And? …
More or less what the Netherlands and the Scandinavian constitutional monarchies have done. There are reports that Charles intends to do that upon his accession, cutting off his siblings and their children to create a leaner, more compact version of the royal family - which would have the additional benefit of ending that awkward line of questioning about Andrew.
2 Likes
But thats not how they live.
The trappings are used for State duties.
But you probably already know this.
You introduced the cost element, not me. I was simply referencing the fact that a US-style system wouldn’t necessarily be any cheaper but more likely more costly for the country.
A Head of State that’s apolitical (and almost exclusively ceremonial) is also an advantage, imo. Leaves a greater amount of power with the elected representatives across the country.
Be just my luck that you fuckers will get your way and my next life… my very next life…will be the one where I’m finally born a fucking prince
Four lives ago I was born the best footballer on the planet ever, just for the game to not even be fucking invented when I touched down,…
2 Likes
Not sure where i suggested a US (or any) presidential style system. But if it fits the whataboutery, ok.
The Irish presidential system costs less that £5m/Annum
That’s far less than Brexit will cost you.
2 Likes
You didn’t suggest it. I referenced it as it’s an oft-cited alternative. Nothing to do with whataboutery.
How many people flock to Ireland because it has a President? What’s income does the Presidential office generate?
Corbyn anyone 
1 Like
After Brexit, I’m far less inclined to listen to any argument about cost when it comes to doing the right thing for the country.
I’ve just had four years of being told that the economic damage is worth it for the righteousness of the whole business. I’m not going to change my views on the monarchy because there might be a marginal financial upside to keeping them*.
*I doubt there is, by the way.
1 Like
It’s been a little more than a month. I dunno, maybe give it a bit more time? It was always going to be damaging initially - combined with a global pandemic the effect is obviously even more pronounced.
It’s not about tourist income. It’s about grotesque entitlement and blind loyalty, but you’ll already know that.
3 Likes
You brought up the cost element, not me. But you’ll already know that.
I don’t think there will ever be a moment when Brexit becomes worth it financially, but that’s not the point.
The point that all you ever hear from people defending the monarchy is that they bring in more through tourism than they cost (which is transparently bollocks, but never mind), and yet the clear message of Brexit has been its doesn’t matter if a course of action is economically damaging - it’s OK for the country to take a financial hit if it’s the ‘right thing to do’.
So I’m just not interested in hearing about how much money they bring in. I don’t think it’s relevant.
1 Like
I think that process may have already started. I seem to remember the last round of money the government gave to the Queen was not spent so widely.
2 Likes
This should always be caveated by the fact that even if not taking money from the public purse, it’s practically impossible to separate out money that they have only earned as a private citizen by virtue of their membership of the Royal Family. The start it has given them in life, the funds that they initially would have received, the gifts from parents that would have originated from public money, the freedom from not having to pay rent or buy their first car, the name recognition, the connections they have etc etc
2 Likes
2 Likes
Was such an odd thing to come to grips with, leasehold…never knew it existed until I landed here.
3 Likes
Really? You should try living on the continent!
1 Like
Yeah.
Nothing like that in Oz. Or maybe there is, but certainly nowhere near the scale if so.
1 Like