nothing would change. There's absolutely no point in the monarch doing that.

The act of each monarch surrendering revenue from the crown estate ceased to actually mean anything a long time ago. The monarch legally cannot collect revenue from the crown estate, and hasn't been able to for 50 years.

I admit to being a bit confused. From what I understand, the crown estate commission is just a group of people whose job it is to organise the lands and investments, like a bunch of managers who are appointed by the Queen but are accountable to parliament.

I strolled over to wiki which said "Traditionally, each subsequent monarch has agreed to this formality as part of the ritual of their accession" (and also "Every succeeding sovereign... renewed the arrangement made between George III and parliament and the practice was, by the nineteenth century, recognised as "an integral part of the Constitution [which] would be difficult to abandon") which suggests to me that beyond tradition (and the hassle of causing such financial upset), they DO have the legal right to say 'actually, no, sorry, I'm not going to renew this agreement', at which point they would essentially rent their land out like any non-royal land-owner would...

I'm not citing wiki as an indisputable source, but unless it's outright wrong... It seems like I might be right. The current Queen can't collect rent because she's already renewed the agreement, but the next Monarch could decline to renew it and start rolling in the cash.

 

[VondeVon]

Any non Brits reading, I promise on behalf of most of us. We don't give a damn about our queen.

not to pick on your post personally (rather to use it as emblematic of a pov and an assertion) but as was pointed out in comments in the Guardian when it tried airing its republican credentials in recent days polling has consistently shown that only about 17% of the UK population entertain the idea of abolishing the monarchy and becoming a republic.

17%

meaning 83% are nominally in favour of the status quo.

there are actually few "issues", if any, on which British public are as united.

so "you" should really stop using "we"...

I would ask who took part in this poll? I'd love to see the information please.

If it's a guardian readers poll, then I don't accept the information considering the general target demographic of guardian readers is, *ahem, a little more aged. A growing minority compared to the total population.
Although you do say 'abolish' the monarchy, I wouldn't say many people have anywhere near that extreme of a view, just a simple case of don't give a damn, Perhaps it's the company I keep, but I personally only know of one.

Do you know particularly many? It would interest me to know what categories you fall under. Because of course the majority of people that i know are 20-30 lower - middle class.
I'm not sure many of them read the guardian, online of in paper.

Polls buck the heck out of me. One small sample should not be translated into a representation of the entire country. We have the internet and social identification numbers, it should not be that hard for people to register and polls to actually say '60% of the population said yay, 20% said nay, 20% declined to take part'.

 

[Terminal Blue]

I admit to being a bit confused. From what I understand, the crown estate commission is just a group of people whose job it is to organise the lands and investments, like a bunch of managers who are appointed by the Queen but are accountable to parliament.

Spot on, it's a statutory corporation accountable to the government. It's conduct, however, is controlled by specific acts of parliament. There are many things which a normal corporation could do which the CEC couldn't.

I strolled over to wiki which said "Traditionally, each subsequent monarch has agreed to this formality as part of the ritual of their accession" (and also "Every succeeding sovereign... renewed the arrangement made between George III and parliament and the practice was, by the nineteenth century, recognised as "an integral part of the Constitution [which] would be difficult to abandon") which suggests to me that beyond tradition (and the hassle of causing such financial upset), they DO have the legal right to say 'actually, no, sorry, I'm not going to renew this agreement', at which point they would essentially rent their land out like any non-royal land-owner would.

The first thing to recognize is that the agreement between George III and parliament was specifically that the monarch would no longer have to pay the running costs of parliament out of their own pocket. Cancelling that agreement, if it were actually possibly without fucking up the entire basis of the political system, would be financially catastrophic for the monarch as they would arguably become personally liable for much of the expenditure and cost of parliament, i.e. billions of pounds.

I believe what is being referred to is not the fact that parliament would suffer any loss. It is in law that they get most of the revenue (85%, as of this year) from the crown estate. I believe problem is that such a move would effectively tear up the basic fundamentals of the British constitutional monarchy. It would undermine the entire relationship between parliament and monarch which is at the heart of the legitimacy of our political system, which I have to say is one reason why that system utterly sucks and needs to be reformed. Frankly, the revenue of the crown estate would be the least of anyone's concerns in such a situation.

The crown estate commission would still be governed by existing acts of parliament restricting its behaviour, because those acts were consented to by the monarch. Unless the commission willingly surrendered their portfolio to the monarch, the monarch would not be entitled to a greater share of the profits than they currently are because the amount the monarch receives is written in law.

