CLARIFICATION: In the video, we make a number of claims surrounding the Crown Estate and just how the monarch receives from the Crown Estate or the Government. We wish to clarify the following: The Crown Estate is not the property of the Royal Family nor the Monarch in their personal capacity. As the Crown Estate website (www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/our-business/our-structure-and-governance/) stresses "The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign's private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown". In more simple terms, the Crown Estate is owned by the monarch "by virtue of their accession to the throne" "for the duration of their reign". Think of it like the keys to an office - when you start a new job (in non-COVID times), you'll probably get your own set of keys. You "own" these keys by virtue of your employment for the duration of that employment. If you quit, or are fired, the keys are no longer yours. The calculation of the Sovereign Grant is a bit more complicated than what we explained in the video. The Royal Family doesn't immediately skim off 25% of that year's revenues or net profits. Rather the entirety of it is sent to the Treasury. The Treasury then, in accordance with the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, calculates and sends to the Crown the Sovereign Grant. Under Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/section/6), the Sovereign Grant is calculated as follows: First, calculate 25% of the Crown Estate income for two years prior (i.e. when calculating the Sovereign Grant for 2021-22 use figures from the Crown Estate corresponding to 2019-20). Round that figure up to the nearest 100 grand. Then compare the rounded figure with the Sovereign Grant given last year. (After some adjustments), award the higher amount. In effect, the Sovereign Grant has a ratchet clause embedded in it - the Grant can only ever go up. Subsequently, say hypothetically due to a pandemic, the Crown Estate makes a loss that year. The Sovereign Grant will not suddenly become negative - the Treasury would have to stump up cash from elsewhere.
If that's the case, then wouldn't the crown estate become a sovereign estate of the republic in the event the monarchy were abolished? I don't know what UK republicans are arguing for exactly, but in a number of European states which made the switch, the estate previously considered a prerogative of the monarchy was confiscated and taken over by the state in order to serve public functions such as hosting ministeries or museums (France and Italy are good examples of this).
Glad you finally clarified this. I would just add one further point when people talk about abolishing the monarchy. Personally, I believe the Royals serve no useful function, and it is wrong for the Head of State to be a hereditary position. However, due to the nature of their status, it would be near impossible to get rid of them - at least via democratic means. When the late Paul Flynn MP tried to raise questions in Parliament about Prince Andrew's dodgy behaviour, he was cut off by the Speaker, less than a minute into his speech and told that "references to the Royals must be rare, brief, and respectful". And that's before MPs are reminded of their Oath of Allegiance. This is also why historically, the only way monarchs have been deposed is via major events - such as wars or revolutions.
That analogy is really wrong. Its nothing like they keys to an office, a closer more accurate analogy that less miss leading would be to equate it to a land trust. Your analogy alludes to the goverment ha ing some right to that land if the monarch was abolished which its dosnt I herently have, obviously this is something that would knly be resolved in a lengthy court dispute but as the land is tied to the crown and the crown is inherited, from a basic starting point the Royal family has the larger claim to its rights.
Russia tried too, and we had USSR, China tried, they had a fashist republik, broke up, had a large Civil war, and now thwy are communists, shamelessly grabbing the stuff they want
They didn't claim that France hadn't had a monarchy for 200 year (at least if you refering to the comment at 6:36) - they claimed that Versailles hadn't been home to royalty for 200 years which is true - the last king living in Versailles was Louis XVI (till October 1789) and all plans of later Kings / Emperors to return didn't come reality.
I mean, as a French i don't see why both titles and estade can't be claimed by the people. But you know, French way of dealing with monarchy could be a bit extreme
As a brit I 100% agree, crown estate is not the crowns private property, acting like it is is misleading. Just seize it and then have a net profit that can go to helping way more people than the few in the monarchy, put it back in the NHS.
Hey, the Brits were chopping up their monarchs a century before you got around to it. The fact that they changed their minds doesn't change the fact that they came up with the idea first.
The heads of state in France (Presidents, Prime Ministers) have hardly proved to be paragons of virtue, if recent news is to be believed ! Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they'll automatically be somehow better than an imposed monarchy.
@@nadeemchaudhry6585 even if you do, I am curious about technicalities. eg, Alll MPs swore oath of allegiance to the Queen, even with Republican tendency like Jeremy Corbyn. Don't they broke their oath by legislating monarchy abolition?
That's kinda how I feel about the whole thing I live in amarica and my country has been on fire for 4 years so every once and awhile I look over at the other dumpster fire and watch
How did they acquire all that land and estate at the first place, by working hard as honest low-abiding citizens?! Why should we think all their perceived possessions are legitimate?
"And no the queen's not starting a soda business". Yes because Royal Crown Cola company already took the name. And then to sell it in the Southern US they would also be tempted to come up with their own version of the Moon Pie.
The house of Lords are there to be a check on the commons but not a hard block as they once were. They can send the law back after changes to be agreed on for example. Forcing a law through the Lords is more importantly a massive show of weakness and makes sure the prime minister isn't trying to pass a law that could be poorly made for example. It's a system that is in need of repair but still has it's use
@@arnold118-b1w I don t understand why would you need to restrain a democraticaly elected government? Maybe the members of the house of lords should be elected in a diffrent manner? Like one representative from each constituency?
@@arnold118-b1w When making power changes always look at the proposers. They will be the ones to gain and possibly extend that power not you. Representative democracy does not exist in the UK. Our MP's are wealthy, turkeys do not vote for an early Christmas.
Their worth, as you have described, is completely at odds with Georgist economics where the only tax one pays is based on land value. Another interesting point is how London is a refuge for deposed royal families from across the globe. I became aware of this when working in Kensington several years ago. I was introduced to prince (so and so) and princess (so and so) all people with titles inherited from diposed royal families, who were hawking their titles to get work in media and finance. Quite frankly as a working class lad who had worked his way up on half-eaten boot-strapps I was quite appalled at how they expected the world to owe them a living just because they had an obscure title.
The UK government wouldn't give up the Monarchy. This will sound incredibly cynical but why would the PM and the governing body give up a figurehead for an electable head of state that could actively go against the prime minister? We most likely wouldn't become a full on republic like the USA, and I just don't see us abolishing the monarchy. Unless the UK Government just gets rid of the monarchy and make the PM the Head of State, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief and Head of Government (etc) which I just completely doubt would happen The Meghan/Harry stuff is just tabloid drama in the grand scheme of things, I really doubt the Government would change anything
Just a side-note: If the UK became a republic, it needn't become one with a presidential system like the USA. Given how the legislative body (parliament) and the government is elected/composed currently, a parliamentary system like Germany or a mixed presidential-parliamentary system like France would be a better fit. In general this would mean you would get a president who may be head of state, but needn't be head of government and certainly wouldn't have as much power concentrated in one person like the USA does.
As the others said, the UK could go down the road of a parliamentary republic where the PM is actually also head of state, but after that, it won't be able to call itself the United Kingdom, innit?! :)))
@@mastergs32 Yeah that could happen, but I feel like the PM likes the ace up their sleeve in having a monarch who is able to advise/diplomise on behalf of the UK I'd like to think we'd be named the "United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" which sound immense
You need to do a video explaining to the Americans why Archie dosent have a title. Pretty obvious to us Brits but they seem to think it's because of racism.
Not to be rude but the people that video would be meant for wouldn't care... They'd just call TLDR racist. The "woke" liberals in my country have ripped the guts out of the word "racism", and use it for anything a white person disagrees with a black person about... For example, I don't like Megan Markel for any other reason then I think she's a dishonest, self important, entitled, brat... Nothing to do with the color of her skin, but I'm sure someone "woke" will see this and call me a racist.
Firstly, this matter shouldn't concern Americans. Secondly, it's because Archie is not in direct line to the throne at the time of birth and has to wait until he is a grandchild of the monarch, right? And some of the other children and grandchildren of women with royal titles inherited their titles from their aristocratic husband or father, right? Plenty of the Queen's other great grandchildren don't have titles, such as Harry's cousin's children. This doesn't mean they will never be in line to succession. Archie was offered an honorary title, but his parents turned it down. It's ridiculous that a once direct royal does not understand this, and instead implying that our Queen is racist, even though he says he "doesn't care". I'm just a commoner and I managed to figure it out in two minutes. Remember when Harry dressed as a Na zi and called his Asian colleague a "pa ki"? Pot calling the kettle black.
what are garden party's? i always thought it was entertain foreign diplomat's, so we can do trade talks so we have better trade deals.. as kinda like talking clients out for a meal to put them in a good mood for a deal to be made.. am i wrong? o.O
Yes aka they can spend it on what they want maybe they will have enother wedding or kid for the tax payees to fund, they are the biggest scammers in the uk them royals, tbf it is mostly the government because the royals get royalitys from the government in the form of a sovereign grant, the government still has the tax payers money to do what the hell they want with it.
@Junaid they are not always just for potential business deals it can be for birthdays too it can be for whatever they want. Its not limited to business.
"The opposite of a monarchy isn't anarchy, it's a republic" -- I wish someone would explain this to the Americans. I've lost count of the number of times I've read/heard "the USA is a republic not a democracy", like the concepts are mutually exclusive. 🤦♂️
I’m confused by your point here... the US is a republic. It has many democratic institutions but constitutionally the functioning of the republic technically supersedes democracy. That why Trump was president despite having fewer votes than Hillary. Why each state gets 2 seats in the senate regardless of population...
They may be right, but probably not in the way they intended. 😅 _"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.”_ - Julius Nyerere
@@kadencollinsThank you for making his point relevant. A REPUBLIC is a DEMOCRACY. Representative Democracy = Republic = Democracy kinda crazy. Direct democracy is a direct form of democracy rather than voting for representation, which again all of these are democracy.
@@kadencollins They're still not mutually exclusive concepts, the US is a democratic republic. It's a republic by extension of not being a monarchy, not by extension of not being a democracy. Double negative, sorry.
It's a constitutional republic as well as a representative democracy. The 'it is a constitutional republic' is just a cop-out excuse for when people suggest abolishing the electoral college. As I am here I may as well drop my two pennies on the electoral college, it's a redundant system, you have congress which is representative of local districts, you have the senate which is representative of the state as a whole. You have one person one vote for congressional and senate elections, the President should be the same. So to me, it makes sense for the presidential election to be decided by popular vote as the President should represent the entirety of the voting public.
I was born in Ireland and was in the British army. It was easier to swear allegence to a crown thet broadly represents the country as a whole, than a president that will change and is probably part of a political party
So you prefer an oath to a person no one elected and there family (including prince Andrews) over an oath to the founding document of the country which is a symbol of the country, and its elected leader? Interesting
@@geoffmcclelland2663 You have misread my comment I said an insitution that broadly represents the country. If they changed the oath to somthing simelar then that would be OK
Tbf the house of lords have stopped some really destructive policies being implemented in the uk recently so I'm kinda glad they are there at the moment.
Sorry for hair splitting but there are three potential inheritors to the French Crown, should the monarchy ever be reestablished (lol). Louis XX chief among them. Granted they don't own the formerly regal estates though.
I think that also has something to do with the French revolution. France has it's own intriguing narrative. Marie Antoinette and the French revolution. We just voted out the monarch is a much less interesting story to tell. Germany has it's own version of Versailles at Potsdam. It's nowhere as well known as Versailles, because the narrative is just not there.
@@olsenfernandes3634 In the netherlands we have this saying called, if you don't shoot, you will always miss. As a Dutchy I never turn down a good smoke, so if by any chancce this guy is real I might get something out of it.
If the institution of the monarchy were to be abolished, the family couldn't just keep their royal stuff. The Crown Estate etc. would, and should, fall into the hands of the government. So instead of getting 75% of the Crown Estate's profits, the UK government would now get 100%. The existence of the Crown Estate and the royal family's possession of it are arguments in FAVOR of abolition, not against it. The UK actively loses money by allowing them to take 25%. Cut out the middleman, oust the monarchy!
Not all of us. According to figures from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA), and the Royal households own figures for their residences, Buckingham Palace is at best the 69th most popular attraction in the UK. Windsor Castle does better but it's still only at number 18 behind Chester Zoo, Somerset House, Edinburgh Castle, and the Botanic Gardens in Kew. Kensington Palace which attracts visitors most of the year comes in at 68 on the ALVA list. The Tower of London on the other hand is the ninth most popular destination in the UK and the Royals haven't lived there or had much connection with it for centuries. And this is the point, palaces and castles attract interest because of their history, not because of today's Royals. Get rid of the monarchy and places like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle can be fully opened up to tourists all year (bearing in mind these places aren't open all year round as they are after all real Royal residences, which potentially means lost revenue to the UK), funding their own upkeep through ticket sales and offering a unique glimpse into Britain's past. Buckingham Palace for example 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. Imagine, the garden walls and gates taken down, the road between the Palace and Green Park pedestrianised, along with the Mall and people being able to wander through the grounds and the courtyard. Now that would attract more visitors, potentially bringing in more money to the UK.
We can't abolish the aristocracy. Here are the reasons why: 1) The aristocracy is embedded also in the House of Commons and has strong connections with the PM and the Inner Halls of Power 2) The aristocracy is embedded into the economy So yes, the aristocracy is here to stay in the UK for good and forever. Also, you're a commie!!! Stop being a commie!!!
I'd just like to point out that the House of Lords with its 801 is by law restricted to hold only 92 (11%) nobles (hereditary peers), the rest are spiritual or temporal (non hereditary) while appointed by the Queen but advised and de facto selected by the current Prime Minister. So most aristocracy your house of Lords has is in the name. Also Denmark still has nobility, rank, titles are held and inherited, just no extra probilages granted to the families. As for British nobility. You may correct me if I'm wrong but I have not heard of many instances where the Queen has granted true nobility but instead is slowly letting your nobility die out granting only temporary titles.
I’m honestly amazed that videos like this continue to argue that the Royal family would somehow be allowed to keep any of it’s wealth (ie. crown estates) if it were abolished. The whole point is to take back their ridiculous, unearned wealth, so the argument that the revenue from the crown estates makes them an economic benefit is plain stupid. That land and it’s revenue is still going to be there when the Royals are kicked out. And besides that, if the Royals really are so important for tourism as Monarchists claim, then why would they stop being so just because their outrageous wealth and public subsidisation is taken away? People who want to see palaces will still come, and for people who want to see Royals, well they’re not going to fall off they face of the Earth because we stop paying them, they’ll still be a celebrity family like the Kardashians.
