Constitutional monarchies vs republics

[Stumpy Pepys]

So this may be an opportune time to discuss this. I'm of a republican bent; then again, not enough to get very angry about it. At heart I'm a pragmatist, and I like to weigh up these things based on their pros and cons. So here are some thoughts surrounding the UK royal family.

1. Cost. Most sources put the annual cost of the monarchy at around £40m. This amounts to 66p per person.
Having said that, I've also seen figures saying that the government receives £200m in revenue from profits on royal land. £160m profit per year would benefit each person by £2.60.
Even if the result is somewhere in the middle, is a cost per person of between -£2.60 and +£0.66 really worth bothering about? Can it be reasonably defined as parasitic?

2. If a new republic decided to recover the Queen's assets for the state, how would this happen in practice? Methods such as nationalisation and compulsory purchase would cost a lot of money, negating the value-for-money argument. Is there an inexpensive method of seizing royal assets that would stand up in court?

3. For the man in the street, what empirical difference would living under a republic mean? Put another way – apart from having the opportunity to become president – what advantages does a citizen of Germany have over a citizen of Denmark? Or what advantages does a citizen of the Irish republic have over a Briton?

(Note: British people ceased to be subjects, to all intents and purposes, following the British Nationality Act of 1981.)

4. Assuming the class system is still significant in the UK, what practical advantages do upper-class people (wealthy or not) have over people who are just very rich?

[ad hoc]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Surely the answer to number 2 is that the Queen's assets are owned by the State already? I mean it's called "the Crown" but that is effectively "the state" and if you abolished the monarchy, the things owned by the crown would be effectively nationalised by default. So, there wouldn't be a cost (or there would probably be a very small one, but nothing you couldn't recoup through about two weeks of selling tickets to tourists to Windsor Catsle )

In the case of (1) is it not the case that the tax revenues are never counted in these calculations? There is a LOT of land which perhaps does indeed yield some revenue for the state, but it (the land) also goes untaxed?

[Diable Rouge]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Stumpy Pepys wrote:

3. For the man in the street, what empirical difference would living under a republic mean? Put another way – apart from having the opportunity to become president – what advantages does a citizen of Germany have over a citizen of Denmark? Or what advantages does a citizen of the Irish republic have over a Briton?

We pretty much just modelled our political structures on Westminster, so there's little difference in reality between the two countries - in practice, the party political hacks select the presidential candidates, with an ordinary citizen needing to get a nomination from four county councils, and often there's no election held if the parties can agree a single suitable figure. In fact, it has often been proposed that we would abolish the office of President, with the Taoiseach becoming Head of State as well as Head of Government.

[Alderman Barnes]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

I'm a republican too, but I can get very angry about it, especially after yesterday's palaver.

Cost is neither here nor there – it's the principle of monarchy that matters. As ad hoc say, the royal family's property already belongs to the state, so there's no reason not to take it off them. It's not as if it would mean throwing them out on the street – they're rich and well-connected enough to get by somehow.

The difference between living under a monarchy and living in a republic is one of empowerment. In a republic, the man in the street is trusted to elect the head of state and can tell his kids that if they are talented, dedicated and lucky enough, they can be the head of state. Under a monarchy, you have to win the lottery.

But again, it's not about practical day-to-day benefits, but about the principle. About the message it sends to you as a subject (and I use that word deliberately, whatever the nationality Act of 1981 says).

The whole spectacle yesterday, which made me thoroughly embarrassed to be British, showed that what monarchy boils down to is infantilism, if that's the word I'm looking for. All this fairytale bullshit, the pomp, the religion, the deference to supposed betters, the kitsch, the fancy soldiers' uniforms – it's all designed for children and soppy fools who don't know any better. And under a monarchy that's exactly what you are supposed to be.

(I think there are also very close links between sentimentality and brutality, but that's a different topic altogether.)

I also think that the existence of the monarchy has gone hand-in-hand with the growth of the poisonous tabloid culture in Britain, so that's reason enough to get rid of it.

