But then I got a bbm from none other than that little rat Gabby Cain-Jones (@GabriellaCainJo), who told me that she was pleased I was blogging again and that she had been ejoying my posts. She was actually 'SHOCKED' by my previous Urban Outfitters post, as I think, was the general consensus. In any case, I told her that I was glad she was enjoying my posts, and would she care to request a topic? She then went away to think about it, and after a lengthy interlude (perhaps 10 minutes)she popped back up on my phone suggesting I did this post on the "money draining Monarchy". So here we are!
It's not fashion related- how novelty! ;)
Let's go...
Here is your queen.
So? how do you feel about her?
Perhaps you feel endeared by her, humbled and honoured to have such an honourable Head of State?
Or perhaps you feel anger, or even just ambivalence towards her "redundant" role?
Whichever camp you sit on, you are not alone.
Whilst many of the country celebrated with jubilance ;) at the anniversary of the Queen's 60 years on the throne, many also took to the streets in protest against the monarchy and what they represent.
Here are the Royals having a lovely tiiiime... :)
And here are the protesters...
("...jubilee've it!"...! I've always been a sucker for a pun!)
Here's a couple of other Royal pictures as well, just for Gabby (she loves them)...
So, let's get down to business...
Are the Monarchy a tradition worth celebrating? Or an archaic institution draining the nation of it's sterling?
I think I'm going to do this in debate mode, so forgive me for sounding a little split-personality. It's all with the aim of a balanced argument!
Argument #1: The Monarchy are "Money Drainers"
Anti-Monarchy:
The costs of Monarchy are unjustifiable. Typically, Monarchs and their immediate family receive substantial amounts of money from the state to maintain luxurious lifestyles, complete with servants, expensive holidays and hobbies. The state also spends a great deal to maintain and run palaces and other royal residences, which are seldom accessible to the general public who support them through their taxes. Security costs are also very high.
According to the Civil List, the total official spending by Elizabeth which was paid for by the state in grants and the civil list in 2011 was a massive £32.1 million: £13.7 on the civil list and reserve, £11.9 million on property, £6 million on travel grants and other grants and £0.5 million on communications and information grants. This figure does not include the cost of security. Republic estimates the annual cost to be at least £202.4 million. However, we will never know the true cost of the Royal Family as Elizabeth’s accounts are exempt from Freedom of Information legislation and her accounts are not scrutinised by the National Audit Office.
What we do know is that Elizabeth’s own personal fortune is about £310 million according to Forbes magazine. The Royal art collection is worth up to £10 billion. The value of the Crown Estate’s property portfolio is £7 billion. The rural part of the Crown estate is a cool £1.05 billion. The value of the Elizabeth’s personal share portfolio is £90 million. The value of the marine estate is worth £587 million. Windsor estate is valued at £186 million.
Pro-Monarchy:
Monarchy is highly cost-effective when compared to the expense of maintaining the alternative: a Presidency with a large staff and equally stringent security requirements. Royal residences are held in trust for the nation, and would require the same upkeep costs whether they were inhabited by a Monarch or not. Instead Monarchy more than pays its way, not only through its generation of tourist revenue as millions visit sites associated with Royalty and through its role in promoting trade and industry abroad on Royal visits, but through the Crown Estates which are owned by the Monarchy and contributes over £200m annually to the government of the United Kingdom; much less than the given figure for the cost of the Monarchy (£41.5m), or even the figure when including an estimate of security and other hidden costs (~£150m).
Argument #2: The Monarchy help to unite the population
Anti-Monarchy:
The Monarchy does not have the power to prevent or stop war, oppression, inequality or divisive political policies. Stability and unity are the products of a democratic country where power is vested in the people to elect an accountable Government and head of state.
Pro-Monarchy:
Monarchy can lead public opinion. Although above party politics, modern Monarchs have proved able to raise important and sometimes unpopular issues that would otherwise have been ignored. For example, in the U.K. Prince Charles has legitimised discussion of environmental issues and stimulated a lively debate about the purpose of architecture, while Princess Diana’s work with Aids sufferers helped shift public opinion.
Argument #3: The Monarchy are a symbol of inequality
Anti-Monarchy:
The concept of Monarchy is inegalitarian. Even if the Monarchy retains little or no political power, its presence sustains the traditional class system, sending out a message that who you are born matters more than what you make of yourself. This can stifle aspirations and lead to a culture of deference, where entrepreneurialism and individual ability are not valued. A system of Royal honours may be used to tie achievers into the traditional social structures, making radical social and political change less possible.
Pro-Monarchy:
Monarchy acts as a guardian of a nation’s heritage, a living reminder of the events and personalities that have shaped it. As such it is a powerful focus for loyalty and a source of strength in times of crisis, for example World War II, and a reminder of enduring values and traditions. Separating the positions of Head of State and Head of Government also makes great practical sense; the Monarchy undertakes much of the ceremonial work at home and abroad, leaving the Prime Minister free to focus more effectively upon governing. Also, there is no culture of deference to authority in the United Kingdom - suspicion of government and other public bodies is rife, and at the head of a capitalist society for centuries, often leading the world in innovation, the Monarchy can hardly have been said to stifle entrepreneurial and individual thought.
It's all interesting in terms of debate. And it would seem, everything IS up for debate. There are a wealth of counteracting arguments for and against the Monarchy.
I guess this is where I lay out my assertions... I bloody love the Royal family! And this is news to me. In fact, I only realised my adoration for them as recently as this weekend. Everyone was so jubilant! How can something that brings the nation together in such a way be considered a detriment to our society?
I guess, perhaps, I got a bit carried away. Too much gin, too much wine... (story of my life...)
I'll be honest, I don't know if my intentions last weekend were in any shape or form Jubilee inclined- I think it was just an excuse to party over the loooong weekend with everyone getting together. It was only after I watched part of the televised festivities (drunk, in the pub), that I realised I did actually care, and thought it was nice and that.
In any case, after Gabby gave me this push to do a bit more research on the Monarchy and how everyone else in the country felt about them, I do feel a little more on the fence than I did during my gin-soaked celebrations. I don't think I'll be shouting "HOORAY FOR THE QUEEN!" (again) until I've decided quite how I feel about the whole thing.
This being said, I think I still really rate the traditional aspects of having a Royal family, and I do think that Royal events help bring people together in a really nice way. Plus, I think with celebrity culture the way it is currently, these young Royals are actually making quite good role models (alright, so Kate's ridiculously skinny and Harry dresses up as a Nazi in his spare time... I'm ignoring that). I think it's very easy to dismiss them as irrelevant and archaic, when actually, they do have more of a bearing on our country than what one (!) sees at face value. And their work in terms of visiting other countries (which, admitedly, yes, is expensive) and their military obligations do help the representation of the UK to the rest of the world, which working in marketing, I know to be very important.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on the whole thing?
I'm starting to change my mind on how I feel about it already...
L.