@@peterzurich3330 Stealing from the rich and making everyone equal is exactly what communism is though? Or are you saying that it's not communism because you're just gonna do that to 1 person because having the title of "Queen" justifies it?
Very true. The public image of Charles has been damaged, some say irreparably so, after cheating on HRH Princess Diana. There are hopes that the calls for his abdication or abolishing the monarchy are so strong that he steps down in favor of his Son William who will become King William V.
As an American I don’t see why it would be needed. Why waste the money? You wouldn’t even need to have current royals to keep the tourist dollars coming in. Turn Buckingham Palace into a museum you can tour, they’ll make billions turning all the old royal shit into a tourist park or set of museums. Would still get the money without the bad press you get from men like Prince Andrew.
Abolishing the monarchy and taking the royal lands is an option. The lands belong to the "crown", not to the queen or whoever. So if you get rid of the monarchy it makes sense the govt would just seize its estates.
Don't forget the queen in the UK is actually holding an office the same that in the USA us vice-president or prime minister in France of President in Germany, that role is second to the elected leader and it is needed in a democratic system to protect it during elections, transition of powers and so on. That office and role costs money and it is usually more expensive then the current system in the UK plus a royal is for life while each ex vice-president or ex-second person in charge costs money when they leave office every 2 terms or whatnot while a royal like the queen ,well she is there for life... Pretty sweet deal for the taxpayers actually
It seems like many people in the UK don't realize just how much soft power the monarchy carries abroad. In my head the monarchy is synonymous with the UK. The Queen is the most recognized person on the planet and her image in on the face of over a dozen independent currencies. The Queen and by extention the monarchy have represented the UK on the world stage in a way that would make anyone following American politics jealous. Japan has Aname, Korea has K-pop, the US has Hollywood, France has fine dining, Britain has the Monarchy....its an enormous and really the only source of British soft power on the global stage. If you abolish the monarchy all that's left is Beatles records, Harry Potter and angry football fans
The few trading partner which UK has left? it is call the common wealth, and its head is the Queen.. so with out the queen there won't even be trading partner for UK. and yes the common wealth doesn't reconise UK but reconise the queen as the head of state, fun facts for those living in the UK.
@@rabbitbobo4131 bruh. You really dont know anything about international relations. Countries in the commonwealth have already abolished the monarchy, yet they remained in the commonwealth
@@ferddoesweirdthingsinlife1040 no I'm from a commonwealth realm, while there are some like India which abolished the monarchy, they are 15 of us who still recognize Lizzie as our queen, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papa New Guinea, almost all of the countries in the Lesser Antilles and Belize.
@@neko_3851 I meant that there are some countries who are still in the commonwealth, but also have abolished the monarchy and turned into a republic. I didnt mean all of them. I’m from a commonwealth country as well
Maybe Madge could be replaced with an Animatronic that can sit in a car and wave; and that can be wheeled out to cut ribbons. That way we need never have another royal funeral or coronation. When it comes to the Royal Prerogative; that could be replaced with a Magical 8-Ball.
@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 The queen (and monarchies in general) no longer serve any purpose other than as glorified ornaments and the fact taxpayers still have to fund them makes no sense in a world who evolved past the monarchy era.
@@SpartanJoe193 The taxpayer funds them because of the deal they made with the government, "You can take the revenue from our assets and you can pay us a set salary". Guess what? The government accepted. Why? Because the government receive much more then they give the royal family. So is the taxpayer actually paying for the royal family? No, because they are basically paying themselves while donating more. So let me ask you this question: What reason do you have for dissolving the monarchy other then your political views?
They don't really own crown estates either: "The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch." So probably after abolishment it would find it's way to the state coffers anyway.
@@sageaps they already are, but it would be interesting if that became their main title. Considering how much work it would be to go republican in Canada, I don’t think that will happen any time soon.
@@Shocked-Face another interesting thing is that we're a kingdom in all but name. If they moved here full-time, would we officially call ourselves a kingdom? Or stay as we are?
But what you're missing is that the Royal Estate is land owned by the Sovereign not by Elizabeth Windsor as a person. If sovereignty moves from Elizabeth Windsor to the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland those assets move to the Republic as they are now the Sovereign.
Untrue. The power over these things gets handed over to the government via the Monarch at the beginning of their tenure however a change to the negotiation on behalf of the government (or indeed the Royalty) will alter the terms of the deal and will put that stuff back in the hands of the Windsor family until it is renegotiated.
I don't care if they think they own land which was acquired by force and subjection. Likewise it can be applied to them. Try to protest about it, see what happens to you.
Most of the Crown estates were stolen, such as from the dissolution of the monasteries, does this mean that the Crown would have to compensate the church or return stolen property? Ireland is a prime example of stolen land by the crown from the indigenous population.
@John Smith The Church still exists but who in their right mind would want to take on the maintenance of Canterbury Cathedral etc. The population of Ireland is homogeneous many would be able to trace their families back generations, very different in England. Interesting if reparations are ever paid for the slave trade by U.K. government. Only a hypothetical thought
@@1987jaffa the state, who can either keep it and all of its economic rent or sell it off to the highest bidder depending on their whims. Would serve the public good better than having royals waste it all.
The Crown Estate would ideally be confiscated too. If you're thinking "you can't do that, that's their private property", then: 1) no it isn't. It's not the monarch's personal property, it's a separate legal entity. Look it up. 2) it wasn't acquired as personal property, it was forcefully taken by the state (chiefly during the Norman conquest). This is like saying that if you depose a dictator (which the royals were), you cannot confiscate the lands he took, because it's still his.
But the queen itself is a literal tourist attraction, as well as her guards and does give the UK semblance of prestige with its world-famous and tourist-attracting monarch.
I think that in a debate mostly based on economics (not politics or social tendencies) one of the key questions should also be what would a new public entity that takes the functions of the royal family (if the UK stopped being a monarchy) cost, of course there are functions you could just remove, but also there would be new functions/jobs (for example regulatory organs of this new institution). I think it would be interesting to know in such a scenario the aproximate value. Btw, I'm not from the UK.
their role is entirely ceremonial so whatever "functions" they perform could be done just as easily by actors or any random person on the street for that matter. And it wouldn't cost 92 million pounds a year. I mean the president of Germany is mostly ceremonial and he only gets paid 333K Euros a year. That is way cheaper.
I am a naturalised British citizen, and I don't have particularly strong feelings on the subject, personally, I am neither into nor against royalty, but because it matters to so many people I am happy for it so long as it is not a burden, and as far as I can tell when everything is said and done there is a net positive outcome, so go royals, long live the king
As a foreigner this is the only response that to me just makes sense. People like to think that the Royal Family are a burden when in reality it is a net positive. Even if they were abolished I can still see their properties generating a lot of revenue for the state. So why would you want to go through the trouble of changing it up and getting rid of perhaps one of the most recognisable pieces of British History not to mention one of the most resilient symbols in European history. Where other European Royals faltered the UK's Royals survived. Bit of an oversight don't you think? Edit: spelling error
You did a nice research. Interesting!! Question : The EU pays all member states for agricultural land use.The states spread this as agricultural subsidies over the land users. As a EU member the Crown got a huge amount of EU money . In fact the Crown was the biggest EU subsidie receiver of the EU. Did this money go to the Royal household or was it too divided between State and the Royal hh. ??
The royal estate generates profits because the lands are profitable per se, not because they are owned by the Crown. Those profits would still exist without a royal family. Also, the argument that tourists visit the UK because of the royal family is quite risible (apparently Egypt copes just as well without pharaohs). A head of state coming from inherited privilege is just not acceptable in this millennium, not to speak of the abomination that is the chamber of Lords...
“Major financial benefit”. Is it though? Why should they own hundreds of thousands of acres of land that a barely related person basically just claimed in medieval times? It shouldn’t be theirs in the first place to give to profits of it to the state. Tenants on those lands have paid enough in rent to buy it many times over.
@@archiebald4717 I don’t recall council houses coming with land. Or any means of generating income. A council house is a basic home provided at low rent to sustain people’s lives. Last time I checked, nobody in a council house was collecting rent off tens of thousands of tenants. So whatever point you’re attempting to make is lost in the facetious comparison.
@@Dreyno Council tenants pay rent to the owner of the property, even when the property is already old and its original costs have been covered by the rent already paid, Crown Estate tenants pay rent, whatever the age of the property. Exactly the same scenario. Rent and mortgage are two completely different things. Crown properties are owned by the State, council properties are owned by the State.
@@archiebald4717 Crown properties are owned by the crown. Their income is given to the state. They belong to the sovereign. A council house is a bare bones housing unit. Not an inherited estate with an income of almost 2 billion pounds per annum. And council houses were sold off en masse under the right to buy scheme. Crown land is not.
@@Dreyno The Crown is not the same as the Monarch. Renting a council house is exactly the same as renting a Crown Estate house, ie they are rented by tenants. They are both rented, that's how it works. You seem to be confused about what 'the Crown' means. Your point was that Crown properties have been paid for by tenants due to the long period of rental payment. A ridiculous point since renting a property is completely different to buying a property. The Crown Estates are not owned by the Monarch, but held in Trust and managed by a Commission. The Monarch receives 15% of the income to cover their official costs, 85% goes to the Exchequor.
Even tho I live in america and don't care at all what the uk waste their money on.. I gotta say that was a really high quality well done video. Good job to you and your team
The monarchy is stable respected, so even when general elections produce idiots as prime minister's, the stability remains like a security blanket. A president would cost more and as USA proved with Trump upset the stability. Yes the royals like others are rich but a small benefit when you are living in a bubble watched all the time and lose any privacy like a normal person. I am grateful to them all for accepting that life style, except for Harry of course.
@@pauledwards4333 it wasn't so much the president but the media is vicious here. Literally nothing could happen and they will make up anything to get views. They want drama because drama=views=money.
The Royal Family is just another TOURIST ATTRACTION for England and should be valued in that manner. AS a result, the fact is the tourism that the royals generate is FAR greater than the amount spent to support the Monarchy and therefore is NOT a waste of money.
If we did get rid of the monarchy it would also be sensible to reclaim the land in the crown estate. The land the royals have inherited is just as important as the title.
@Trevor B the royal's ancestors gained that land through war and do you seriously think its reasonable to claim half the UKs foreshore as your own personal property.
@Trevor B It's actually state land, because the crown is the state. That's how monarchies work. If they abolished the monarchy, the land should all become publicly owned as it was always owned by the government, and is now. The crown is not a private entity.
Well, as a foreign that used to live in the UK, I can tell you that I thought that the Royal family was mostly an expense, but a relatively low cost expense was bringing something unique to the country... a special identity. Because let's be honest, other European countries (Spain, Denmark) have a monarchy, but the British one is seen worldwide as "the" monarchy. However, in the sense of being just an expense, it is safe to understand why there would be people from the general public annoyed by it. Why should we spend money to spoil a bunch of people? The knowledge that in overall they effectively bring more money than loss (and this based on tangible income), made me have a complete view of the British monarchy, being tempted to say that abolishing it just because you don't like the royals makes almost as much sense as brexit. It is just shooting yourself in the foot again with no good apparent good reason. Thank you for such a clarifying video.
Add to that the requirement of the parlimentary system to have a separate head of state, we would either have to rebuild our governing system or have an elected head of state (usually a president) and elections cost serious money. Also there wouldn't likely be much of a saving on security or travel expenses. Given the average politician's desire to put everything, including the kitchen sink, on expenses it might even cost more!
That the monarchy brings in more money than loss to the taxpayer is basically just their PR. They want you to believe it as this makes them at least somewhat relevant in today's democracy. So there's two ways monarchy brings in money right - the land/property they own + tourism. If the monarchy should be abolished tomorrow, how exactly would these lands stop making money? Land is land and properties are properties, they will exist, be taxed and utilized regardless of their current owners. And the tourism argument is just silly, there is a lot going on in the UK. People don't travel there just because a palace has official royals in it.
@@cosmicsounding the lands would not stop generating money... but the money generated by it would no longer go to the state, it would go to the land owners. Gains would be taxed sure, but according to TLDR the nett gain of it could be potentialy a lot less than by just the crown waiving its rights to the state
@@cosmicsounding just to continue on the last topic... before abolishing anyhing that is kind of working, be sure that you really understand all the angles. It is not like the uk can afford another brexity situation right now
Nonsense. "Their land" is not their land to start with. The same goes with the so called tangibles. This family was and is simply a group of people who live from the taxes of others. And clearly. Its an insult to anyone who is a democrat. Absolutely and utterly disgusting to justify a bunch of people living with extra benefits just because they were born. No elections, no work, no merit. Makes me sick, particulaly when i see the face of young children who had different opportunities in life just because they were not born in that given family. Sick.
@@ThelostPenguin0 No it doesn't. It belongs to "The Crown" which is a part of the state. The head of the Windsor family currently administers the lands owned by "The Crown" but they do NOT personally own it. If the Windsor family has their position as the royal family revoked "The Crown" would be integrated into the state. You wouldn't say if we got rid of the prime minister he gets to keep the land owned by the state ffs.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 No you are wrong, the crown does not belong to the state. Don't spread misinformation. The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners). It's basically a independent organisation. If you dissolve the monarch (Not sure that is even possible, since there are other countries that are under the british monarchy it will be for sure a big mess.) Even at disbanding the monarch it will just not revert to the state. Worst case scenerio it will become a independent organisation. Still not belonging to the state.
That’s bollox the land they own could be siezed in the name of the republic and the profit from it would be maintained anyway without having to finance the biggest benefit scroungers in Britain
Lol, right? American here, almost every time the British were forced out of a colonial territory the land they once held was redistributed. Besides they stole most of it from the Church anyway.
You missed the fact that most of the revenue those lands generate is precisely because they are related to nobility, and, like any other citizen, they have rights Ofer their own property. It is very likely that you do not own a house, but, if you did, would you want it taken away from you?