 

[Growley]

It's harmless tradition, which brings in more money than it costs (to the UK). I see no issue with it.

I put 'like' purely because I enjoy that little bit of heritage.

 

[Fox12]

like them ? sure.

the thing about the British monarchy is its insidious.

let me explain;

you will see a little baby in your media at some point soon and most of you international folks probably won't see much of said chap until he gets married or someone dies...

but in Britain we will see him grow up from a baby into a child, into teenager, into a young adult, into a man.

we will (almost) see his first steps to his last.

whether we are "interested" or not.

and that does a curious thing; you think you know them.

they become as familiar as maybe one of of your childrens friends.

they are always "around", you hear who they are going out with, you hear when they get in trouble, you hear their exam results, you see them grow up, you get tossed an invite (of sorts) to their wedding and you hear when they have babys...

and when you know (or think you know) a person personally you care about them.

and the modern monarchy plays a looooong game in that respect.

but most of the world doesn't see it bar big events.

this is why you can barely find an adult republican in the UK who doesn't caveat their republican stance with a fleeting acknowledgement of partial affection or appreciation for the royal family.

But is this really so different from any celebrity? I'm not British, so I'm legitimately curious. I talked to a British man about this once, and he got offended when someone criticized the royalty for not really doing anything. He replied that they give millions to charity, at which point I mentioned that all that money was tax payer money. So are they like celebrities, or are they more like part of England national heritage?

 

[Fox12]

Also, I could do without them, but I live across the pond so I really have no experience or knowledge to base my opinion on other than thinking that royal families are outdated and archaic.

Lots of countries keep outdated and archaic things around, you know like 200 year old documents. Luckily for us this particular outdated and archaic thing doesn't impact the running of government all that much.

... are you referring to the constitution? The Constitution only forms the absolute basic skeleton of our government, and was specifically designed to change over time. The first ten amendments guarantee citizens basic rights, and other amendments added later corrected mistakes in the original document (like the existence of slavery). The Constitution is one of the most brilliant, and influential government documents in human history. There's a reason it succeeded where other republic forms of government failed: it's flexible. The Constitution has only had a positive influence on the American government, and is still very relevant. It's a lot of things, but it's not "archaic."

 

[wolfyrik]

Quaker, Leveller? Just curious now.

I'm completely secular. However, one half of my family is Quaker.

My point is that people get overly caught up in the notion that British national identity is rooted in a shared sense of "tradition", and that this tradition is exemplified by the monarch. For quite a large chunk of the country, however, their ancestors were actually excluded from full participation in society precisely because they did not believe the monarch to be God's representative on Earth.

Pretending that we're all one nation because we're all united under the monarch is just insulting to me. We're one nation because we're united in our acceptance of common laws and values, many of which I personally recognize as the religious values my ancestors would have held. The belief that everyone is born equal and free. The belief that your character, your abilities and your achievements are what determine your worth. In Britain, we have a long history and a long tradition which goes far beyond hollow loyalty to the monarch.

To be blunt, I think if you have nothing to be proud of in your country beyond the limited achievements of a single family of extremely privileged people, then your country is clearly contemptible and you have shown it contempt by finding no other source of value in it.

Hear, hear.

Pretty much sums up the place. Even our democracy is embarrassing. The House of Commons has been completely over-run by rich Etonians who have absolutely no idea what life is like in the real world. You know things are bad when the few sensible ideas and actual issues of the country are being raised by the House of Lords. With every major political party being run by the same few corrupt groups of people, who are all influenced by the lobbying of rich corporations and banks the people, it makes no difference who people vote for. The left over minor political parties are mostly a joke. We have BNP (Bigots Nobodies and Perverts), The Green Party who are seen as hippies with no real base or experience, UKIP who are right wing jerks who'd kick out our immigrants and limit ties with Europe and the strongest candidate among them all; the Monster Raving Looney Party.

Hell, our leaders are so out of touch and embarrassing, that a certain prime minister (Tony Blair for those who can't guess) once praised a creationist school. That really is how sad and pathetic things have been.

Go England.....

 

[Raikas]

I live in Canada so the British royals are on our money, but I don't feel strongly about them one way or the other.

I can see the arguments for having our own head of state and the arguments for sticking with the history (even if it involves all that problematic colonial stuff). From a more UK-centric perspective (I have in-laws over there - my mother-in-law thinks very highly of Prince Charles for whatever reason) the royals seem to be good for tourism, so even if they cost money they're also bringing money in. And as a Belgian citizen, I'd add that at least they're more entertaining than those royals - does anyone really care about the new king? I certainly don't, and I don't think that's exclusively due to the fact that I don't live there.

