I am aware. It seems, regardless of institution, that no one at these levels of UK public good can take responsibility. It is as if the apathy has been institutionalized in a declining nation state. Where and how do find someone who cares and the authority to do something about it?
If you told me yet another UK institution had systemic issues (NHS?), I would not be surprised, and that is very sad. It should not be this hard to do better. Right? Or am I just an ignorant Yankee?
You can probably guess - older demographics lean towards supporting the monarchy, younger demographics skew towards not being fans. There's a loose consensus that the royal family is a net positive for the countries finances, but I believe that involves some creative accounting where all tourism to royal-adjacent properties and the surrounding areas is attributed entirely to those properties still being owned by a living monarch rather than the state, and also implicitly assumes that they are entitled to keep benefiting from the vast wealth and estates they have inherited from those who took them by force. There's no politically neutral answer to how much they cost, you'll get vastly different answers depending on where your lens is calibrated on the royalist-guillotine scale.
I’m only one voice but being in my mid-30s (so younger demographic I’d hope?) I don’t have a problem with the royals; I’m no royalist but nor do I seek their demise. I think most of my friends would fall into a similar category too.
> I believe that involves some creative accounting where all tourism to royal-adjacent properties and the surrounding areas is attributed entirely to those properties still being owned by a living monarch rather than the state
That argument is a tricky one (as you point out). The French palaces have a fair few visitors and there are no living royals to block access.
The family don’t need to be in the castle.
It’s ludicrous as they are also my royal family - and I’m in New Zealand.
Well I (an American) agree with your sentiment, it appears that the British royalty don't actually rely on tax money, but instead they keep 25% of the money that the royaly estate /makes/ and the other 75% goes to the British treasury.
The Crown Estate is where the sovereign grant comes from, and it's weird. It's "owned" by the current monarch, but only in their role as head of state (the Crown). Realistically it belongs to the country and to the public, and were we to abolish monarchy, would not become the private property of the Windsor family.
So while they don't rely on tax money (outside of the huge amount of tax money spent on their police protection, transport in military aircraft, etc. etc.), they do rely on money which rightfully belongs to the people of the nation.
> were we to abolish monarchy, would not become the private property of the Windsor family.
Today, I expect that's what would happen. But I bet the Windsor family could have kept a lot if they had given up monarchy a while back. Which puts the "rightfully belongs to the people" claim in question, if you believe a king can ever legitimately own anything.
My experience is the opposite. Most people don’t really care, but if pushed they’d be “well of course I don’t think the royal family should have a constitutional role, but I wouldn’t kill them, and I don’t trust politicians to put a better system in place…”
I fall in the middle of the camps -- pretty sure we still get a good RoI on our marketing spend on the royals, unconvinced the family wouldn't actually be wealthier if they'd abandoned the throne and taken all their stuff with them instead of it "belonging to the country", feel rather sorry for those who get the most tabloid attention.