@@AlejandroGonzalez-rw9kt Yeah a german here. Our former Kaiser family first fled with trains full of stuff made by the german people. They also kept their land and property even though they denied democracy and when the Nazis came to Power our monarch and his fellows pacted with them in hope of restoring their Power. After the GDR had fallen they even claimed the land the soviets conviscated and there is a legal Dispute if they now get the castles in the east which the state repaired for much Money. It is just sad that they got to keep so much and even be greedy.
@@romitkumar6272 In my country (Italy) when we abolished the monarchy we seized everything. It was the possession of the king... no king, no possessions. In France they cut their heads. I mean, I don't see any problem if a country takes back what a country owns. On the other hand, I don't see that coming in UK. THere are too many people in UK who accept to be second class human beings with inferior rights due to bloodline. They'll grow out of it, with time, but not soon.
i think i’m 2023 with the queen now passed and nobody in britain will be able to live on a regular wage before long, turn buckingham palace into either a huge spoons or big tesco 👍
@@1chish you mean...how he is involved in a sex scandal and is accused of raping young girls? To the point the Royal Family had to hide him, even during his own daughter's wedding? Either you live under a rock or you are the actual troll.
@@Dianuxkasfenix Oh spare me the 'you must be' presumptions. It makes you look even more dumb than the rest of your comment makes you. Andrew is NOT involved in a sex scandal. Your first lie. Neither is he accused by anyone of 'raping young girls'. Your second lie. The Royal Family have not 'hidden him' either. He voluntarily withdrew from public duties after he apologised on air for maintaining contact with Epstein after his first jail term ended. He didn't hide it and apologised for a bad error of judgment. Your third lie. He chose not to attend his daughter's wedding (publicly) to avoid the press spoiling her day. He was there but out of sight. Your fourth lie. So 'Randomly Di' you peddle utter lies for some reason only known to yourself. You have neither facts nor sources. You are, in short, an idiot Trolling in the most disgusting way. Meghan would be proud of her little disciple.
I always find comparisons with Versailles hilarious. Versailles has more visits precisely for the reason France has no monarchy. Its splendour is outrageous. Its an infinitely superior palace. So much money was spent on it.
I work in central London, and I can tell you that from an economic and identity standpoint the royal family is NOT a waste of money in any shape or form. Before covid, the Mall is completely surrounded by tourist of all ethnic persuasion. Summer time you can hardly get through. Because of the royals identify, and image. There is wonder and gravitas that brings tourists with fat wallets across the world to come and spend a large amount in central London, and bollster the economy. They generate far more income than they cost. For that I have no doubt.
Thank you. I like it when people use feelings, assumptions and anecdotal evidence rather than facts. It's why I like how hard the monarchy tries to hide how wealthy they are. Information like that would just get in the way.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 sometimes when you're working within a situation your eyes tells you how things go. Just like a shop you see everyday with noone going in. You know very well it will soon go out of business. Just like I know from walking across so many areas and seeing soo many closed or closing businesses that covid and lockdown is going to have a long and impactful dent in many industries especially traditional retail. A brain and eyes tells you the truth without the stats
Thomas Eze brain and eyes only tell you a part of the story, go past a night club during the day and you could think it's going under, there's a reason why eye witness are one of the least reliable forms of evidence.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 the brain is there to rationalize the factor that a night club would probably not be trading in the daytime, not the best analogy to use there.... Eye witnesses btw are strong aspects of evidence, as long as they are credible. Circumstancial evidence is the least reliable....
So having your face printed on the national bill, all war ships named in your honor, all the key generals of the army are “lord” , therefore they pledge allegiance to you(not to the state), even the PM asks for you advice,well you can say that you are actually ruling the state from shadows.
I find the discussion about letting the royals keep their estate in the UK kind of funny. Nearly all other countries that abolished their monarchies simply had the state just ceize all of the monarch's property.
But compared to those Monarchs who were tyrants, the British monarchy did nothing wrong. I wonder if they think the UK will be a great place to invest in when the just robbed a huge amount of private assets just because it was part of their ideology
Can't really say you live in a civilised democracy if you can just seize anyone's land that they legally own when they have done nothing wrong. Regardless if you like/dislike the royal family.
@@MightyMarsh That's not true. The Crown Estate isn't the Queen's property, it's the Crown's property, and the Crown is inseparable from the State. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it for a second.
@@ArturoSubutex - exactly. I find it deeply frustrating and offensive to learn that the monarch owns the British seabed and foreshore. This should be state owned public territory fair and square.
Britain can do what it wants, but it doesn't make sense for Canada to have a foreign head of state. When Liz II is done, Canada should be done with the monarchy.
@@vincenthaegebaert1854 The Queen of Canada, a direct descendant the first King of Canada, is foreign to Canada? Elizabeth II may reside mostly in Britain but she is as much the monarch of Britain as she is the monarch of Canada..
@@oliver8928 It does not change the fact that Canada and Britain are different countries, and as such, it does not make sense for us to have another countries Queen as our head of state. It's not like Liz II also being queen of Scotland, Scotland is part of the UK, Canada is a totally different nation.
@@vincenthaegebaert1854 She is Queen of the Commonwealth Realm first not one state, and of the nations of said realm second and equally. It sounds like a small technicality but it really isn't - the only reason she resides in Britain is it is the most capable of supporting her - she could take residence in any one of the independent and equal nations.
As a citizen of a country which is republic and hasnt had any kind of monarchy for houndreds of years, i think british should keep monarchy, its cool to have the queen and by now its so deeply rooted into their culture and how others look at them that it makes no sense to get rid of them
people go to france for wine, art, food, and romance, for the uk honestly the monarchy is one of the top 3 reasons, the first time i went to the uk it was probably my major factor for tourism.
@@vincentfrimpong4665 Here are most of the major London tourist attractions you could do in a one day walk. Start at Westminster station. London Eye is across river; Parliament, Big Ben and Westminster Abbey are across road. Walk through St James Park to Buckingham Palace. Up the Mall to Trafalgar Square. Along Haymarket to Piccadilly Circus. Through Leicester Square to Covent Garden. Down to the Strand. That is a morning's walk. Take a double-decker bus to St Paul's. Across the Millennium Bridge to Tate Modern and Globe Theatre. Walk along South Bank or take tube from Blackfriars. Go to Tower Bridge and Tower of London. That covers just about anything a tourist wants to see. Inly one has a real connection to the modern monarchy.
Lets spin this with a different question: Would France get more tourists per year because its much larger, has a warm southern coast as well as a cosmopolitan capital city?
It's wrong in places. For instance, the Crown Estate isn't owned by the Royal family. Whoever is the monarch if the monarchy is abolished couldn't "take it back" as it's not their private property but owned by the UK. Same with the crown jewels, etc.
The crown estates have gone centuries without any sort of inheritance tax, because they are distinct from most private property, there is no reason why the royal family would be allowed to keep, whole counties and half of all British beaches. That's absurd, and it's annoying that media when bringing the crown estates, never brings up the possibility of making the land publicly owned; Which is in fact more than likely what would happen.
@@fenton3137 Yeah but how would that actually work, for example allot of those areas are the offshore wind farms and similar things that are company run under the banner of the crown, so if your not just saying the royals arn't heads of state but that they can't even own businesses what happens to the tens of thousands of people currently working for them, are they unemployed? Are they now government contractors like the NHS? Or is "the crown" shattered into a thousand smaller "crown businesses" that are all independent but royal family members still probably have allot of shares in unless your saying their not allowed shares either.
@@jimpickins7900 The assets of the Crown would become assets of the Republic, thus the employees of those enterprises would become government contractors as opposed to Employees of the Crown. I really do not mourn the fact the Royals would loose most of "their" immense wealth, they would still be very well off and would be able to live in relatively luxury, undoubtedly.
Of course keep the monarchy, who would you replace it with? A president? Germany has a president and if you're not german, you probably never heard of him. In Slovakia, there are full-blown elections for a useless man in politics. Queen / King of England is a figurehead for everyone, not just for half of the population. It's definitely better to keep a monarch if you have one.
@@Falcrist And who would be the head of a state? Johnson? There's a thing called separation of powers, every country has a head of a state. If you appoint the prime minister or a member of some party to serve the role, there would already be discontent from much of the population and a party preference, only other option would be to have a non party representative a.k.a. the president or some other title that would serve the same role
There is a very good reason you've never heard of the president of Germany, if you look into what happened to and around President Hindenburg you might understand why the presidency of Germany is what it is today. Believe me, they've tried a different route before and, oh boy, did it go wrong!
No the answer is no. They bring in lots of money via tourism and create charity’s and attend national holidays such as st David’s day. It only costs us £1.40.
I always find it interesting that people talk about the value of the royal estate as though we would abolish the monarchy and just let them keep all their land
@@runecrafter1198 sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about the crown estates which belong to the monarch representing the crown. Either way you're right in that it's going to be messy and create problems. I just think the benefits of abolishen outway the costs
@@S0uti3 yeah i assumed that’s what you meant but the whole stealing things that has been in a family for hundreds of years creates far too many questions and fucks up the whole re brands the uk is trying to go through
@@runecrafter1198 But that land is owned by the crown, not the royal family. It is passed from monarch to monarch, not family member to family member. If the monarchy were abolished the Windsors would have no right to that land, hence it would not be stealing
They give us tourism income and are key to our diplomacy (E.g. Commonwealth). They also provide us some nice culture, it would be boring if every democracy was a Republic. Americans pay more for their president and his family then we do for our Royal family.
The tourism argument is rediculous, all you have to do is look at the country which benefits more from tourism than any other - France. Now I don't know how much history people are aware of but most people do know that France once had a monarchy and now it does not. Did everyone suddenly lose interest in all the grand palaces and castles and history when the monarchy was abolished? Or does it make no difference whatsoever if there is actually a family using those things or not? I'd argue you could turn many royal assets into museums and gallerys and make even more money than we currently do. And on the crownlands, we could just take it from them. Like one family should not be able to negotiate from a position of power with the British government. But I suppose that is too radical for many people.
@@jamesn0va it's not just their private property though, they hold it on behalf of the crown, the institution we are talking about abolishing. We don't have to let them keep everything.
Yeah, there is a world of difference between saying, "We don't have royals anymore, but they get to keep their castles and lands and power." And saying "'Yeet the royals and nobles, their castles and lands are to be considered a public utility and belong to the people, they don't get to take those with them." And likewise, the economic argument ends up going from, "We'll lose access to their lands and castles, and therefore might suffer economically" to "It is our lands and castles and we can gain ALL the profit from them, and we can hold more of the castle open to the public for longer, and make it into a proper museum. Everyone (except the royals) win"
@Britboy 94 few go to France? Irrelevant palaces? Tell that to the several millions of people who visit Versailles on any normal year, compared to Buckingham not even breaking one million.
In which I would support the monarchy lol, I feel like historically it's astounding that the monarchy has survived through so many wars, countless years and many eras. Morally and legally I see no issue (from what I'm aware - it's not like I care that I'm not a royal just because I wasn't born into it) politically is interesting, but as the crown is impartial I don't think it plays much of a role, and I enjoy the old traditions such as the Queen opening parliament, it just adds that extra bit of intrigue!
@@flappetyflippers You support unelected descendants of feudal warlords interfering in politics in a completely unaccountable manner? Odd position, why not just abolish elections and cut out the middle man.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 they don’t actually have a say they are unable to make laws they’re literally there for historic purposes and I support them all the way idc if they take more than they put in I’d happily pay my taxes to them
As a Canadian, for all their warts, our status as a Constitutional Ceremonial Monarchy helps keeps some of our national distinctiveness living beside the US, a Constitutional Republic, largely without the expense of the British Crown itself.
Canadians do not pay one single cent towards the personal upkeep or palaces of The Queen or members of The Royal Family. Those costs are borne entirely by the British taxpayer. We only pay for any costs incurred by The Family when they are in Canada or when they represent Canada abroad in an official capacity. We also pay for representatives of the monarchy, such as The Governor General and provincial Lieutenant Governors. Total cost of the monarchy is $50 million (or about $1.63 per Canadian - less than a cup of coffee) per year.
Abolish monarchy, and seize back all the royal estates and property and stuff cause those were just poor people's land that these monarchs stole once upon a time by force. That's in history, go read it. All property owned by monarchs were once in a time stolen by force cause if you didn't give it, you would get killed. And tourism will continue anyway. People come to see the palace not this old woman Elizabeth. Think of the palace of Versailles which gets so many tourists although nobody is sleeping in the palace.
@@redset11 Agreed utter ignorance! The Royal family is nothing like the Kardashians. The RF makes most of its money off tax payers and has waaaay more scandals. Some even involving minors.
The question is (for me as a foreigner): did the crown buy the land with their own money in the 11th-16th century or did they buy it with the taxpayer's money? When there was no difference between the country budget and crown budget at that time, the land should be owned by the government not the crown.
At some level there ought to be a conversation about generational wealth and property. Should land, seized in bloody conquest, now belong to the heirs of that crime for no other reason than their ancestry? Likewise for wealth and property earned in the opium trade, or the slave trade, or by criminal activity? What's the line between money earned with merit versus money earned by circumstance? So long as we continue to allow generational wealth and property broadly, which is profoundly undemocratic, I'm actually okay with the royals because they at least have nominal commitments to public service in return for that wealth. They are still bound to some level of public good. The rest of the wealthy, by hook, crook, or merit, enjoy their wealth in relative privacy, with vast palaces far removed from public access and public eyes. They are a wealthy class removed from most direct ties of obligation to the public which bought their products and worked on their property. The Royals at least perpetuate an ideal that privileges come with attendant responsibilities.
Probably the ownership dates from feudalism where the king owned everyone. They probably gave land away and because of this some people have land today.
Another HUGE advantage of the Monarchy is their agnosticism towards politics, something impossible by nature to achieve with a Republic. Trump will always be a republican, Obama will always be a democrat, and like so, defend the interests of their party. Not to mention the costs of a Republic that in the majority of the Republics pay not only the salary/personal security of the President but also of the former ones.
Even in countries where the power is with the Prime Minister, like many Republics, the President is usually a former prime minister / mayor from a party, so even if it tries to stay agnostic will always be subject to doubts.
When I travelled to the UK, I visited Buckingham palace. But it was just something to check off the list of attractions. I plan to visit the UK again, but it's really because of the extensive museum collections and history.
