The Queen's Jubilee

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

At the speed of light, Heliocentric, it should have taken you several hours to respond to Ahinton's message, yet you managed it in just 2 minutes. That's incredible.

[Nick Armstrong]

when C has his next whingeing moan about how awful everything is

He'd get on well here!

[aeolium]

But us that per capita of the British population as a whole? If so, at the risk of seeming somewhat pedantic, it is surely somewhat less contextually relevant a statistic than the figure per capita of the taxpaying public, n'est-ce pas? - and, whatever that figure might be, we still need to know what revenue the monarchy generates in order to ascertain its economic profitability or otherwise for Britain (not that economic facts would or should constitute sole justification for its maintenance or overthrow).

Well, there are around 30 million individual taxpayers, so you can do the calculation fairly easily. I'm not sure how you could get anything like precise figures for any revenue generation. There would also be the question of the comparable cost of a republican alternative.

My own opposition to the monarchy is not based on the cost, in any case, but rather the idea that the hereditary principle should have any operation in any part of government (including the House of Lords).

[amateur51]

He'd get on well here!

Oh haven't you spotted him yet?

[amateur51]

My own opposition to the monarchy is not based on the cost, in any case, but rather the idea that the hereditary principle should have any operation in any part of government (including the House of Lords).

[Flosshilde]

He'd get on well here!

Perhaps he does! Which of the anonymous posters do you think he might be (not excluding the avowed republican ones - he might like nothing better than to be able to live as a private gentleman tending his garden)?

[ahinton]

Steady now, ahinton. Does 'Taxpaying public' comprise those who should be paying tax, inc those of an age to pay tax if they had an income, or just those who do pay tax, thus excluding the dodgers, sorry avoiders, sorry evaders

I think we're better off, for want of a definition, with aeolium's per capita of the population

I guess that this might be down to the opinions of individuals dependent upon those categories into which each might fall at any time, but I imagine that, if we're considering the cost of something to "taxpayers", we could do a lot worse than trying to figure out what that cost is for those that actually pay tax. Not all tax "dodgers" / "avoiders" / "evaders" pay no tax at all in any case, so some of those would need to be included; I don't, on the other hand, see much point in including non-taxpayers in that equation, whether or not any of them should be liable to tax but avoid or evane their liabilities to it or indeed those who are charged tax but don't actually pay it. Aeolium's definition is OK as far as it goes but if, for example, I happen to find myself legitimately liable to no tax at all in a particular year, I would not expect to be included in a statistic for the cost to the taxpayer of the monarchy (or indeed anything else) because, in that year, it wouldn't have cost me anything.

[heliocentric]

At the speed of light, Heliocentric, it should have taken you several hours to respond to Ahinton's message, yet you managed it in just 2 minutes. That's incredible.

You must realise that our technology is considerably in advance of yours. Nevertheless I must admit that I am currently visiting your planet on a fact-finding mission.

[french frank]

But us that per capita of the British population as a whole? If so, at the risk of seeming somewhat pedantic, it is surely somewhat less contextually relevant a statistic than the figure per capita of the taxpaying public, n'est-ce pas? - and, whatever that figure might be, we still need to know what revenue the monarchy generates in order to ascertain its economic profitability or otherwise for Britain (not that economic facts would or should constitute sole justification for its maintenance or overthrow).

You can pick over the Royal Finances here.

The 62p per capita must, of course, be an average, and it's hard to see how non-taxpayers make much of contribution. Millionaire republicans must be furious, however.

Approx 70% of Royal expenditure goes on staff wages. One might argue that, whether they were in public service or private employment (or unemployed), the general public would pay their wages in one form or another.

The Crown Estates bring in to the Treasury about £200m pa. They aren't "owned" by the Crown and the financial benefit to the country would be the same whether state-owned or held in trust by the Crown. It would be quite unusual for a State to take over the management of such an estate (e.g. beef farms and palaces) in order to continue to raise the revenue, but they could be sold off for the benefit of the State, raising approx. £7.3 bn, which would pay for about one third of the nation's recent overseas wars.

The tourist industry has estimated 'royalty-related attractions' as bringing in £500m pa (a vague term, and much of this would be generated regardless of whether there was a reigning monarch or not - unless, for example, BH was demolished and affordable housing built on the site and gardens). Royal State occasions certainly have a tourist benefit over a range of industries.

There would be a financial windfall benefit to the Treasury if the monarchy was abolished, but against that a civilian presidency would be pretty much all drain in terms of finance. In political terms, well, it would rather depend ...

[Quarky]

You must realise that our technology is considerably in advance of yours. Nevertheless I must admit that I am currently visiting your planet on a fact-finding mission.

I have to admire this outpouring of tightly argued logic from this army of Republicans - I couldn't begin to point out any error in the arguments.

But it wouldn't be Flat Earth you hail from, heliocentric? http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/...itle=Main_Page

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You must realise that our technology is considerably in advance of yours. Nevertheless I must admit that I am currently visiting your planet on a fact-finding mission.

That's interesting. Do you live in the gaseous planet itself, one of the moons, or on the rings?

[amateur51]

I have to admire this outpouring of tightly argued logic from this army of Republicans - I couldn't begin to point out any error in the arguments.

Oh I'm sure you could, Oddball

But while you're a-pondering, remind the citizens [sic] here assembled of the 'tightly argued logic' for the Monarchy as established, would you? :whistle'

[heliocentric]

That's interesting. Do you live in the gaseous planet itself, one of the moons, or on the rings?

I shouldn't really be saying this in case anyone from NASA is reading, but what you call "the gaseous planet" is actually an elaborate smokescreen to hide from prying eyes and spaceprobes the fact that my homeworld actually has a solid surface rendered comfortably warm by geothermal energy, although the gravity can be a bit tiring sometimes, especially on the way home from the weekly shopping.

[amateur51]

I shouldn't really be saying this in case anyone from NASA is reading, but what you call "the gaseous planet" is actually an elaborate smokescreen to hide from prying eyes and spaceprobes the fact that my homeworld actually has a solid surface rendered comfortably warm by geothermal energy, although the gravity can be a bit tiring sometimes, especially on the way home from the weekly shopping.

lovely stuff helio & EA!

[ahinton]

Well, there are around 30 million individual taxpayers, so you can do the calculation fairly easily. I'm not sure how you could get anything like precise figures for any revenue generation. There would also be the question of the comparable cost of a republican alternative.

We obviously agree on this, although we would need to be certain of being able to trust any statistics for this which were published at any time and, since it would be very difficult to ascertain the amounts of income generated specifically and soplely by the monarchy, the exercise would appear to be dead in the water, as would be any possible comparison with the net cost/profit generated by an alternative system for the same reasons.

My own opposition to the monarchy is not based on the cost, in any case, but rather the idea that the hereditary principle should have any operation in any part of government (including the House of Lords).

As is the case with many others opposed to the continuation of the British monarchy; that said, if we leave aside the just fate of the House of Lords for a moment (which, for all its commonality of hereditary principle, needs to be considered separately from tht of the monarchy for a number of reasons), the monarchy's "operation in any part of government" is surely severely limited, especially in the case of the Queen herself who, whilst she has regular meetings with the prime minister of the day, is supposed to be "above politics" and there seems little if any obvious evidence that she tried to force the enactment of any legislation by the back door; she could close the Houses of Parliament at a stroke if so she chose, but she's never gone near there.