Morrissey and Lady Diana

[Kewpie]

"She had to do it"
Then why aren't the other Royals known all over the world for their charity work? If they had to do it, they would do it.

All the members of Royal family DO charity work, but Diana got the most attention from the media and the public.

 

[2-J]

Who knows what many people might do if

1) they didn't have to worry about a job, and even had ample staff to cater for their administrative and childcare needs. And also didn't even really have the possibility of pursuing her own business interests.

2) they had the public profile, thanks to their position (here: most prominent princess in the UK, hence worldwide) (and maybe even the good looks?) to raise huge awareness by doing various things.

Diana did more than many but, it doesn't hurt not to lose sight that she was in a very special position.

 

[Jones]

"She had to do it"
Then why aren't the other Royals known all over the world for their charity work? If they had to do it, they would do it.

They all do. Most of them are patrons of over a hundred charities. It's useful for fending off criticism. Whenever anyone slags off Prince Charles, his supporters always point to "his sterling charity work". Once they've left the army there's nothing else to do.

 

[Worm]

How much do British citizens pay to the royal family every year? What percentage of your taxes go to subsidizing the royal family?

 

[Kewpie]

How much do British citizens pay to the royal family every year? What percentage of your taxes go to subsidizing the royal family?

I found following information from wikipedia:


Monies to support the Queen, as head of state of the United Kingdom, in the exercise of her duties (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the Monarch to Parliament at the beginning of each reign, all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament. In the 2003-04 fiscal year, the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, where the Head of State Expenditure was £36 million. The Head of State Expenditure does not include the cost of security.

Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year.

Only some members of the Royal Family carry out public duties; these individuals receive an annual payment known as a Parliamentary Annuity, the funds being supplied to cover office costs.

The Duke of York: £249,000 per annum
The Earl of Wessex: £141,000 per annum
The Princess Royal: £228,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester: £175,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Kent: £236,000 per annum
Princess Alexandra £225,000 per annum
These amounts are repaid by The Queen from her private funds.

 

[Worm]

Thanks Kewpie!

I was more interested in the tax burden to the common citizen. I did some Googling too and didn't get very far. One page said each citizen pays an average of about 60p a year, but surely that can't be correct. (Or can it?)

I've wondered about this for years, ever since Morrissey explained that part of his hatred of the royal family came from having to pay them money.

 

[2-J]

That's not necessarily the full story though; to the extent that e.g. Prince Charles maintains himself through his Duchy of Cornwall lands, there is the question as to whether these, though privately owned in law as the law currently stands, should be considered state property. If the monarchy was abolished, I think there might be a case for giving each member one estate each, and nationalising the rest of their assets.

 

[Worm]

Ah! The New York Times says as recently as two days ago that the average cost to each British taxpayer is 62p.

This is very surprising. I had thought it was much more, based on the amount of anger heaped on the royal family, particularly by Morrissey ("Over the years I've had to devote so much money to the royal family-- by law, otherwise I have to go to prison-- and I don't see why, I don't like these people, they're silly").

 

[2-J]

Ah! The New York Times says as recently as two days ago that the average cost to each British taxpayer is 62p.

This is very surprising. I had thought it was much more, based on the amount of anger heaped on the royal family, particularly by Morrissey ("Over the years I've had to devote so much money to the royal family-- by law, otherwise I have to go to prison-- and I don't see why, I don't like these people, they're silly").

Well as I said, the 62p isn't the full story. There's a good argument that many of the family's 'privately owned' assets could be considered state property.

Secondly, it's not the case that the only objection to the monarchy is that they cost money to the taxpayer.

 

[Worm]

Well as I said, the 62p isn't the full story. There's a good argument that many of the family's 'privately owned' assets could be considered state property.

I see. Of course, an additional angle to the story is that the monarchy probably generates some revenue for the country from tourism, too. Not that this balances everything out but maybe it offsets some of the cost.

Secondly, it's not the case that the only objection to the monarchy is that they cost money to the taxpayer.

Oh, yes, I've heard some of the other objections. Again, mainly articulated by Morrissey. I suppose I'm a little baffled by the anger toward people who don't seem to cost that much to maintain, are born into a situation they can't control that basically dictates how they act (according to a few people in this thread, anyway), and have no real political power. I mean, I never liked Diana either, but it's hard to see why she'd generate so much ill will from some people.

I strongly suspect it's just something I'll never understand, being American, but any light you can shed on this would be appreciated.