It's also important what kind of presidency you institute. When Timothy Garton Ash asks us whether we want a President Blair, people automatically think of an American or French-style president, but it doesn't have to be like that. The German system, for example, is a fairly good one, where you have an (albeit indirectly) elected president with not much more than ceremonial powers, greeting foreign heads of state and holding Christmas speeches. Admittedly, you usually end up with a boring, middle-aged party hack, but some of them have turned out to be surprisingly good.

But then again, do you actually need a president in the first place?

As for the advantages of upper-class people over those who are simply rich, you could use Germany as an example again. It likes to kid itself that it’s a classless society, but it's absolutely not: the aristocracy are still hugely over-represented among politicians, captains of industry and landowners. Abolishing the monarchy would have no immediate effect on the class system, but it's a first, symbolic step.

Basically, the country needs to grow up.

[ad hoc]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

The figure of £40m by the way only includes the direct cost of the civil list. Not any of the security or policing that goes along with having a royal family. If we had a president there'd be a much smaller number of people (and buildings) to supply security for than this vast and extensive family.

I learned recently that people in Cornwall or certain parts of Lancashire who die without leaving a will or next of kin, automatically bequeath their wealth to the Duchy of Cornwall (that's Charles I think). The whole thing is ridiculous.

Anyway, what AB said.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

We pretty much just modelled our political structures on Westminster, so there's little difference in reality between the two countries - in practice, the party political hacks select the presidential candidates, with an ordinary citizen needing to get a nomination from four county councils, and often there's no election held if the parties can agree a single suitable figure. In fact, it has often been proposed that we would abolish the office of President, with the Taoiseach becoming Head of State as well as Head of Government.

I'm not sure that we modelled our system that closely on westminister. A british MP is david cameron's ambassador to the constituency, an Irish TD is the guy we send to the dail to get us stuff. (also it's worth considering that the party whip system is largely an invention of the Irish parliamentary party)

We also had the opportunity to revert to FPTP twice, but took both opportunities to say thanks but fuck off, and FPTP gives our politics a remarkably different hue. It is notable on the other hand that we chose our own system, whereas UK parliamentary democracy is the limit of concessions that the people that run britain are prepared to make to the proles. (which apparently includes millionaires)

However like britain the executive controls the legislature with an iron fist, so maybe there is scope using the role of the presidency to separate the two things.

The only real way to change the structure of land ownership in the UK is to start to heavily tax land that is leased to other people. You have to break the control of the people who own it because when land ownership is on the scale it is in the UK it has a massively distorting effect on wealth and power.

[G-Man]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Excellent post by the Alderman.

He makes a very good point about the difference between German aristocracy and Britain's monarchy. No German is accountable to an aristocrat. British people are expected to refer to grotesque individuals such as Prince Andrew or Prince Philip or the princess with the TV aerial hat yesterday as "Your Royal Highness".

German aristocrats might look down on those they consider socially inferior just as their British counterparts do, but to command respect (even of a token nature) from their supposed inferiors, they have to earn it.

[Alderman Barnes]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

I'm not sure about that, G-Man. Although the aristocracy have a lower profile in Germany than they do in the UK, they still maintain a network that benefits them enormously.

And the fawning coverage of royals around the world, as well as the rise and fall of Guttenberg (unquestioningly promoted by the right-wing press, even after being caught out for arrogantly ignoring the rules that apply to ordinary folk) prove that there's still a huge, rancid streak of deference here.

However - and this is the important thing - it's not constitutionalised.

[MsD]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Pretty much agree with all AB has written and applaud his energy in writing it; the monarchy underpins the whole class structure and working class deference keeps the monarchy in place.

However, I do think the cost is very important, and that the true cost/benefit has been hidden from us.

[G-Man]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Oh, the influence is undeniable. You rightly stated that in your first post. And Gemans like to fawn over royalty (a look at any magazine rack will confirm that). But I am not expected to bow before any Herrn Graf von und zu, or address him by a title he won't reciprocate. Social convention grants me that liberty.