 

[VondeVon]

The first thing to recognize is that the agreement between George III and parliament was specifically that the monarch would no longer have to pay the running costs of parliament out of their own pocket. Cancelling that agreement, if it were actually possibly without fucking up the entire basis of the political system, would be financially catastrophic for the monarch as they would arguably become personally liable for much of the expenditure and cost of parliament, i.e. billions of pounds.

Interesting. I hadn't considered that to renounce one meant renouncing the other. So if the Crown were ever to be dissolved, the most legal, non-destructive way would be for the nation to buy their land from them, one bit at a time...

The crown estate commission would still be governed by existing acts of parliament restricting its behaviour, because those acts were consented to by the monarch. Unless the commission willingly surrendered their portfolio to the monarch, the monarch would not be entitled to a greater share of the profits than they currently are because the amount the monarch receives is written in law.

...unless... the NEXT monarch said 'no' and everything reverted back to how it used to be?

 

[A BigCup of Tea]

i couldn't care less about the royal family and whether they're having a baby or whatever is happening, i have my own problems to deal with, why do i care if one of the royal family got caught with no clothes on in Vegas (or whatever and wherever it was)

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I truly could not care less about them. Not only are they - from what I can tell - completely powerless rulers of a nation that's an ocean away from where I live and are basically nothing more than another nation's pop-culture celebrities, but quite frankly I despise tabloid journalism in it's entirety and don't get why people would want to know about the private lives of complete strangers that aren't affecting them in the slightest.

Admittedly, there is one batch of royals that I do actually care to read about...

Spoiler

And lest I forget -

[img src=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o90VfdJ5AVw/T5RVZ2kZHHI/AAAAAAAAmww/728sk-Ol6TU/s320/170490+-+artist+skykain+changeling+Chrysalis.png][/spoiler]

 

[Space commando 75]

I'm british and i can't wait till they're gone. There an embarrassment to the country and they aren't the real royals anyway.

 

[Griffolion]

I like William, Kate and Harry. They're doing a bit to change their image (one that Charles and co royally - forgive the pun - screwed up). They are a lot like their mother, may she rest in peace.

I believe a monarchy in the modern world can do good on certain political levels, plus they are a decent tourist attraction. I think they should fend for themselves, financially, though.

 

[Someone Depressing]

A bunch of useless, idealised aristocrasial bastards. The reason why the family doesn't have any power anyore is because the concept of "elections" was introduced, meaning that the people pick who they think the most suitable leader is. So, the royal family has no use anymore; they are entitled twats who get praised by idiots. The family should be disbanded.

But seriously, give the baby some peace. So what, it's a baby and its parents. Leave them the hell alone.

Besides, I hate corgis. And the breed has become famous because some old woman who owes everyone far too much, and she's going to die before she can repay it all anyway, owns a few.

 

[QuakeKill]

I've always been a strong royalist, I think mostly down to my interest in military history. I've always seen the royal family as a symbol of British patriotism. The George VI led the country through a war, all the while he and the Queen stayed in London throughout the bombings, and from my family members who were around during the war, there was nothing more reassuring and that provided such a morale boost than seeing the flags flying, which meant the King was at home.

But that was during the war, and times have changed since then. Now, many people have been saying that they leech off the taxpayers, when in reality, it costs each tax payer around 60 pence annually to keep the royal family in power. So why do we keep them in power? Well, they bring in more money than they use up. In fact they bring in hundreds of millions through tourism alone. Which then leads to what is known as a positive multiplier effect, which means that directly and indirectly more jobs are created. In fact thousands of jobs have been created through the royal family.

I don't see why so many people, especially foreigners, are hostile towards the monarchy. Yeah, they are payed a lot of money for no reason, but Kim Kardashian is payed tens of millions of dollars for doing literally nothing, other than providing the average person with pointless gossip and leaking the occasional sex tape. While the royalty bring in hundreds of millions towards our economy and create jobs for thousands of people.

Additionally, it seems that the royal family are the only people in our once great nation that still have class. The recent royal wedding was a spectacular event, and even I, a "poor" Welshman, felt patriotic. Unfortunately, society has slowly degraded over the years, now leaving us with classless dregs of what was once a grand society. (I mean, look at the 1930s, even criminals, think John Dillinger, had class.) It's nice to see that some people, if only the royalty, have retained their dignity.