Scrap the Sovereign Grant?
Watch this postThe monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend. What do you think?
Log in to comment
You need to be logged in to interact with Silversurfers. Please use the button below if you already have an account.
LoginNot a member?
You need to be a member to interact with Silversurfers. Joining is free and simple to do. Click the button below to join today!
JoinCommunity Terms & Conditions
Content standards
These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.
You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.
Contributions must:
be accurate (where they state facts); be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.
Contributions must not:
contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or promote sexually explicit material; or promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or be likely to deceive any person; or be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or promote any illegal activity; or be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.
Nurturing a safe environment
Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.
We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!
Would you vote for a fairer set annual budget for them? A petition
And we don't have a written down constitution people could read including school children what our constitution stands for. Agree House of Lords not fit for purpose.
At present the US is a good example of why a democratically elected Head of State may not be in the best interest of the country!
Monarchists always say to defend their position Oh we don't want a president Trump or Blair etc. Our president would be someone like in Ireland a well respected man.
we would have a democratically Elected Head of State Who could be a doctor etc, someone worthy there are plenty of good people to choose from. Instead we only have a choice from the Windsors not a lot of choice there .
*represent the nation
*defend our democracy
*act as referee in the political process
*offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration
The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited
powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).
What sort of powers would the head of state have?
In a republic all our politicians would have to obey a set of rules that are decided by the people (written down in a constitution and voted on by the public). The head of state would be able to stop the politicians from doing something if they are breaking the rules - but not just because they disagree with the politicians.
When Britain becomes a republic we will at last make sure that our nation's democratic values go right to the top. We will change the political culture and our relationship with those in power. Ordinary citizens will be able to take part in the process of choosing our head of state and even put themselves forward for the job.
Becoming a republic will put a stop to the royals' routine abuses of public money and their daily interference in our country's politics. In a republic the Windsor family will be equal citizens too, with the same rights to take part in the political process as the rest of us, but no special access or privileged status.
A move to a republic will give us the chance to re-balance power between government, parliament and the people. By getting rid of the Crown we can put limits on what our government can do without the support of parliament - and put limits on what parliament can do without the clear support of the people.
A republic will give us an effective head of state, someone chosen by us to referee the political process and champion the interests of the British people.
A democratic Britain will also give a huge boost to 'brand Britain'. Our nation's image abroad will be of the modern, confident and forward looking country we really are. As VisitBritain says in their guide to promoting Britain, we can avoid the cliché-ridden imagery of the past and promote our heritage as a living part of a dynamic, positive and modern nation.
The hunting-shooting-fishing-palace-living-multi-millionaire royals use homeless charities, wildlife charities and Concern-Face Enviromental events to try to make them look sympathetic.
When the 'work' is done, they TallyHo off with their Rich Pals & not care.
Today The Duke of Cambridge has become Patron of two wildlife conservation charities, @FaunaFloraInt and @_BTO
Hey members @_BTO do you REALLY want a toff who blasts wee birds for fun as patron?
Stephen Beer
I have been teaching Biology for over 30 years and I am completely and utterly disappointed that the UK powers that be, including the Royals have a mind-set towards biodiversity that is Victorian. If this grouse shooting land were re-wilded, Scotland could have National Parks as famous as Yellowstone Park with iconic birds of prey such as Golden Eagles, Fish Eagles, Hen Harriers and perhaps even wolves...... but probably not in my lifetime.
Yeah, both these charities have had #Royal patrons for years.
BTO has had just two Royal engagements in the last *ten years*; FFI not even that - it's had just one.
Methinks most Royal #charity patronages are not really a thing:
https://royal.uk/new-wildlife-conservation-patr
Every day the BBC & papers are packed with sycophantic drivel about these tedious dullards.
Every lame remark is celebrated, every hypocrisy is ignored.
Poor children can't have 20 million Prince Charles gets 22 million.
