Slashdot Mirror

Not really, the last time I checked there weren't any Republicans in the UK.

Check again.

Uh, I don't think the United Kingdom has any Republicans, or at least none with any particular political power...

British republicans are av fringe group, as you would expect the term "republican" has an entirely different meaning in a monarchy, constitutional or otherwise.

The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would bring in much more money if the Queen would fuck off. They could be permanently opened as museums.

http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

Well the Tower of London houses the crown jewels, which is linked to the monarchy; and Buckingham Palace would just be another stately home without the queen living there. The fact it is her home drives the demand.

IIRC the British monarchy brings in more revenue than it costs. Those most critical of the monarchy put the annual cost of maintaining it at 400 million GBP (more conservative figures peg that as much lower), but the royal family generates 500 million GBP / year in tourism revenue. I'm sure one can poke holes in this argument, but based on these two figures alone, it sounds like the monarchy is worth it.

Citation

The Royal Family certainly doesn't generate £500M/year. The top place given following the reference on your link is the Tower of London, which no longer has anything to do with the Royal Family, except they "own" it.

Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle would bring in much more money if the Queen would fuck off. They could be permanently opened as museums.

http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

- Advocating the abolition of the monarchy.

I think not.

Republic: http://republic.org.uk/ campaign for that.

I might be a member, I can't remember. I went to their protest during the wedding last year, anyway, and they seem to be getting more press and attention because of the jubilee (and the ever-encroaching threat of King Charles III).

Your statement about tourism has been answered, but also remember the *huge* income from the "Crown Estate" -- land that "belongs" to the royal family, and from which they are allowed to keep all the income. The Duchy of Cornwall is one big example, but there's also lots of land in big cities that would, in a republic, create revenue for the Treasury.

It is, indeed, up for debate: the pressure group Republic refutes the claim. http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/Win%20the%20argument/index.php

A comedian (probably either Mark Steel or Jeremy Hardy I reckon) counters the 'good for tourism' argument by picturing a foreign tourist in Paris, admiring the view from the Eiffel Tower -- "It's a nice view, but I can only feel it would be improved by there being an unelected head of state".

There is a group, Republic, trying to make the UK a republic. I considered joining around the time of Prince Whatsit's wedding.

Economically, it would be nice if we didn't have to pay for the royal family. Politically, it would be nice if we could elect a head of state. Culturally, it would be nice to look round our castles and palaces, and have the art and so on in a national museum.

But, there are much, much bigger economic, political and cultural problems. I gave some extra money to Liberty instead.

Centuries ago, the Royal family signed over vast swathes of land to the British government in return for a perpetual stipend, which is dwarfed by the price of the land in question. They also bring in a crap-tonne of tourists. They generate a definite, sizeable net profit for the country.

Crown land dealt with here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20property/index.php
Tourism: refuted here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Tourism/index.php
Value for money: refuted here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

Centuries ago, the Royal family signed over vast swathes of land to the British government in return for a perpetual stipend, which is dwarfed by the price of the land in question. They also bring in a crap-tonne of tourists. They generate a definite, sizeable net profit for the country.

Crown land dealt with here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20property/index.php
Tourism: refuted here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Tourism/index.php
Value for money: refuted here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

Centuries ago, the Royal family signed over vast swathes of land to the British government in return for a perpetual stipend, which is dwarfed by the price of the land in question. They also bring in a crap-tonne of tourists. They generate a definite, sizeable net profit for the country.

Crown land dealt with here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20property/index.php
Tourism: refuted here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Tourism/index.php
Value for money: refuted here - http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

If you have to speak to Paul McCartney (of Beatles' fame), you have to formally address him as "Sir Paul". No, "Sir McCartney" is impolite, you shouldn't use it.

No, I'd call him "Macca".

If you have to speak to Vladimir Putin, you won't address him as "Mr. Putin". It's "Vladimir Vladimirovich", please!

"Fuckhead" would suffice. Not that the meeting or subsequent polonium laced beverage is likely to happen.

The monarchy serves as a rather effective tourist attraction largely because of strange romantic notions that I for one don't really understand.
Over at http://www.republic.org.uk/faqs.htm the point is made that the Palace of Versailles has most visitors than Buckingham Palace and Windsor combined. In my own opinion, I doubt many tourists visit England to see the Queen. And remember, even without a monarch you can still have palaces and even a royal family! Just because you have titles "Queen of England", "Prince of Wales", etc. does not mean the holders of these titles have to be head of state.
I know a lot of republicans (in Ireland anyway) abhorr the use of titles, but not all republicans do.

It's not too easy to determine the amount of public money actually spent on the monarchy.
This is true. But the Guardian claimed that it cost about £36.8m in 2003 to keep the Queen. http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,12 47033,00.html

Check out http://www.republic.org.uk/ : The campaign for an elected head of state in (what is for now) the UK.

I imagine that few readers appreciate their position in society - as subjects of the crown, not citizens of this country. (Yes, it is true that the inclusion of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law recently changed this, but Dave Blunkett's Anti-Terrorist legislation has overturned these changes and we are, once again, subjects of her Maj).

Britain does not possess a written constitution. Britons are not citizens, endowed with inalienable rights defined in law, but subjects who are granted certain privileges by the Crown as the head of state. As such, basic freedoms exist only negatively: one may do that which is not expressly legally prohibited. Once a state of emergency is declared, the government can bypass many legal restraints.