What bothers me the most about these people, is that they didn’t get there by merit, in other words they DID NOT EARN IT, THEY WERE BORN TO A CERTAIN MOTHER AND FATHER. They are not better than the rest of us, or more talented, or smarter. They were born to the same family that has ruled for over 1,000 years. Charles is a hipocrite, he tells the rest of us to fly commercial, while he uses private jets, a 95% increase in carbon footprint. Do you think that’s right? I like the expression “That Ain’t Right”.
Also if we got rid of them we’d have to write a whole new bunch of legislation on how the country is run, do you really want to trust the Torys with that?
Do you really think the royal family is stopping the conservatives from doing anything though? If the royal-family spoke up about politics they'd have half the royalists leave them or the other half. Conservatives like the royals because they stand for the inheritance of estates/wealth, privilege, and old-school (white) nationalism. Labour's right-wing just go along with them because they know the plebs like seeing their landlords throw parties and wear dresses.
Imagine how much was wasted on that funeral, all fomr the piblic purse. Will they be paying my funeral when i die? No. IMagine what could have been achieved with all that money. The Monarchy is def a net loss. De throne them all NOW
The crown estate argument as presented here seems tendentious. It's essentially saying, "The UK wouldn't save any money by becoming a republic... assuming the royals continued to receive the benefits of being royals and were freed of any of the obligations of being royals."
The problem is that Royalists like the royal family and want to maintain the status quo and the republicans want the opposite. But the republicans don't realise that what they're asking for is definately going to hurt the country and the huge amount of people who are neutral definately don't like that.
Including the crown estates is pretty erroneous tbh; these estates would almost certainly be largely seized and either nationalised or sold off on the event of the royal family being abolished
You can’t nationalise a private citizens land. Imagine the precedent of ‘the government can freely take your land’, it could cause damage and breaks private property laws and even human rights to personal property... so good luck with that strategy
@@callumbanthorpe523 the land isn't n privately owned, it's owned by the head of state, any republicanisation is going to inherently be a negotiation with the newly private citizen about how much state assets they will retain ownership of, it also doesn't set any sort of relevant precedence because they will be the last monarch, there's no other situation where that's likely to apply short of re-establishing a monarchy then disbanding it again
@@me6664 taking land from a private citizen because the government thinks its theirs sets a precedent. You said they were private citizens so them being ‘the last monarch’ is irrelevant
@@callumbanthorpe523 there is a real debate over whether the CE belongs to the Queen or the Crown, which aren't the same thing. In reality, if we ever became a Republic, then the estate would end up being split.
There's another aspect that is money related. The Crown has exercised its powers in legislature time and again to protect it's wealth from scrutiny. We have no real idea how much they are avoiding in their 'taxable' contributions because they have bullied (with the royal assent protocol) governments to keep their income/assets hidden. Also from their own website: "The Crown Estate is though owned by the Monarch in right of the Crown. This means that the Queen owns it *by virtue of holding the position of reigning Monarch, for as long as she is on the throne,* as will her successor." The lands really belong to the crown (and thus the country) not to whoever's pale buttocks sit upon the throne. They are Crown Estates not Windsor Estates.
Yeah I was a taken aback when they said we'd hand over the crown estate if we got rid of the monarchy. TLDR news seem to have rather fudged or misunderstood this point!
To be fair, the queen doesn’t really need to pay tax. After all, her ancestors literally found the kingdom of England and Scotland and conquered other tow,However, in order to be more contributive to the kingdom, she voluntarily pays her tax.
@@georgemaxon4309 You are right she does voluntarily pay (a portion) of her tax but I'd argue 'Elizabeth Windsor' and 'The Queen' are two very distinct and different bodies in this regard. The Crown and it's holdings belong to the country and thus enjoy tax exemption (but should also be fully disclosed). Anything belonging to the Windsor family that is personal and not state related should be taxed by law like all other personal assets.
The Queen’s ancestors did not found England and Scotland. That was (arguably) the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, or perhaps more recently William the Conqueror, depending on your definition of England and/or Scotland. If you mean Great Britain, that would be the House of Stuart.
The Monarchy and the Royal Family are two different things. Only four members are really relevant to the Constitution - those likely to come to the throne. Security would have to be provided to any head of state, so is not a differentiating factor. The tourist money/fashion thing is constitutionally irrelevant. The chances of me being the next King are non existent. The chances of me being the first President of the UK are one in 67 million. The odds don't seem significantly better, so why rock the boat? If it ain't broke, which it isn't yet, there is nothing to fix. At the moment I am a Pragmatic Monarchist. If matters change, I might think differently, but we are nowhere near that point yet, and may never be in my lifetime.
Wait if you'd abolish the monarchy what says you'd also have to give them 'their' lands? Stupid question maybe, but why not go all the way and just keep the historical buildings, lands, stop paying their expenses, and they can keep whatever's left?
@@gratitude6573 My assets weren't funded by generations of tax payers. At that point those buildings belong to the public in my eyes. The people living in them have, or should have, no political power or role outside of symbolic uses or nostalgia.
The economic argument is unimportant compared to the political / constitutional one. The head of state, and heir, getting laws changed to benefit their family is corruption pure and simple. What is the point of having a head of state who does whatever the prime minister of the day tells them to?
Almoast every democratic country has a head of state that is almoast powerless and with a more powerful prime minister. Only in the USA does the president have almoast full power and look how Trump ruled as president. Be glad that you have a head of state that has so much respect and knowledge on how to be head of state. God save the queen.
@@herculepoirot4488 there's a big difference between having limited powers and signing off on the government's illegal actions which the queen did when she agreed to prologue Parliament in 2019.
@@yellit1975 You do realise that if the queen would not support her Parliment, she would create a masive wave of distrust to the Parliment from the people. She supported the Parliment in the hardest of times when leaving the EU.
@@herculepoirot4488 True but the queen agreeing to the government’s illegal action was actually working against the interests of parliament and the British people.
@@yellit1975 I am sorry i donť realy remember what was the Parliments illegal action. I am not british, but i watch british politics. In 2019 i didnť watch them as much so i donť know what illegal action it was. Anyway there's always something illegal going on in every Parliment.
Wrong with the exception of the duchy of cornwall all revenues are paid to the exchequer and those revenue's are worth a considerable amount more then is given through the civil list.
People talk about how old fashioned having royalty is and why the UK should be abolished. We aren't the only country in the world that still has it. Whether it be a King or Emperor there is still quite a few out there.
@@arthas7 much of the American population likes the royal family which secures their soft power with the british people> you also have the commonwealth which was developed by the royal family and still facilitates relationships with many former colonies. This is to say nothing of India being one of the most Angelofile nations on the planet.
Miss Meghan and american media show us every day, that the cost of paying actual royals is worth every penny and more. Btw. you can keep Mr. Macrón for free.
does anyone else love the duality of republicans in this comment section of disliking how the monarchy got the land through their wealth and military might yet when someone brings up their land ownership they suddenly become staunch libertarians. Me thinks alot of people who don't like the monarchy just don't like the rich. (no im not a monarchist, put the pitchforks away. I just love the hypocrisy people show in "one set of rules for thee another for mee" opinions)
CLARIFICATION: In the video, we make a number of claims surrounding the Crown Estate and just how the monarch receives from the Crown Estate or the Government. We wish to clarify the following: The Crown Estate is not the property of the Royal Family nor the Monarch in their personal capacity. As the Crown Estate website (www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/our-business/our-structure-and-governance/) stresses "The assets of The Crown Estate are therefore not the property of the Government, nor are they the Sovereign's private estate. They are part of the hereditary possessions of the Sovereign "in right of the Crown". In more simple terms, the Crown Estate is owned by the monarch "by virtue of their accession to the throne" "for the duration of their reign". Think of it like the keys to an office - when you start a new job (in non-COVID times), you'll probably get your own set of keys. You "own" these keys by virtue of your employment for the duration of that employment. If you quit, or are fired, the keys are no longer yours. The calculation of the Sovereign Grant is a bit more complicated than what we explained in the video. The Royal Family doesn't immediately skim off 25% of that year's revenues or net profits. Rather the entirety of it is sent to the Treasury. The Treasury then, in accordance with the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, calculates and sends to the Crown the Sovereign Grant. Under Section 6 of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/section/6), the Sovereign Grant is calculated as follows: First, calculate 25% of the Crown Estate income for two years prior (i.e. when calculating the Sovereign Grant for 2021-22 use figures from the Crown Estate corresponding to 2019-20). Round that figure up to the nearest 100 grand. Then compare the rounded figure with the Sovereign Grant given last year. (After some adjustments), award the higher amount. In effect, the Sovereign Grant has a ratchet clause embedded in it - the Grant can only ever go up. Subsequently, say hypothetically due to a pandemic, the Crown Estate makes a loss that year. The Sovereign Grant will not suddenly become negative - the Treasury would have to stump up cash from elsewhere.
Thanks for clarifying! Good to see some honesty and integrity from a news source.
Once again your video is wildly inaccurate, stop using Wikipedia as a source hahaha
If that's the case, then wouldn't the crown estate become a sovereign estate of the republic in the event the monarchy were abolished? I don't know what UK republicans are arguing for exactly, but in a number of European states which made the switch, the estate previously considered a prerogative of the monarchy was confiscated and taken over by the state in order to serve public functions such as hosting ministeries or museums (France and Italy are good examples of this).
Glad you finally clarified this. I would just add one further point when people talk about abolishing the monarchy. Personally, I believe the Royals serve no useful function, and it is wrong for the Head of State to be a hereditary position. However, due to the nature of their status, it would be near impossible to get rid of them - at least via democratic means. When the late Paul Flynn MP tried to raise questions in Parliament about Prince Andrew's dodgy behaviour, he was cut off by the Speaker, less than a minute into his speech and told that "references to the Royals must be rare, brief, and respectful". And that's before MPs are reminded of their Oath of Allegiance. This is also why historically, the only way monarchs have been deposed is via major events - such as wars or revolutions.
That analogy is really wrong. Its nothing like they keys to an office, a closer more accurate analogy that less miss leading would be to equate it to a land trust.
Your analogy alludes to the goverment ha ing some right to that land if the monarch was abolished which its dosnt I herently have, obviously this is something that would knly be resolved in a lengthy court dispute but as the land is tied to the crown and the crown is inherited, from a basic starting point the Royal family has the larger claim to its rights.
TLDR forgot to include all the swans in UK under the royal assets.
That's not true.
it is. they make up 5% of britain’s gdp
not all UK swans are crown assets,
All the swans on the Thames I think and from several other locations. Maybe upto a 3rd of the UK's swans.
@John Higgins They don't, the Swans in Orkney belong to the people that live there, not the crown.
"Do we need a monarchy?"
The Queen: Are you threatening me Master Jedi?
It’s treason then
@@kyledavis463 Queen brings out red glowing rod thing and do flying spins through the air~*
Dewit
@@kyledavis463 diana screaming right now
Note the corrupt chancellor was elected, not hereditarily inherited.
“Something Germany and France seem to be able to cope fine with”
well, they had a couple of tries
France is on its 6th attempt at a Republic. Germany is only at its second.
@@dcassus you mean 5th attempt for France
We tried too. Look how that turned out.
Russia tried too, and we had USSR, China tried, they had a fashist republik, broke up, had a large Civil war, and now thwy are communists, shamelessly grabbing the stuff they want
France spends more on Macron than we spend on the Royal Family
“Hosting garden parties and travelling” oh boy how us commoners would love to do some of that right now
No you wouldn't
@@michaelshore2300 why so? Seems an easy life...
@@euanwalker922 imagine doing but with your every move scrutinized by the most insurable people in the country.
@@BastiatC he would rather have the money go to Soros
To be fair, neither is the royal family. The Queen's been in isolation at Windsor since the pandemic started.
“France hasn’t had a monarchy for 200 years”
Napoleon III: am I a joke to you?
Bismark: Yes
Hahaha yes, yes you are. There are few better European jokes than Boney III.
They didn't claim that France hadn't had a monarchy for 200 year (at least if you refering to the comment at 6:36) - they claimed that Versailles hadn't been home to royalty for 200 years which is true - the last king living in Versailles was Louis XVI (till October 1789) and all plans of later Kings / Emperors to return didn't come reality.
Yes
@@282XVL to be honest other then the Franco-Prussian war his reign was probably more successful then napoleon 1
I mean, as a French i don't see why both titles and estade can't be claimed by the people. But you know, French way of dealing with monarchy could be a bit extreme
@Rusty Shackleford must not like your aunt lol
As a brit I 100% agree, crown estate is not the crowns private property, acting like it is is misleading. Just seize it and then have a net profit that can go to helping way more people than the few in the monarchy, put it back in the NHS.
Hey, the Brits were chopping up their monarchs a century before you got around to it. The fact that they changed their minds doesn't change the fact that they came up with the idea first.
The heads of state in France (Presidents, Prime Ministers) have hardly proved to be paragons of virtue, if recent news is to be believed ! Just because someone is elected doesn't mean they'll automatically be somehow better than an imposed monarchy.
@@jediplop3563 how is it misleading?
The British people will decide on what to do with their monarchs. As a non-British, I will only observe.
Doubtful we here in the UK will ever be given that opportunity.
With lots of popcorn.
You need to frame it as choosing between Trump and Queen Elizabeth II. Then the correct answer is plain to all.
@@nadeemchaudhry6585 even if you do, I am curious about technicalities. eg, Alll MPs swore oath of allegiance to the Queen, even with Republican tendency like Jeremy Corbyn. Don't they broke their oath by legislating monarchy abolition?
That's kinda how I feel about the whole thing I live in amarica and my country has been on fire for 4 years so every once and awhile I look over at the other dumpster fire and watch
How did they acquire all that land and estate at the first place, by working hard as honest low-abiding citizens?! Why should we think all their perceived possessions are legitimate?
LOL..GOOD POINT
Yes everything they have is from the people
They took it from the people
Work hard for it
They don't know
What that is?
Everything they have is the result of rape, pillage and murder
@@Castle743 they bought the land with their money
@@Castle743 they inherited it from their ancestors 😊
"And no the queen's not starting a soda business".