The hunting-shooting-fishing-palace-living-multi-millionaire royals use homeless charities, wildlife charities and Concern-Face Enviromental events to try to make them look sympathetic.
When the 'work' is done, they TallyHo off with their Rich Pals & not care.
Today The Duke of Cambridge has become Patron of two wildlife conservation charities, @FaunaFloraInt and @_BTO
Hey members @_BTO do you REALLY want a toff who blasts wee birds for fun as patron?
Stephen Beer
I have been teaching Biology for over 30 years and I am completely and utterly disappointed that the UK powers that be, including the Royals have a mind-set towards biodiversity that is Victorian. If this grouse shooting land were re-wilded, Scotland could have National Parks as famous as Yellowstone Park with iconic birds of prey such as Golden Eagles, Fish Eagles, Hen Harriers and perhaps even wolves...... but probably not in my lifetime.
Yeah, both these charities have had #Royal patrons for years.
BTO has had just two Royal engagements in the last *ten years*; FFI not even that - it's had just one.
Methinks most Royal #charity patronages are not really a thing:
https://royal.uk/new-wildlife-conservation-patr
Every day the BBC & papers are packed with sycophantic drivel about these tedious dullards.
Every lame remark is celebrated, every hypocrisy is ignored.
I found this comment and have to agree
In the entire history of life on earth, royal families must be the most successful parasites to have ever evolved.
As to the younger generation, I accept that a survey held in 2018 identified that 25% of 18-24 year olds opposed them along with 23% of 25-34 year olds. However, of those supporting the monarchy, 77% were in the over 55 year olds. Maybe the older generation have lived long enough to recognise the Royal Families worth!
Am I the only one thinking this is premature and actually insensitive?
It is quite possible it will not happen and how many 100’s of 1000’s of pounds will be spent in the meantime.
Makes up for all the deaths, suffering, ruined lives and businesses celebrating wealth, entitlement, privilege, and longevity, people dying without the comfort of their families, thousands in care homes lost and disoriented denied the comfort of a loving child.? Yeah right . Well some of us aren’t so easily fooled or distracted
It will be forced on us and using our money . And why bring it up now - we’ve still got the highest death toll in Europe., a Brexit disaster facing us And utter corruption at the hear of Government. But hey let’s have a party - but a pity the hundreds dying this week won’t be able to enjoy it.
Corrupt not giving a full financial annual account of their expenses leave out 100 million security on their 19 homes, Their days out with local councils picking up the bill for their visits.
A president would be much cheaper he would have an office and a official residence.
And did you know the Queen was a involved in the sacking the Australian prime minister Geoff Whitman in the 70s A historian had to spend money go to the highest court to win her case as the Queen wanted them kept secret The Palace papers
However, please do not blame the Royal Family for the present situation with regard to the pandemic, that problem lies mainly with the Government. and not the amount of money paid for the work the Royals do. Yes, we are facing a disastrous future with Brexit on top of a pandemic but that doesn't mean all future celebrations must be avoided. Whether we have a party in 2 years time will not stop the hundreds dying each week until everyone recognises we all have a responsibility in stemming the flow of this virus, money alone will not solve the problem.
Also never assume that we do not understand the heartbreak of not being able to be with loved ones at their time of need, or when a lock down prevents you from collecting a loved ones ashes. This situation has nothing to do with the present debate on whether we should abolish the monarchy in favour of a Republican system.
You have strong beliefs regarding the purpose of the monarchy but please also understand that many of us do recognise the cost to the country but believe that cost is worth the benefit we, as a country, get from them. The fact you disagree doesn't necessarily mean you must be right on all counts.
That £345m would cover the starting salaries of roughly 14,000 nurses or 14,400 police officers or 13,400 teachers or 15,000 trainee firefighters for a year. Or entirely fund Children in Need, The Salvation Army and The Trussell Trust each and every year and still leave change.
I know where I would prefer my taxes to go and it isn't on a privileged, undemocratic, relic of the past.