[Wyatt Earp]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Alderman Barnes wrote:

The whole spectacle yesterday ... showed that what monarchy boils down to is infantilism...

Exactly.

[Stumpy Pepys]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

I'm very confused by this notion of 'constitutionalised deference.'

I mean there are no legal consequences to not bowing and scraping. You won't get thrown in a police cell. If the Palace requests the Queen wants to visit your workplace, you can always say no.

What does keep this in place is essentially peer pressure, based on some arcane protocols. You can – and I do – argue that this is silly and irrelevant, but you can't blame the constitution for it (or the lack of one).

[Tubby Isaacs]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

The royal family own loads of art. They do, to be fair, have some very good shows but most of the time the art hangs about in vaults. Couldn't a deal be done where they lend out a lot more of it to public collections in return for the civil list?

At the very fucking least.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Why does anyone think Blair would win the presidency? That argument is absolute bollocks.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

[ad hoc]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

Why does anyone think Blair would win the presidency? That argument is absolute bollocks.

It's principally bollocks though because if he was elected president it would have been a democratic choice. I'd be happy enough if the British people elected the Queen to be the head of state. At least it would have been a bloody election

[Tubby Isaacs]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Indeed.

They used to say "if there were an election for president, Prince Charles would win by a mile".

Yeah right.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Some good's come of the day. Of the 24.5m audience, I'm told 76% watched it on the BBC.

[Stumpy Pepys]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Alderman Barnes wrote:

As ad hoc say, the royal family's property already belongs to the state, so there's no reason not to take it off them.

I'm not buying that; it's far too simplistic.

From what I understand (which is admittedly not a lot), most of the royal stuff is owned by the monarch via the Crown Estate. However, it is not the private property of the monarch and all revenues go to the Treasury (that's possibly the £200m I quoted). The process of disentangling all that post-republic would, I imagine, be complicated and costly.

In addition to that, you've got land and property -- such as the Duchy of Cornwall -- that simply is the private property of the monarch. You could increase land taxes, but then again, the owner could respond by increase rents.

So you're maybe left with a seriously wealthy family and questionable financial benefit for the state. Even if you thing cost isn't a factor, a lot of republicans do.

[ad hoc]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

This seems like a good summary of what the Crown Estates are and how they came to be that way (and where the "ownership" lies) http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon11.html

(I ought to note that this is from a Repblican website, so there may be other interpretations out there)

[Bored Of Education]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

It's similar to the secular democracy thread. You can hope for something but that doesn't mean that you let the government off the hook. A secular democratic republic is probably something that most of us on here would want but it would still need kkeeping a very close eye on.

I saw someone lauding the US yesterday for being more grown-up than us about such things. When I mentioned that this was the state that tramples over human rights by executing its citizens, disproportionately the poor and non-white, and torturing prisoners who have not even been charged, he said that, at least, they 'chose' to do that.

I am not sure that, if you look at the voting figures that the poor, non-white and, certainly, the prisoners in Guantanemo did vote for that.

[Wyatt Earp]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

I don't really get that; after all, non-one's claiming that a republican constitution guarantees good or just government. Bored's post only makes sense if he thinks monarchies are less disposed than republics to "trample over human rights". Hmm. Shall we start with Saudi Arabia?

[G-Man]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Or Swaziland.

[Nefertiti2]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

The Royal Family's Private Art collection should be donated to the Country immediately.

We pay for its cataloguing, conservation, cleaning, and restoration.

The collection's total value has been estimated at over £10 billion.

[Amor de Cosmos]

Constitutional monarchies vs republics

Tubby Isaacs wrote:

The royal family own loads of art. They do, to be fair, have some very good shows but most of the time the art hangs about in vaults. Couldn't a deal be done where they lend out a lot more of it to public collections in return for the civil list?

It would still be in vaults though. Unless you intended to liberate Buck House and turn it into National Gallery II.