Yes because Royal Crown Cola company already took the name. And then to sell it in the Southern US they would also be tempted to come up with their own version of the Moon Pie.
Plus it would interfere with the deal with Schweppes
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 F-ing TEXANS😁
Just use
Windsor Royal cola
“It’s treason then.”
*Her Majesty pulls out a sabre from out of no where.*
she should try spinning, that's a good trick
Not from nowhere. From the bloody stone, mate 🤫
Then she'll show those pesky republicans her Unlimited Powaaah.
Lightsaber? Pfft! She draws Excalibur from an ornate scabbard dangling at her side!
@@리주민 The stone of scone?
the house of Lords is and that's what we should be talking about.
Very much so.
well they are needed if they could actually do anything. lol
The house of Lords are there to be a check on the commons but not a hard block as they once were. They can send the law back after changes to be agreed on for example. Forcing a law through the Lords is more importantly a massive show of weakness and makes sure the prime minister isn't trying to pass a law that could be poorly made for example. It's a system that is in need of repair but still has it's use
@@arnold118-b1w I don t understand why would you need to restrain a democraticaly elected government?
Maybe the members of the house of lords should be elected in a diffrent manner? Like one representative from each constituency?
@@arnold118-b1w When making power changes always look at the proposers. They will be the ones to gain and possibly extend that power not you. Representative democracy does not exist in the UK. Our MP's are wealthy, turkeys do not vote for an early Christmas.
Their worth, as you have described, is completely at odds with Georgist economics where the only tax one pays is based on land value. Another interesting point is how London is a refuge for deposed royal families from across the globe. I became aware of this when working in Kensington several years ago. I was introduced to prince (so and so) and princess (so and so) all people with titles inherited from diposed royal families, who were hawking their titles to get work in media and finance. Quite frankly as a working class lad who had worked his way up on half-eaten boot-strapps I was quite appalled at how they expected the world to owe them a living just because they had an obscure title.
The UK government wouldn't give up the Monarchy. This will sound incredibly cynical but why would the PM and the governing body give up a figurehead for an electable head of state that could actively go against the prime minister? We most likely wouldn't become a full on republic like the USA, and I just don't see us abolishing the monarchy. Unless the UK Government just gets rid of the monarchy and make the PM the Head of State, Chief Executive, Commander in Chief and Head of Government (etc) which I just completely doubt would happen
The Meghan/Harry stuff is just tabloid drama in the grand scheme of things, I really doubt the Government would change anything
Just a side-note: If the UK became a republic, it needn't become one with a presidential system like the USA. Given how the legislative body (parliament) and the government is elected/composed currently, a parliamentary system like Germany or a mixed presidential-parliamentary system like France would be a better fit.
In general this would mean you would get a president who may be head of state, but needn't be head of government and certainly wouldn't have as much power concentrated in one person like the USA does.
@@MalloonTarka That's a good point, I still don't see the government willingly giving up power tho
I agree, I also don't see why it's actually important to remove them, it's not like they're bad for us...
As the others said, the UK could go down the road of a parliamentary republic where the PM is actually also head of state, but after that, it won't be able to call itself the United Kingdom, innit?! :)))
@@mastergs32 Yeah that could happen, but I feel like the PM likes the ace up their sleeve in having a monarch who is able to advise/diplomise on behalf of the UK
I'd like to think we'd be named the "United Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" which sound immense
You need to do a video explaining to the Americans why Archie dosent have a title. Pretty obvious to us Brits but they seem to think it's because of racism.
Totally agree
Not to be rude but the people that video would be meant for wouldn't care... They'd just call TLDR racist. The "woke" liberals in my country have ripped the guts out of the word "racism", and use it for anything a white person disagrees with a black person about... For example, I don't like Megan Markel for any other reason then I think she's a dishonest, self important, entitled, brat... Nothing to do with the color of her skin, but I'm sure someone "woke" will see this and call me a racist.
Firstly, this matter shouldn't concern Americans. Secondly, it's because Archie is not in direct line to the throne at the time of birth and has to wait until he is a grandchild of the monarch, right? And some of the other children and grandchildren of women with royal titles inherited their titles from their aristocratic husband or father, right? Plenty of the Queen's other great grandchildren don't have titles, such as Harry's cousin's children. This doesn't mean they will never be in line to succession. Archie was offered an honorary title, but his parents turned it down. It's ridiculous that a once direct royal does not understand this, and instead implying that our Queen is racist, even though he says he "doesn't care". I'm just a commoner and I managed to figure it out in two minutes. Remember when Harry dressed as a Na zi and called his Asian colleague a "pa ki"? Pot calling the kettle black.
Who is Archie?
@@Edsbar Peter griffins brother
"They can't just spend it on what they want, it has to be used on things like garden parties and travel..." - oh, the poor dears, lol.
what are garden party's? i always thought it was entertain foreign diplomat's, so we can do trade talks so we have better trade deals.. as kinda like talking clients out for a meal to put them in a good mood for a deal to be made..
am i wrong? o.O
@@junaidwhatyon3172 your right
Yes aka they can spend it on what they want maybe they will have enother wedding or kid for the tax payees to fund, they are the biggest scammers in the uk them royals, tbf it is mostly the government because the royals get royalitys from the government in the form of a sovereign grant, the government still has the tax payers money to do what the hell they want with it.
And have to use it to remodel where they live. Oh the humanity they use it all for things that benefit themselves.
@Junaid they are not always just for potential business deals it can be for birthdays too it can be for whatever they want. Its not limited to business.
"The opposite of a monarchy isn't anarchy, it's a republic" -- I wish someone would explain this to the Americans. I've lost count of the number of times I've read/heard "the USA is a republic not a democracy", like the concepts are mutually exclusive. 🤦♂️
I’m confused by your point here... the US is a republic. It has many democratic institutions but constitutionally the functioning of the republic technically supersedes democracy. That why Trump was president despite having fewer votes than Hillary. Why each state gets 2 seats in the senate regardless of population...
They may be right, but probably not in the way they intended. 😅
_"The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.”_
- Julius Nyerere
@@kadencollinsThank you for making his point relevant. A REPUBLIC is a DEMOCRACY. Representative Democracy = Republic = Democracy kinda crazy. Direct democracy is a direct form of democracy rather than voting for representation, which again all of these are democracy.
@@kadencollins They're still not mutually exclusive concepts, the US is a democratic republic. It's a republic by extension of not being a monarchy, not by extension of not being a democracy. Double negative, sorry.
It's a constitutional republic as well as a representative democracy. The 'it is a constitutional republic' is just a cop-out excuse for when people suggest abolishing the electoral college.
As I am here I may as well drop my two pennies on the electoral college, it's a redundant system, you have congress which is representative of local districts, you have the senate which is representative of the state as a whole.
You have one person one vote for congressional and senate elections, the President should be the same. So to me, it makes sense for the presidential election to be decided by popular vote as the President should represent the entirety of the voting public.
I was born in Ireland and was in the British army. It was easier to swear allegence to a crown thet broadly represents the country as a whole, than a president that will change and is probably part of a political party
How about swearing allegence to The People/The Country directly? Why do you need some clown with a crown to represent it?
So you prefer an oath to a person no one elected and there family (including prince Andrews) over an oath to the founding document of the country which is a symbol of the country, and its elected leader? Interesting
@@geoffmcclelland2663
Yes.chad
@@hop3106 that would do but was not available to me at the time.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 You have misread my comment I said an insitution that broadly represents the country. If they changed the oath to somthing simelar then that would be OK
Can we have a video about the House of Lords?
Pretty sure they have one...?
Tbf the house of lords have stopped some really destructive policies being implemented in the uk recently so I'm kinda glad they are there at the moment.
Yes, a waste of money, abolish this sad anachronism.
Yes. People still go see the French palace's even though the family has been dead for centuries.
Sorry for hair splitting but there are three potential inheritors to the French Crown, should the monarchy ever be reestablished (lol). Louis XX chief among them. Granted they don't own the formerly regal estates though.
Interesting fact: the French royalty bloodline still exists! Actually in two different bloodlines
Nobody is saying to k*ll the british monarchy either, just arguing they could not be gobbling public money and still the palace have value
Exactly Versailles is the most visited palace in the world.
I think that also has something to do with the French revolution. France has it's own intriguing narrative. Marie Antoinette and the French revolution. We just voted out the monarch is a much less interesting story to tell. Germany has it's own version of Versailles at Potsdam. It's nowhere as well known as Versailles, because the narrative is just not there.
I mean, they sure are good for the meme economy...
@@thelightsilent lmao, can I have some of whatever you're smoking?
They'll be even better material when we decide to behead them
@@frenchguitarguy1091 especially when after that the queen gets up
@@ttt5205 Did you just ask that to a spam program?
@@olsenfernandes3634 In the netherlands we have this saying called, if you don't shoot, you will always miss. As a Dutchy I never turn down a good smoke, so if by any chancce this guy is real I might get something out of it.
If the institution of the monarchy were to be abolished, the family couldn't just keep their royal stuff. The Crown Estate etc. would, and should, fall into the hands of the government. So instead of getting 75% of the Crown Estate's profits, the UK government would now get 100%. The existence of the Crown Estate and the royal family's possession of it are arguments in FAVOR of abolition, not against it.
The UK actively loses money by allowing them to take 25%. Cut out the middleman, oust the monarchy!
Do Brits really think that tourists will not come to view Buckingham palace or the tower if you no longer pay any taxes to keep the monarchy going
Not all of us. According to figures from the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA), and the Royal households own figures for their residences, Buckingham Palace is at best the 69th most popular attraction in the UK. Windsor Castle does better but it's still only at number 18 behind Chester Zoo, Somerset House, Edinburgh Castle, and the Botanic Gardens in Kew. Kensington Palace which attracts visitors most of the year comes in at 68 on the ALVA list. The Tower of London on the other hand is the ninth most popular destination in the UK and the Royals haven't lived there or had much connection with it for centuries. And this is the point, palaces and castles attract interest because of their history, not because of today's Royals. Get rid of the monarchy and places like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle can be fully opened up to tourists all year (bearing in mind these places aren't open all year round as they are after all real Royal residences, which potentially means lost revenue to the UK), funding their own upkeep through ticket sales and offering a unique glimpse into Britain's past. Buckingham Palace for example 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. Imagine, the garden walls and gates taken down, the road between the Palace and Green Park pedestrianised, along with the Mall and people being able to wander through the grounds and the courtyard. Now that would attract more visitors, potentially bringing in more money to the UK.
Denmark is a monarchy, but without any House of Lords or nobility. Way to go IMO.
We can't abolish the aristocracy. Here are the reasons why:
1) The aristocracy is embedded also in the House of Commons and has strong connections with the PM and the Inner Halls of Power
2) The aristocracy is embedded into the economy
So yes, the aristocracy is here to stay in the UK for good and forever. Also, you're a commie!!! Stop being a commie!!!
It's better, but I don't see the point of keeping someone in power just for being born in a certain family
I'd just like to point out that the House of Lords with its 801 is by law restricted to hold only 92 (11%) nobles (hereditary peers), the rest are spiritual or temporal (non hereditary) while appointed by the Queen but advised and de facto selected by the current Prime Minister.
So most aristocracy your house of Lords has is in the name.
Also Denmark still has nobility, rank, titles are held and inherited, just no extra probilages granted to the families.
As for British nobility. You may correct me if I'm wrong but I have not heard of many instances where the Queen has granted true nobility but instead is slowly letting your nobility die out granting only temporary titles.
Vote for the reform Party then
@@kamanashiskar9203
The danish and swedish aristocracy existed as well. As you can see, they have been neutralised.
I’m honestly amazed that videos like this continue to argue that the Royal family would somehow be allowed to keep any of it’s wealth (ie. crown estates) if it were abolished. The whole point is to take back their ridiculous, unearned wealth, so the argument that the revenue from the crown estates makes them an economic benefit is plain stupid. That land and it’s revenue is still going to be there when the Royals are kicked out. And besides that, if the Royals really are so important for tourism as Monarchists claim, then why would they stop being so just because their outrageous wealth and public subsidisation is taken away? People who want to see palaces will still come, and for people who want to see Royals, well they’re not going to fall off they face of the Earth because we stop paying them, they’ll still be a celebrity family like the Kardashians.
What you're looking for is communism
@@peterzurich3330 Stealing from the rich and making everyone equal is exactly what communism is though?
Or are you saying that it's not communism because you're just gonna do that to 1 person because having the title of "Queen" justifies it?
@fraser You literally have no proof that they're stealing your money though?
@fraser Did you even watch the video?
Because its literally proves you wrong
@@peterzurich3330 You don't solve poverty from stealing from the rich, you solve it by having good policies.
Once the Monarchy passes to Prince Charles this conversation will truly take shape.
Does anyone like Charles? Surely this will be the end of the monarchy.
@@lifewhatsoever - William and Kate would be better than Charles.
@@chrismckellar9350 oh yeah that’s for sure
I have a lot of respect for Prince Charles. Always have had.
Very true. The public image of Charles has been damaged, some say irreparably so, after cheating on HRH Princess Diana. There are hopes that the calls for his abdication or abolishing the monarchy are so strong that he steps down in favor of his Son William who will become King William V.
As an American I don’t see why it would be needed. Why waste the money? You wouldn’t even need to have current royals to keep the tourist dollars coming in. Turn Buckingham Palace into a museum you can tour, they’ll make billions turning all the old royal shit into a tourist park or set of museums. Would still get the money without the bad press you get from men like Prince Andrew.
Abolishing the monarchy and taking the royal lands is an option. The lands belong to the "crown", not to the queen or whoever. So if you get rid of the monarchy it makes sense the govt would just seize its estates.
Don't forget the queen in the UK is actually holding an office the same that in the USA us vice-president or prime minister in France of President in Germany, that role is second to the elected leader and it is needed in a democratic system to protect it during elections, transition of powers and so on. That office and role costs money and it is usually more expensive then the current system in the UK plus a royal is for life while each ex vice-president or ex-second person in charge costs money when they leave office every 2 terms or whatnot while a royal like the queen ,well she is there for life... Pretty sweet deal for the taxpayers actually
The crown is a company that the monarch is the head of. Get rid of the monarchy and the crown is still owned by the same person.
It seems like many people in the UK don't realize just how much soft power the monarchy carries abroad. In my head the monarchy is synonymous with the UK. The Queen is the most recognized person on the planet and her image in on the face of over a dozen independent currencies. The Queen and by extention the monarchy have represented the UK on the world stage in a way that would make anyone following American politics jealous.
Japan has Aname, Korea has K-pop, the US has Hollywood, France has fine dining, Britain has the Monarchy....its an enormous and really the only source of British soft power on the global stage. If you abolish the monarchy all that's left is Beatles records, Harry Potter and angry football fans
The few trading partner which UK has left? it is call the common wealth, and its head is the Queen.. so with out the queen there won't even be trading partner for UK. and yes the common wealth doesn't reconise UK but reconise the queen as the head of state, fun facts for those living in the UK.
@@rabbitbobo4131 bruh. You really dont know anything about international relations. Countries in the commonwealth have already abolished the monarchy, yet they remained in the commonwealth
@@ferddoesweirdthingsinlife1040 no I'm from a commonwealth realm, while there are some like India which abolished the monarchy, they are 15 of us who still recognize Lizzie as our queen, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Papa New Guinea, almost all of the countries in the Lesser Antilles and Belize.
@@neko_3851 I meant that there are some countries who are still in the commonwealth, but also have abolished the monarchy and turned into a republic. I didnt mean all of them. I’m from a commonwealth country as well
@@ferddoesweirdthingsinlife1040 ohh okay, was wondering.
I disagree with removing the Queen,we found a cure of immortality.
Maybe Madge could be replaced with an Animatronic that can sit in a car and wave; and that can be wheeled out to cut ribbons. That way we need never have another royal funeral or coronation. When it comes to the Royal Prerogative; that could be replaced with a Magical 8-Ball.
just need to work out how to get it out of her
Made my day!
😂😂
The cure for immortality is always death. I am sure most if us would prefer a little more life.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Absolutely
Hopw? Monarchy means you get more money than you lose
@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 The queen (and monarchies in general) no longer serve any purpose other than as glorified ornaments and the fact taxpayers still have to fund them makes no sense in a world who evolved past the monarchy era.
@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 And how are we getting money back exactly?
@@SpartanJoe193 The taxpayer funds them because of the deal they made with the government, "You can take the revenue from our assets and you can pay us a set salary".
Guess what? The government accepted.
Why? Because the government receive much more then they give the royal family.
So is the taxpayer actually paying for the royal family? No, because they are basically paying themselves while donating more.
So let me ask you this question: What reason do you have for dissolving the monarchy other then your political views?
That's assuming the royals would keep the Crown Estate if the monarchy was abolished. Really that land belongs to the British public.
They don't really own crown estates either:
"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."
So probably after abolishment it would find it's way to the state coffers anyway.
Imagine the uk getting rid of the queen before canada
I wonder what'll they do?...
That would interesting. Maybe they'll become the Canadian royals.
@@sageaps they already are, but it would be interesting if that became their main title. Considering how much work it would be to go republican in Canada, I don’t think that will happen any time soon.
@@Shocked-Face I know they already are. I just thought it would be interesting if that became their main title.
@@Shocked-Face another interesting thing is that we're a kingdom in all but name. If they moved here full-time, would we officially call ourselves a kingdom? Or stay as we are?
But what you're missing is that the Royal Estate is land owned by the Sovereign not by Elizabeth Windsor as a person. If sovereignty moves from Elizabeth Windsor to the Republic of Great Britain and Northern Ireland those assets move to the Republic as they are now the Sovereign.
The British Republic sounds shit though
Untrue. The power over these things gets handed over to the government via the Monarch at the beginning of their tenure however a change to the negotiation on behalf of the government (or indeed the Royalty) will alter the terms of the deal and will put that stuff back in the hands of the Windsor family until it is renegotiated.
The state can just take it back.
@@KarlMarshall
Ooh, that's a "Yikes" moment if I ever saw one.
@@jamesoakley4570 perhaps federation?
I don't care if they think they own land which was acquired by force and subjection. Likewise it can be applied to them. Try to protest about it, see what happens to you.
Most of the Crown estates were stolen, such as from the dissolution of the monasteries, does this mean that the Crown would have to compensate the church or return stolen property? Ireland is a prime example of stolen land by the crown from the indigenous population.
@John Smith The Church still exists but who in their right mind would want to take on the maintenance of Canterbury Cathedral etc. The population of Ireland is homogeneous many would be able to trace their families back generations, very different in England. Interesting if reparations are ever paid for the slave trade by U.K. government. Only a hypothetical thought
@John Smith Tell that to BLM
There's no reason to allow the royals to keep their estate after abolishing the monarchy.
So who is the rightfull owner of all that equity then?
Aha, so you want live in mansion you didnt build. Now, I am starting to understand all those "republican" arguments.
@@1987jaffa the state, who can either keep it and all of its economic rent or sell it off to the highest bidder depending on their whims. Would serve the public good better than having royals waste it all.
@@evilsorosfundedgovernments433 so now the government can take anyone's property and land if they want.
@@Zachary_McLaren The state has the power to do that anyways.
The Crown Estate would ideally be confiscated too. If you're thinking "you can't do that, that's their private property", then:
1) no it isn't. It's not the monarch's personal property, it's a separate legal entity. Look it up.
2) it wasn't acquired as personal property, it was forcefully taken by the state (chiefly during the Norman conquest).
This is like saying that if you depose a dictator (which the royals were), you cannot confiscate the lands he took, because it's still his.
Commie!!!
But the queen itself is a literal tourist attraction, as well as her guards and does give the UK semblance of prestige with its world-famous and tourist-attracting monarch.
@@whydontiagreewithyou4985 The Queen is dead.
@@whydontiagreewithyou4985 If the monarchy is abolished, there'd be more palaces to be made open to tourists.
The same paper that allows the uk goverment to benefit from the property says that it is royal land.
NO, they are not.
I think that in a debate mostly based on economics (not politics or social tendencies) one of the key questions should also be what would a new public entity that takes the functions of the royal family (if the UK stopped being a monarchy) cost, of course there are functions you could just remove, but also there would be new functions/jobs (for example regulatory organs of this new institution). I think it would be interesting to know in such a scenario the aproximate value. Btw, I'm not from the UK.
their role is entirely ceremonial so whatever "functions" they perform could be done just as easily by actors or any random person on the street for that matter. And it wouldn't cost 92 million pounds a year.
I mean the president of Germany is mostly ceremonial and he only gets paid 333K Euros a year. That is way cheaper.
they can just tax them like the rest of the population.
@@IvarDaigon they are not just ceremonial. They also do diplomatic missions and fund many many charities and youth organisations
I am a naturalised British citizen, and I don't have particularly strong feelings on the subject, personally, I am neither into nor against royalty, but because it matters to so many people I am happy for it so long as it is not a burden, and as far as I can tell when everything is said and done there is a net positive outcome, so go royals, long live the king
As a foreigner this is the only response that to me just makes sense. People like to think that the Royal Family are a burden when in reality it is a net positive. Even if they were abolished I can still see their properties generating a lot of revenue for the state. So why would you want to go through the trouble of changing it up and getting rid of perhaps one of the most recognisable pieces of British History not to mention one of the most resilient symbols in European history. Where other European Royals faltered the UK's Royals survived. Bit of an oversight don't you think?
Edit: spelling error
You did a nice research. Interesting!!
Question : The EU pays all member states for agricultural land use.The states spread this as agricultural subsidies over the land users. As a EU member the Crown got a huge amount of EU money . In fact the Crown was the biggest EU subsidie receiver of the EU. Did this money go to the Royal household or was it too divided between State and the Royal hh. ??
Good question
Well, now the uks not part of the eu
The EU got a huge amount of money from the UK, so I guess nobody cares..
The royal estate generates profits because the lands are profitable per se, not because they are owned by the Crown. Those profits would still exist without a royal family.
Also, the argument that tourists visit the UK because of the royal family is quite risible (apparently Egypt copes just as well without pharaohs).
A head of state coming from inherited privilege is just not acceptable in this millennium, not to speak of the abomination that is the chamber of Lords...
“Major financial benefit”. Is it though? Why should they own hundreds of thousands of acres of land that a barely related person basically just claimed in medieval times?
It shouldn’t be theirs in the first place to give to profits of it to the state. Tenants on those lands have paid enough in rent to buy it many times over.
Does that same argument also apply to council houses and their tenants?
@@archiebald4717 I don’t recall council houses coming with land. Or any means of generating income. A council house is a basic home provided at low rent to sustain people’s lives. Last time I checked, nobody in a council house was collecting rent off tens of thousands of tenants.
So whatever point you’re attempting to make is lost in the facetious comparison.
@@Dreyno Council tenants pay rent to the owner of the property, even when the property is already old and its original costs have been covered by the rent already paid, Crown Estate tenants pay rent, whatever the age of the property. Exactly the same scenario. Rent and mortgage are two completely different things. Crown properties are owned by the State, council properties are owned by the State.
@@archiebald4717 Crown properties are owned by the crown. Their income is given to the state. They belong to the sovereign.
A council house is a bare bones housing unit. Not an inherited estate with an income of almost 2 billion pounds per annum.
And council houses were sold off en masse under the right to buy scheme. Crown land is not.
@@Dreyno The Crown is not the same as the Monarch. Renting a council house is exactly the same as renting a Crown Estate house, ie they are rented by tenants. They are both rented, that's how it works. You seem to be confused about what 'the Crown' means. Your point was that Crown properties have been paid for by tenants due to the long period of rental payment. A ridiculous point since renting a property is completely different to buying a property. The Crown Estates are not owned by the Monarch, but held in Trust and managed by a Commission. The Monarch receives 15% of the income to cover their official costs, 85% goes to the Exchequor.
Even tho I live in america and don't care at all what the uk waste their money on.. I gotta say that was a really high quality well done video. Good job to you and your team
The monarchy is stable respected, so even when general elections produce idiots as prime minister's, the stability remains like a security blanket. A president would cost more and as USA proved with Trump upset the stability. Yes the royals like others are rich but a small benefit when you are living in a bubble watched all the time and lose any privacy like a normal person. I am grateful to them all for accepting that life style, except for Harry of course.
@@pauledwards4333 it wasn't so much the president but the media is vicious here. Literally nothing could happen and they will make up anything to get views.
They want drama because drama=views=money.
The Royal Family is just another TOURIST ATTRACTION for England and should be valued in that manner. AS a result, the fact is the tourism that the royals generate is FAR greater than the amount spent to support the Monarchy and therefore is NOT a waste of money.
If we did get rid of the monarchy it would also be sensible to reclaim the land in the crown estate. The land the royals have inherited is just as important as the title.
Exactly. There's nothing saying parliament can't just nationalise the crown estate.
That would require an illegal french style revolution.
@@alecneate76 why? Parliament could just pass a law nationalising it.
@Trevor B the royal's ancestors gained that land through war and do you seriously think its reasonable to claim half the UKs foreshore as your own personal property.
@Trevor B It's actually state land, because the crown is the state. That's how monarchies work. If they abolished the monarchy, the land should all become publicly owned as it was always owned by the government, and is now. The crown is not a private entity.
If the monarchy is so popular, how about a referendum?
Thanks for answering this, I always wondered if there was some numbers we could find about what they bring vs the cost
There is a cost to human life and the lives they've ruined also
Screw both pepsi and coke, Almdudler is the way to go.
Wenn de kan Oimdudla haum, geh' i wieda ham! 😉
Agree!! Viele Yodeln aus Italien
Spotted the austrian
It's a priceless brand!
Agreed
Well, as a foreign that used to live in the UK, I can tell you that I thought that the Royal family was mostly an expense, but a relatively low cost expense was bringing something unique to the country... a special identity. Because let's be honest, other European countries (Spain, Denmark) have a monarchy, but the British one is seen worldwide as "the" monarchy.
However, in the sense of being just an expense, it is safe to understand why there would be people from the general public annoyed by it. Why should we spend money to spoil a bunch of people?
The knowledge that in overall they effectively bring more money than loss (and this based on tangible income), made me have a complete view of the British monarchy, being tempted to say that abolishing it just because you don't like the royals makes almost as much sense as brexit. It is just shooting yourself in the foot again with no good apparent good reason.
Thank you for such a clarifying video.
If aint broken do not fix it.
Add to that the requirement of the parlimentary system to have a separate head of state, we would either have to rebuild our governing system or have an elected head of state (usually a president) and elections cost serious money. Also there wouldn't likely be much of a saving on security or travel expenses. Given the average politician's desire to put everything, including the kitchen sink, on expenses it might even cost more!
That the monarchy brings in more money than loss to the taxpayer is basically just their PR. They want you to believe it as this makes them at least somewhat relevant in today's democracy.
So there's two ways monarchy brings in money right - the land/property they own + tourism. If the monarchy should be abolished tomorrow, how exactly would these lands stop making money? Land is land and properties are properties, they will exist, be taxed and utilized regardless of their current owners. And the tourism argument is just silly, there is a lot going on in the UK. People don't travel there just because a palace has official royals in it.
@@cosmicsounding the lands would not stop generating money... but the money generated by it would no longer go to the state, it would go to the land owners. Gains would be taxed sure, but according to TLDR the nett gain of it could be potentialy a lot less than by just the crown waiving its rights to the state
@@cosmicsounding just to continue on the last topic... before abolishing anyhing that is kind of working, be sure that you really understand all the angles. It is not like the uk can afford another brexity situation right now
Nonsense. "Their land" is not their land to start with. The same goes with the so called tangibles. This family was and is simply a group of people who live from the taxes of others. And clearly. Its an insult to anyone who is a democrat. Absolutely and utterly disgusting to justify a bunch of people living with extra benefits just because they were born. No elections, no work, no merit. Makes me sick, particulaly when i see the face of young children who had different opportunities in life just because they were not born in that given family. Sick.
If we abolished the monarchy it would be pretty easy to also revoke crown lands and run them nationally.
I think generally this sets a bad president for wealth seizure and would damage confidence in the UK.
Ain't happening mate. No longer the guillotine time it's now the rule of law. Property belongs to them.
It's a "Yikes" from me, fam.
@@ThelostPenguin0 No it doesn't. It belongs to "The Crown" which is a part of the state. The head of the Windsor family currently administers the lands owned by "The Crown" but they do NOT personally own it. If the Windsor family has their position as the royal family revoked "The Crown" would be integrated into the state.
You wouldn't say if we got rid of the prime minister he gets to keep the land owned by the state ffs.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 No you are wrong, the crown does not belong to the state. Don't spread misinformation.
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners).
It's basically a independent organisation. If you dissolve the monarch (Not sure that is even possible, since there are other countries that are under the british monarchy it will be for sure a big mess.) Even at disbanding the monarch it will just not revert to the state. Worst case scenerio it will become a independent organisation. Still not belonging to the state.
That’s bollox the land they own could be siezed in the name of the republic and the profit from it would be maintained anyway without having to finance the biggest benefit scroungers in Britain
Lol, right? American here, almost every time the British were forced out of a colonial territory the land they once held was redistributed. Besides they stole most of it from the Church anyway.
That's what we (italians) did.
You missed the fact that most of the revenue those lands generate is precisely because they are related to nobility, and, like any other citizen, they have rights Ofer their own property. It is very likely that you do not own a house, but, if you did, would you want it taken away from you?
@@AlejandroGonzalez-rw9kt Yeah a german here. Our former Kaiser family first fled with trains full of stuff made by the german people. They also kept their land and property even though they denied democracy and when the Nazis came to Power our monarch and his fellows pacted with them in hope of restoring their Power. After the GDR had fallen they even claimed the land the soviets conviscated and there is a legal Dispute if they now get the castles in the east which the state repaired for much Money.
It is just sad that they got to keep so much and even be greedy.
@@romitkumar6272
In my country (Italy) when we abolished the monarchy we seized everything.
It was the possession of the king... no king, no possessions.
In France they cut their heads.
I mean, I don't see any problem if a country takes back what a country owns.
On the other hand, I don't see that coming in UK.
THere are too many people in UK who accept to be second class human beings with inferior rights due to bloodline.
They'll grow out of it, with time, but not soon.
What an amazing insightful and we'll researched video! As a Brit I've been wondering so much about this for years!
Thanks!
i think i’m 2023 with the queen now passed and nobody in britain will be able to live on a regular wage before long, turn buckingham palace into either a huge spoons or big tesco 👍
It wasn't last week's interview that changed my opinion, it was Andrew's.
So why should an innocent man change your views? Please do explain I am all ears.
@@1chish need laugh react.
@@avancalledrupert5130 These people are just trolling. When you ask them for facts they are gone like a fart in the wind...
@@1chish you mean...how he is involved in a sex scandal and is accused of raping young girls? To the point the Royal Family had to hide him, even during his own daughter's wedding? Either you live under a rock or you are the actual troll.
@@Dianuxkasfenix Oh spare me the 'you must be' presumptions. It makes you look even more dumb than the rest of your comment makes you.
Andrew is NOT involved in a sex scandal. Your first lie.
Neither is he accused by anyone of 'raping young girls'. Your second lie.
The Royal Family have not 'hidden him' either. He voluntarily withdrew from public duties after he apologised on air for maintaining contact with Epstein after his first jail term ended. He didn't hide it and apologised for a bad error of judgment. Your third lie.
He chose not to attend his daughter's wedding (publicly) to avoid the press spoiling her day. He was there but out of sight. Your fourth lie.
So 'Randomly Di' you peddle utter lies for some reason only known to yourself. You have neither facts nor sources. You are, in short, an idiot Trolling in the most disgusting way. Meghan would be proud of her little disciple.
I always find comparisons with Versailles hilarious. Versailles has more visits precisely for the reason France has no monarchy. Its splendour is outrageous. Its an infinitely superior palace. So much money was spent on it.
Are you suggesting that Buckingham palace is furnished like a council house?
@@DjDolHaus86 No but it also doesn't have a giant hall of mirrors!
Perhaps the French beat English on decadence
I work in central London, and I can tell you that from an economic and identity standpoint the royal family is NOT a waste of money in any shape or form. Before covid, the Mall is completely surrounded by tourist of all ethnic persuasion. Summer time you can hardly get through. Because of the royals identify, and image. There is wonder and gravitas that brings tourists with fat wallets across the world to come and spend a large amount in central London, and bollster the economy.
They generate far more income than they cost. For that I have no doubt.
Thank you. I like it when people use feelings, assumptions and anecdotal evidence rather than facts. It's why I like how hard the monarchy tries to hide how wealthy they are. Information like that would just get in the way.
There's also the argument that they help diplomacy, sending a senior royal to a country can help our bargaining power.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 sometimes when you're working within a situation your eyes tells you how things go.
Just like a shop you see everyday with noone going in. You know very well it will soon go out of business.
Just like I know from walking across so many areas and seeing soo many closed or closing businesses that covid and lockdown is going to have a long and impactful dent in many industries especially traditional retail.
A brain and eyes tells you the truth without the stats
Thomas Eze brain and eyes only tell you a part of the story, go past a night club during the day and you could think it's going under, there's a reason why eye witness are one of the least reliable forms of evidence.
@@geoffmcclelland2663 the brain is there to rationalize the factor that a night club would probably not be trading in the daytime, not the best analogy to use there.... Eye witnesses btw are strong aspects of evidence, as long as they are credible. Circumstancial evidence is the least reliable....
So having your face printed on the national bill, all war ships named in your honor, all the key generals of the army are “lord” , therefore they pledge allegiance to you(not to the state), even the PM asks for you advice,well you can say that you are actually ruling the state from shadows.
> This rich family would just take their land back
I believe the French had a workaround for this...
That being the guillotine. I hope you're not serious.
Well. Lets not use that method 😂😂😂
Jokes aside. The last french monarch abdicated in 1848. He wasn't killed.
I find the discussion about letting the royals keep their estate in the UK kind of funny. Nearly all other countries that abolished their monarchies simply had the state just ceize all of the monarch's property.
But compared to those Monarchs who were tyrants, the British monarchy did nothing wrong.
I wonder if they think the UK will be a great place to invest in when the just robbed a huge amount of private assets just because it was part of their ideology
Can't really say you live in a civilised democracy if you can just seize anyone's land that they legally own when they have done nothing wrong. Regardless if you like/dislike the royal family.
@@MightyMarsh That's not true. The Crown Estate isn't the Queen's property, it's the Crown's property, and the Crown is inseparable from the State. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it for a second.
@@ArturoSubutex - exactly. I find it deeply frustrating and offensive to learn that the monarch owns the British seabed and foreshore. This should be state owned public territory fair and square.
@@ArturoSubutex True, but the Queen also owns properties and estates privately. Sandringham is an example.
Britain can do what it wants, but it doesn't make sense for Canada to have a foreign head of state. When Liz II is done, Canada should be done with the monarchy.
Foreign? *Foreign??*
@@oliver8928 I stand by my words.
@@vincenthaegebaert1854 The Queen of Canada, a direct descendant the first King of Canada, is foreign to Canada? Elizabeth II may reside mostly in Britain but she is as much the monarch of Britain as she is the monarch of Canada..
@@oliver8928 It does not change the fact that Canada and Britain are different countries, and as such, it does not make sense for us to have another countries Queen as our head of state. It's not like Liz II also being queen of Scotland, Scotland is part of the UK, Canada is a totally different nation.
@@vincenthaegebaert1854 She is Queen of the Commonwealth Realm first not one state, and of the nations of said realm second and equally. It sounds like a small technicality but it really isn't - the only reason she resides in Britain is it is the most capable of supporting her - she could take residence in any one of the independent and equal nations.
As a citizen of a country which is republic and hasnt had any kind of monarchy for houndreds of years, i think british should keep monarchy, its cool to have the queen and by now its so deeply rooted into their culture and how others look at them that it makes no sense to get rid of them
Let's spin this with a different question:
How many tourists does France get per year despite not having a monarchy?
yea but ours would go down even further without it
@@dl4350 there's absolutely no grounds for this claim
people go to france for wine, art, food, and romance, for the uk honestly the monarchy is one of the top 3 reasons, the first time i went to the uk it was probably my major factor for tourism.
@@vincentfrimpong4665 Here are most of the major London tourist attractions you could do in a one day walk.
Start at Westminster station. London Eye is across river; Parliament, Big Ben and Westminster Abbey are across road. Walk through St James Park to Buckingham Palace. Up the Mall to Trafalgar Square. Along Haymarket to Piccadilly Circus. Through Leicester Square to Covent Garden. Down to the Strand. That is a morning's walk.
Take a double-decker bus to St Paul's. Across the Millennium Bridge to Tate Modern and Globe Theatre. Walk along South Bank or take tube from Blackfriars. Go to Tower Bridge and Tower of London.
That covers just about anything a tourist wants to see. Inly one has a real connection to the modern monarchy.
Lets spin this with a different question:
Would France get more tourists per year because its much larger, has a warm southern coast as well as a cosmopolitan capital city?
This did change my mind tbh. I was leaning towards getting rid of them but now I’m leaning towards keeping them
Bootlicker
It's wrong in places. For instance, the Crown Estate isn't owned by the Royal family. Whoever is the monarch if the monarchy is abolished couldn't "take it back" as it's not their private property but owned by the UK. Same with the crown jewels, etc.
The crown estates have gone centuries without any sort of inheritance tax, because they are distinct from most private property, there is no reason why the royal family would be allowed to keep, whole counties and half of all British beaches. That's absurd, and it's annoying that media when bringing the crown estates, never brings up the possibility of making the land publicly owned; Which is in fact more than likely what would happen.
@@fenton3137 Yeah but how would that actually work, for example allot of those areas are the offshore wind farms and similar things that are company run under the banner of the crown, so if your not just saying the royals arn't heads of state but that they can't even own businesses what happens to the tens of thousands of people currently working for them, are they unemployed? Are they now government contractors like the NHS? Or is "the crown" shattered into a thousand smaller "crown businesses" that are all independent but royal family members still probably have allot of shares in unless your saying their not allowed shares either.
@@jimpickins7900 The assets of the Crown would become assets of the Republic, thus the employees of those enterprises would become government contractors as opposed to Employees of the Crown. I really do not mourn the fact the Royals would loose most of "their" immense wealth, they would still be very well off and would be able to live in relatively luxury, undoubtedly.
Of course keep the monarchy, who would you replace it with? A president? Germany has a president and if you're not german, you probably never heard of him. In Slovakia, there are full-blown elections for a useless man in politics. Queen / King of England is a figurehead for everyone, not just for half of the population. It's definitely better to keep a monarch if you have one.
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
"figurehead for everyone" that is simply untrue.
Why would abolishing the monarchy require you to have a president?
Just keep the commons, and ditch the royalty and nobility.
@@Falcrist And who would be the head of a state? Johnson? There's a thing called separation of powers, every country has a head of a state. If you appoint the prime minister or a member of some party to serve the role, there would already be discontent from much of the population and a party preference, only other option would be to have a non party representative a.k.a. the president or some other title that would serve the same role
There is a very good reason you've never heard of the president of Germany, if you look into what happened to and around President Hindenburg you might understand why the presidency of Germany is what it is today. Believe me, they've tried a different route before and, oh boy, did it go wrong!
The simple answer I feel is yes. They offer nothing to me personally, so why should I pay for them?
It should be an opt-in and out.
No the answer is no. They bring in lots of money via tourism and create charity’s and attend national holidays such as st David’s day. It only costs us £1.40.
Monarchs make your taxes cheaper
I always find it interesting that people talk about the value of the royal estate as though we would abolish the monarchy and just let them keep all their land
it is still legally there land and stealing it would open up a lot of issues
@@runecrafter1198 sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm talking about the crown estates which belong to the monarch representing the crown. Either way you're right in that it's going to be messy and create problems. I just think the benefits of abolishen outway the costs
@@S0uti3 yeah i assumed that’s what you meant but the whole stealing things that has been in a family for hundreds of years creates far too many questions and fucks up the whole re brands the uk is trying to go through
@@runecrafter1198 But that land is owned by the crown, not the royal family. It is passed from monarch to monarch, not family member to family member. If the monarchy were abolished the Windsors would have no right to that land, hence it would not be stealing
@@runecrafter1198 unlike the family stealing it and keeping it for hundreds of years?
They give us tourism income and are key to our diplomacy (E.g. Commonwealth). They also provide us some nice culture, it would be boring if every democracy was a Republic. Americans pay more for their president and his family then we do for our Royal family.
Our Royals pay us!
Very well said 👍
The tourism argument is rediculous, all you have to do is look at the country which benefits more from tourism than any other - France. Now I don't know how much history people are aware of but most people do know that France once had a monarchy and now it does not. Did everyone suddenly lose interest in all the grand palaces and castles and history when the monarchy was abolished? Or does it make no difference whatsoever if there is actually a family using those things or not? I'd argue you could turn many royal assets into museums and gallerys and make even more money than we currently do.
And on the crownlands, we could just take it from them. Like one family should not be able to negotiate from a position of power with the British government. But I suppose that is too radical for many people.
I agree. However we live in a society run by the rule of law and as such saying just take it from them grossly over simplifies the procecss.
@@jamesn0va it's not just their private property though, they hold it on behalf of the crown, the institution we are talking about abolishing. We don't have to let them keep everything.
Yeah, there is a world of difference between saying, "We don't have royals anymore, but they get to keep their castles and lands and power." And saying "'Yeet the royals and nobles, their castles and lands are to be considered a public utility and belong to the people, they don't get to take those with them."
And likewise, the economic argument ends up going from, "We'll lose access to their lands and castles, and therefore might suffer economically" to "It is our lands and castles and we can gain ALL the profit from them, and we can hold more of the castle open to the public for longer, and make it into a proper museum. Everyone (except the royals) win"
@Britboy 94 few go to France? Irrelevant palaces? Tell that to the several millions of people who visit Versailles on any normal year, compared to Buckingham not even breaking one million.
MM is a waste of money.
Short answer: yes, slightly longer anser: yes, they absolutely are
I think we should stop talking about the subject on a economic way, and talk about it in a political, moral, cultural, legal and perspective way.
