Johann Hari: This royal frenzy should embarrass us all

[oldironside]

"Okay, let's cut a deal here. If Britain can afford to spend tens of millions of pounds on the royal wedding, we have to spend an equal amount distributing anti-nausea pills across the land – to all of us who can't bear to see our country embarrass itself in this way. Don't let the Gawd-bless-you-ever-so-'umbly-yer-Majesty tone of the media coverage fool you. Most British people are benignly indifferent to the wedding of William Windsor and Kate Middleton. The 20 percent of us who are republicans, like me, have it slightly worse. We will suffer that face-flushing, stomach-shriveling embarrassment that strikes when somebody you love – your country – starts to behave in a deeply weird way in a public place."


http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-royal-frenzy-should-embarrass-us-all-2267904.html#disqus_thread

Worth reading if only for the shameless grovelling from some on the comments.

[T_i_B]

1. It's not that embarassing......

.....if you can accept that lots of people have a different view of the Monarchy to you. If you can accept that then you can make it through the day without too much fuss.

The media coverage may be irritating, but I'm sure I can live without watching the tabloids pretend to respect the Royal Family or buying some of that awful Wills & Kate "memorabilia" about at the moment.

[Malden Capell]

2. Tens of millions?

I've heard this cost figure constantly repeated but I've seen no evidence for it. From what I've heard the Prince of Wales' estate (which receives no taxpayers' money) is funding all of it except for security costs.

Seeing as security is a public affair, and there would be an enormous number of people going to this event whether it were a bank holiday or not, I think the Treasury paying for the security is perfectly acceptable. After all, they do it for football matches, and I've never liked football - doesn't mean my taxes shouldn't go to policing football matches.

If you are sick of the coverage, turn it off/change the channel.

It's also ironic that Johann Hari assumes the alternative is to directly elect our Head of State, when in fact the majority of parliamentary republics don't do that. So removing the monarchy would not change things one jot.

[oldironside]

3. I refer you to the link here.

http://www.centreforcitizenship.org/monarchy/mon5.html

[Malden Capell]

4. Very bad source

Not only is it riddled with propagandistic words like 'the feudal family' and deliberately goes out of its way to refuse to address them by their titles ('hereditary head of state Windsor'? Really?), but its figures are all wrong.

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are most certainly not 'property holdings and investments that members of the Windsor family are allowed to benefit from.' They are personal possessions of the Queen and the Prince of Wales. If we became a republic tomorrow, these would remain their possessions, unless the State decides to start seizing property.

The cost of security is unknown for the same reasons that the cost of security for the President of the United States is unknown. Moreover the cost would remain under a republic.

As for the money the rest of the family gets, the article only provides half of the story. Charles may have gotten £3m from the taxpayer as grants-in-aid, but the Queen is bound to repay that sum from her own money, as it is for carrying out duties on her behalf. The £0.4m given to the Duke of Edinburgh as Parliamentary Annuities is likewise for carrying out official duties. None of this money is handed out without question or reason. It is explicitly to perform certain duties. Personal jollies are emphatically forbidden.

The Civil List, which is received only by the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, is used only for the upkeep of the office of the Head of State. It goes towards those things it lists, but only insofar as these costs are required to carry out Head of State functions. So it goes towards upkeeping places such as Buckingham Palace (which is falling apart through lack of funds by the way), precisely because it receives important visitors which the Queen meets and greets on behalf of the country. Personal parties are not paid for by the Civil List.

The £4.9m for government grants covers other tiny bits and pieces which, again, are only for things considered explicitly for the benefit of the office of Head of State. The government will not give money to them without a justification.

Moreover, and I must emphasise, none of these costs would disappear under a republic. As the palaces belong to the Crown, they would not be opened up to the public but would in fact be occupied by Britain's President. The security cost would remain the same. The cost of Head of State duties would remain the same, and what's more, you'd have to start paying the President a salary, which currently the Queen does not receive.

Seriously, stay away from the Centre for Citizenship. It's the left-wing equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No, they are not personal property, and they would lose them if we became a republic

From the royal website:

Privy Purse and Duchy of Lancaster

This is a historical term used to describe income from the Duchy of Lancaster, which is used to meet both official and private expenditure by The Queen.

The Duchy of Lancaster is a portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the Sovereign in his/her role as Sovereign. It is administered separately from the Crown Estates.

Its main purpose is to provide an independent source of income, and is used mainly to pay for official expenditure not met by the Civil List (primarily to meet expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family).

http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Sourcesoffunding/PrivyPurseandDuchyofLancaster.aspx

Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).
...
He is in effect a trustee, and is not entitled to the proceeds of disposals of assets. The Prince must pass on the estate intact, so that it continues to provide an income from its assets for future Dukes of Cornwall.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofThePrinceofWales.aspx

As for whether the palaces would be occupied by a president - not all of them, I'd say. Windsor Castle almost certainly wouldn't; or Kensington Palace, or St. James's Palace, or Clarence House. Holyroodhouse would be a subject of discussion between the Scots and the British government.

[oldironside]

6. Where to start?

1. What else are they other than a feudal family? That´s how they got and keep their wealth and privilege.

2. Hereditary titles are irrelvant in the 21st century. I happen to beleive we are all equal.

3. You say the site´s figures are all wrong and then fail to give any sources for your claims.

4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are no more their personal possessions than the Belgian Congo belonged to Leopold II.

5. Seriously, stay away from the monarchist websites. They´re the feudal equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.

[jdm9955]

7. +100

[fedsron2us]

8. The British are sticklers for tradition

We have even started the customary riots to accompany the event just like in 1981

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTqg60akM-A&feature=player_embedded

Mark you as the man said

This is what happens when you have a poor range of sandwiches included in your meal deal options