 

[2-J]

The practical reality is that they no longer have any political power, so there cannot be much objection to them on strictly democratic grounds (if the Queen ever refused to sign some bill or other nowadays, as far as I'm concerned they should have her head on a block at Tower Hill).

Still, the Queen is our head of state and she and the family are thus put forwards are 'representing' the British people, or at least conducting some actions on our part, as she performs her official duties. It does not bother me a great deal but I do wish the role would fall to a representative who was somehow elected.

Secondly, the titles they 'enjoy', along with the nobility, are (wihle the system itself is basically dismantled in practice) still symbolic of old hierachical times. Which in practice has no place in the modern world, so even the titles and all that go with them are a bit of an anachronism; it would take balls to do away with it, and it's mildly troubling that we muddle through with this sort of compromise.

 

[Worm]

Thanks for the nice response.

Still, the Queen is our head of state and she and the family are thus put forwards are 'representing' the British people, or at least conducting some actions on our part, as she performs her official duties. It does not bother me a great deal but I do wish the role would fall to a representative who was somehow elected.

I think we have something in common, because I feel exactly the same concerns about my head of state.

Rest assured Mr. Brown and his predecessors get full credit for their stewardship of your country.

P.S. I'm surprised no one has mentioned the recent rumors about Diana's designs on the White House. Slate's Mickey Kaus reports:

"Tina Brown's new Diana Chronicles contains this passage, supporting reports that Princess Di was thinking of marrying U.S. tycoon Ted Forstmann as part of a possible presidential ticket:

Diana built an escape fantasy around Forstmann for a time. "It's a true story," he told me, "that Diana had the idea that we should get married, that I should run for president and she would be First Lady.""

 

[Kewpie]

In Japan we also have a monachy, I despise the system.
The monach is often used by disgusting nationalists who manipulate some social outcasts and misfits, mislead and convince them that they're superior than others.
Japanese Army used Monach to convince the public and started the war.
I wish Monachy was abolished after the WWII.

 

[Cassius]

I always make this comment about Bono, too:

If Princess Diana was the worst, most egregious hypocrite who ever lived; if 99% of her charity work was a sham; if she was not only a phony activist but privately a thickheaded racist; if she never did or said anything of interest to anyone on the planet; and yet, despite all this, if one of her organizations somehow slipped up and rescued five children in Africa who lived full lives because of her involvement, no matter how superficial-- in that case wouldn't she have lived a worthy life?

That's a good point.

 

[Hellie]

They all do. Most of them are patrons of over a hundred charities. It's useful for fending off criticism. Whenever anyone slags off Prince Charles, his supporters always point to "his sterling charity work". Once they've left the army there's nothing else to do.

Talking of Charles,gawd Luv `im.He actually has a flunky who`s sole role is to squeeze his toothpaste onto the brush,he`s called privy bedchamber flunky person or something similar.He probably carries on that stirling tradition of Henry V111`s and has someone to wipe his arse tofcourse these lovely little life`s extra are not paid for by himself but us taxpayers.Oh joy.Never mind they do a lot for charity.He probably has someone ready with the tissues after Camilla and he have coplulated.Now there`s a thought.

 

[the judge]

In Japan we also have a monachy, I despise the system.
The monach is often used by disgusting nationalists who manipulate some social outcasts and misfits, mislead and convince them that they're superior than others.
Japanese Army used Monach to convince the public and started the war.
I wish Monachy was abolished after the WWII.

In Italy monarchy was abolished in 1948 with a referedum.
I often hear the Italian politicians spend far more than in other countries and I can't stand that.
Anyway, I must say I like monarchy, a king or a queen representing a country. There's something charming in it, the ceremonies etc, whereas republic has not this charm.

 

[nugz]

In Japan we also have a monachy, I despise the system.
The monach is often used by disgusting nationalists who manipulate some social outcasts and misfits, mislead and convince them that they're superior than others.
Japanese Army used Monach to convince the public and started the war.
I wish Monachy was abolished after the WWII.

the "R" key on your keyboard broke?

 

[Kewpie]

In Italy monarchy was abolished in 1948 with a referedum.
I often hear the Italian politicians spend far more than in other countries and I can't stand that.
Anyway, I must say I like monarchy, a king or a queen representing a country. There's something charming in it, the ceremonies etc, whereas republic has not this charm.

*sigh*

You should read this thread from the begining.

We don't live in a Disney fairy tale.

Preservation of cultural heritage can be done without keeping a monarch.