In which I would support the monarchy lol, I feel like historically it's astounding that the monarchy has survived through so many wars, countless years and many eras. Morally and legally I see no issue (from what I'm aware - it's not like I care that I'm not a royal just because I wasn't born into it) politically is interesting, but as the crown is impartial I don't think it plays much of a role, and I enjoy the old traditions such as the Queen opening parliament, it just adds that extra bit of intrigue!
@@flappetyflippers You support unelected descendants of feudal warlords interfering in politics in a completely unaccountable manner? Odd position, why not just abolish elections and cut out the middle man.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 they don’t actually have a say they are unable to make laws they’re literally there for historic purposes and I support them all the way idc if they take more than they put in I’d happily pay my taxes to them
@@alexcornish1173 good peasant.
@@Red1Green2Blue3 What a great argument to win people over to your side
As a Canadian, for all their warts, our status as a Constitutional Ceremonial Monarchy helps keeps some of our national distinctiveness living beside the US, a Constitutional Republic, largely without the expense of the British Crown itself.
You only pay once in four years (or five) when the Queen visits.
Do you have to pay taxes to the royals as well
@@louisdouble5961 Yes, you do.
@@kamanashiskar9203 wow nvr knew that thought it was just the uk 😅
Canadians do not pay one single cent towards the personal upkeep or palaces of The Queen or members of The Royal Family. Those costs are borne entirely by the British taxpayer. We only pay for any costs incurred by The Family when they are in Canada or when they represent Canada abroad in an official capacity. We also pay for representatives of the monarchy, such as The Governor General and provincial Lieutenant Governors. Total cost of the monarchy is $50 million (or about $1.63 per Canadian - less than a cup of coffee) per year.
Abolish monarchy, and seize back all the royal estates and property and stuff cause those were just poor people's land that these monarchs stole once upon a time by force. That's in history, go read it. All property owned by monarchs were once in a time stolen by force cause if you didn't give it, you would get killed.
And tourism will continue anyway. People come to see the palace not this old woman Elizabeth.
Think of the palace of Versailles which gets so many tourists although nobody is sleeping in the palace.
Isn’t the Crown Estate in reality the U.K’s land, not the monarch’s.....
Royal family is the British version of the Kardashians
What utter ignorance! Comparing our RF to the trashy Kardashians. So many comments by people who have little or no understanding of our UK heritage.
@@redset11 Agreed utter ignorance! The Royal family is nothing like the Kardashians. The RF makes most of its money off tax payers and has waaaay more scandals. Some even involving minors.
@@redset11😂😂😂😂
The question is (for me as a foreigner):
did the crown buy the land with their own money in the 11th-16th century or did they buy it with the taxpayer's money? When there was no difference between the country budget and crown budget at that time, the land should be owned by the government not the crown.
At some level there ought to be a conversation about generational wealth and property. Should land, seized in bloody conquest, now belong to the heirs of that crime for no other reason than their ancestry? Likewise for wealth and property earned in the opium trade, or the slave trade, or by criminal activity? What's the line between money earned with merit versus money earned by circumstance?
So long as we continue to allow generational wealth and property broadly, which is profoundly undemocratic, I'm actually okay with the royals because they at least have nominal commitments to public service in return for that wealth. They are still bound to some level of public good. The rest of the wealthy, by hook, crook, or merit, enjoy their wealth in relative privacy, with vast palaces far removed from public access and public eyes. They are a wealthy class removed from most direct ties of obligation to the public which bought their products and worked on their property. The Royals at least perpetuate an ideal that privileges come with attendant responsibilities.
Probably the ownership dates from feudalism where the king owned everyone. They probably gave land away and because of this some people have land today.
Pretty sure they conquered it. That's why they called him William "the Conqueror"
@@daniilfedotov8922 so that would mean, I invade another country, own it, and can sell it afterwards?
@@derorje2035 Yes. That's how wars work. From Julius Caesar to modern Syria it's been always like that.
Another HUGE advantage of the Monarchy is their agnosticism towards politics, something impossible by nature to achieve with a Republic. Trump will always be a republican, Obama will always be a democrat, and like so, defend the interests of their party. Not to mention the costs of a Republic that in the majority of the Republics pay not only the salary/personal security of the President but also of the former ones.
Even in countries where the power is with the Prime Minister, like many Republics, the President is usually a former prime minister / mayor from a party, so even if it tries to stay agnostic will always be subject to doubts.
We would make more money from tourism if tourists were allowed to visit many of the closed locations
@@curtiswhyte3297 deposed monarchs dont get to keep their land. Its part of being deposed and then either exiled or murdered.
@@alejandrotuazon4831 its 2021 not 1800s mate
@@Daniel-gs9eh sounds like those lot in the 1800's had the right idea. I mean it's not like they can complain if they're dead right?
@@guskohu2093 bit of a worrying statement
@@guskohu2093 why don't we just kill all the poor they won't complain afterwards
When I travelled to the UK, I visited Buckingham palace. But it was just something to check off the list of attractions.
I plan to visit the UK again, but it's really because of the extensive museum collections and history.
Same people that want to abolish the monarchy also want to empty the museums and collections... So dont misplace your support for them
nobody cares if the royals are in power or not, they just want to know the history and thats it. They dont need to be in power for that
@@Mi-ge9so True, the reason it's an attraction is because it is anachronistic in our modern world today.
Getting rid of the monarchy sorta screws up the name, United Kingdom.
Well the name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland....
I would visit the shit out of the United Republic
@@philipschloesser more likely to be England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. No United
@@Obi_boy Or any other partition of the four, true...
@@Obi_boy not for long
What bothers me the most about these people, is that they didn’t get there by merit, in other words they DID NOT EARN IT, THEY WERE BORN TO A CERTAIN MOTHER AND FATHER. They are not better than the rest of us, or more talented, or smarter. They were born to the same family that has ruled for over 1,000 years. Charles is a hipocrite, he tells the rest of us to fly commercial, while he uses private jets, a 95% increase in carbon footprint. Do you think that’s right? I like the expression “That Ain’t Right”.
Also if we got rid of them we’d have to write a whole new bunch of legislation on how the country is run, do you really want to trust the Torys with that?
Do you really think the royal family is stopping the conservatives from doing anything though? If the royal-family spoke up about politics they'd have half the royalists leave them or the other half. Conservatives like the royals because they stand for the inheritance of estates/wealth, privilege, and old-school (white) nationalism.
Labour's right-wing just go along with them because they know the plebs like seeing their landlords throw parties and wear dresses.
6:40' 'even if they haven't been home to royalty for 200 years' - and a head coming off, brilliant 😂
That's Louis XVI head, but the last monarch is Napoleon III 😂 but the years is correct
I like having a royal family in England dont want them to come to an end anytime soon.
@@basiltozer9078 loool😂😂😂
Imagine how much was wasted on that funeral, all fomr the piblic purse. Will they be paying my funeral when i die? No. IMagine what could have been achieved with all that money. The Monarchy is def a net loss. De throne them all NOW
The crown estate argument as presented here seems tendentious. It's essentially saying, "The UK wouldn't save any money by becoming a republic... assuming the royals continued to receive the benefits of being royals and were freed of any of the obligations of being royals."
I would still vote for a republic even if they kept the crown estate TLDR are right it's a political issue not an economic one, Like Brexit.
We would still vote to keep the Queen and the monarchy. They're beyond politics and help the stability of the economy.
The problem is that Royalists like the royal family and want to maintain the status quo and the republicans want the opposite.
But the republicans don't realise that what they're asking for is definately going to hurt the country and the huge amount of people who are neutral definately don't like that.
@@anneyyyyy8025 The clearly aren't though, if you remove royal prerogative and assent then I would agree
@@olsenfernandes3634 you could say the same thing about brexit, but look where we are now
Including the crown estates is pretty erroneous tbh; these estates would almost certainly be largely seized and either nationalised or sold off on the event of the royal family being abolished
You can’t nationalise a private citizens land. Imagine the precedent of ‘the government can freely take your land’, it could cause damage and breaks private property laws and even human rights to personal property... so good luck with that strategy
The Crown is not an individual. It’s a government entity.
@@callumbanthorpe523 the land isn't n privately owned, it's owned by the head of state, any republicanisation is going to inherently be a negotiation with the newly private citizen about how much state assets they will retain ownership of, it also doesn't set any sort of relevant precedence because they will be the last monarch, there's no other situation where that's likely to apply short of re-establishing a monarchy then disbanding it again
@@me6664 taking land from a private citizen because the government thinks its theirs sets a precedent. You said they were private citizens so them being ‘the last monarch’ is irrelevant
@@callumbanthorpe523 there is a real debate over whether the CE belongs to the Queen or the Crown, which aren't the same thing. In reality, if we ever became a Republic, then the estate would end up being split.
There's another aspect that is money related. The Crown has exercised its powers in legislature time and again to protect it's wealth from scrutiny. We have no real idea how much they are avoiding in their 'taxable' contributions because they have bullied (with the royal assent protocol) governments to keep their income/assets hidden. Also from their own website: "The Crown Estate is though owned by the Monarch in right of the Crown. This means that the Queen owns it *by virtue of holding the position of reigning Monarch, for as long as she is on the throne,* as will her successor." The lands really belong to the crown (and thus the country) not to whoever's pale buttocks sit upon the throne. They are Crown Estates not Windsor Estates.
Yeah I was a taken aback when they said we'd hand over the crown estate if we got rid of the monarchy. TLDR news seem to have rather fudged or misunderstood this point!
Long live the Queen
To be fair, the queen doesn’t really need to pay tax. After all, her ancestors literally found the kingdom of England and Scotland and conquered other tow,However, in order to be more contributive to the kingdom, she voluntarily pays her tax.
@@georgemaxon4309 You are right she does voluntarily pay (a portion) of her tax but I'd argue 'Elizabeth Windsor' and 'The Queen' are two very distinct and different bodies in this regard. The Crown and it's holdings belong to the country and thus enjoy tax exemption (but should also be fully disclosed). Anything belonging to the Windsor family that is personal and not state related should be taxed by law like all other personal assets.
The Queen’s ancestors did not found England and Scotland. That was (arguably) the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, or perhaps more recently William the Conqueror, depending on your definition of England and/or Scotland. If you mean Great Britain, that would be the House of Stuart.
The Monarchy and the Royal Family are two different things. Only four members are really relevant to the Constitution - those likely to come to the throne. Security would have to be provided to any head of state, so is not a differentiating factor. The tourist money/fashion thing is constitutionally irrelevant. The chances of me being the next King are non existent. The chances of me being the first President of the UK are one in 67 million. The odds don't seem significantly better, so why rock the boat? If it ain't broke, which it isn't yet, there is nothing to fix. At the moment I am a Pragmatic Monarchist. If matters change, I might think differently, but we are nowhere near that point yet, and may never be in my lifetime.
Imagine if the "firm" gets itself listed on the LSE
Wait if you'd abolish the monarchy what says you'd also have to give them 'their' lands? Stupid question maybe, but why not go all the way and just keep the historical buildings, lands, stop paying their expenses, and they can keep whatever's left?
@@gratitude6573 My assets weren't funded by generations of tax payers. At that point those buildings belong to the public in my eyes. The people living in them have, or should have, no political power or role outside of symbolic uses or nostalgia.
Well it would violate all property rights laws. It belongs to the ruling monarch
The economic argument is unimportant compared to the political / constitutional one.
The head of state, and heir, getting laws changed to benefit their family is corruption pure and simple.
What is the point of having a head of state who does whatever the prime minister of the day tells them to?
Almoast every democratic country has a head of state that is almoast powerless and with a more powerful prime minister. Only in the USA does the president have almoast full power and look how Trump ruled as president. Be glad that you have a head of state that has so much respect and knowledge on how to be head of state. God save the queen.
@@herculepoirot4488 there's a big difference between having limited powers and signing off on the government's illegal actions which the queen did when she agreed to prologue Parliament in 2019.
@@yellit1975 You do realise that if the queen would not support her Parliment, she would create a masive wave of distrust to the Parliment from the people. She supported the Parliment in the hardest of times when leaving the EU.
@@herculepoirot4488 True but the queen agreeing to the government’s illegal action was actually working against the interests of parliament and the British people.
@@yellit1975 I am sorry i donť realy remember what was the Parliments illegal action. I am not british, but i watch british politics. In 2019 i didnť watch them as much so i donť know what illegal action it was. Anyway there's always something illegal going on in every Parliment.
All the revenues are for Royal not for people of UK .so Royals are true benefits of the money.
Wrong with the exception of the duchy of cornwall all revenues are paid to the exchequer and those revenue's are worth a considerable amount more then is given through the civil list.
Brits only pay the monarchy pennies compare to our Thai king over here.
And anyone who criticize are jailed or dead.
@@govb123 You used a VPN, right?
People complain about our monarchy, this is not how you run a monarchy.
People talk about how old fashioned having royalty is and why the UK should be abolished. We aren't the only country in the world that still has it. Whether it be a King or Emperor there is still quite a few out there.
The royal family is one of the key parts of British soft power.
What soft power do they exude? Maybe some over Canada, Australia and wherever they are still ceremonial head of state
@@arthas7 much of the American population likes the royal family which secures their soft power with the british people> you also have the commonwealth which was developed by the royal family and still facilitates relationships with many former colonies. This is to say nothing of India being one of the most Angelofile nations on the planet.
@@luis06211986 on the last point, that era has long gone. The only thing on any Indian mind is to get the kohinoor back 😂
@@arthas7 lol true.
It's not the cost, it is the principle of paying someone to make them feel superior to you.
they are tho
Miss Meghan and american media show us every day, that the cost of paying actual royals is worth every penny and more.
Btw. you can keep Mr. Macrón for free.
The RF are and do not act superior especially when you stay comparing to leaders in other countries and even celebrities
@@OkurkaBinLadin you can convince yourself that having hereditary jobs is fair and morally right
@@intimedal based on your evaluations
does anyone else love the duality of republicans in this comment section of disliking how the monarchy got the land through their wealth and military might yet when someone brings up their land ownership they suddenly become staunch libertarians.
Me thinks alot of people who don't like the monarchy just don't like the rich.
(no im not a monarchist, put the pitchforks away. I just love the hypocrisy people show in "one set of rules for thee another for mee" opinions)