Jeanmark
I agree that most people respect the Queen in all her long reign she hasn't put a foot wrong, unlike most of the rest of her family, I understand that in her role as Head of State. However with all the luxury, servants, dressers private secretaries nannies top chefs best food castles palaces various homes hundreds of acres, Balmoral with their own supply of salmon (including sadly the awful grouse shooting) Yacht they had for a good while was more like an ocean liner refurbished at considerable cost, Royal train cars helicopters you couldn't really go wrong. The queen doesn't speak for herself everything is scripted. She hasn't had the struggles many other people regularly face. She is the first monarch where her whole family benefits from her role as Head of State by millions. I am not being churlish. I think it's all very unfair. The Queen has an off shore account in tax haven The Paradise Papers where she has millions free from tax.
All their homes are publicly funded or heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
The monarchy does not work it's not fit for purpose The Royals do not work hard they hardly work at all.
The RF do not bring in tourists look at Visit Britain
The French Palace of Versailles brings in more tourists and they do not have a monarchy.
Palaces and castles attract interest because of their history, not because of today’s royals. Get rid of the monarchy and Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle can be fully opened up to tourists all year, funding their own upkeep through ticket sales and offering a unique glimpse into Britain’s past.
Buckingham Palace is thought to contain one of the largest and most valuable art collections in the world, including the largest collection of Van Gogh paintings - yet it’s all hidden away. The palace has the potential in a republic to become a world class museum and gallery open all year round.
Here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/552304 It's up to anyone to sign you have a choice
And here is Republic https://www.republic.org.uk gives you another side of the argument.
I will finish with this
Tony Benn
Five Essential questions of democracy
"What power have you got?"
"Where did you get it from?"
"In whose interests do you use it?"
"To whom are you accountable?"
"How do we get rid of you?"
I don't think people realise
how the Establishment
became established.
They simply stole land and property
from the poor, surrounded
themselves with weak minded sycophants
for protection, gave themselves titles
and have been wielding power ever since!
I remain a supporter of the Monarchy.
A very long time.
It will be left to the young to demand a reckoning and create a democracy..
It won't be in my lifetime,
Will my grandchildren see the purpose in Kings, Queens, Thrones, Palaces, Princes, Princesses, Earl's, Dukes Duchesses, on and on. I doubt it.
Welcome and many thanks for your first comment in our Forum.
If you already know your way around, then we will leave you to it.
If you are looking for some lively discussions, head on over to the Forum homepage to see what's trending right now and feel free to join in the discussions, with all our friendly members, perhaps ask a question or even start your own post.
Republic supports a non-partisan head of state who is not involved in making political decisions or running the government. So we don't support a system like they have in France or the United States. We believe the best alternative to the monarchy is a head of state who is able to do the job that the Queen cannot do. It is a serious job of representing the nation, acting as referee in the political process, championing the interests of the people and defending our democratic traditions.
He or she would just have an office and an official residence not like the queen and family who have 19 residences all with round the clock security costs of £105 million a year. Don't believe the Royals We can get a lot better for less. P Charles and the Duchy he uses that as he's own private fiefdom paying no corporation tax And tennents are not allowed to buy the land their house sits on Other landlords comply with the law.
The RF say the do not interfere in politics but it has been found that the queen has had a say to change over 1000 laws and thoses that affect her private interests
When I see how much our MPs cost with their ages and expenses and also how much the House of Lords costs . I know which I would prefer .
The problem with having an elected 'President' is that you could get someone like Trump . No thank you .
Which Republics could be held up as good examples ?
the following simple reforms, to improve accountability, transparency and fairness in royal finances and to appropriately assign public funds to the Treasury.
Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy - including an annual salary for the Queen - to be managed and reported on by a government department, not Buckingham Palace.
All security costs to be made transparent and accountable.
All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities.
The institution of the monarchy, and all members of the royal household, to be required to abide by the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals.