OT: Andrew

It is highly relevant because many anti monarchists argue the monarchy is more expensive than a presidency.

Which it almost certainly is even in terms of annual revenue costs. That's 'president' rather than presidency, which tends to attract a bureaucracy which would likely remain even if there was no president. If you factor in the accumulated wealth of the UK monarchy, there's no discussion - c.£20B.

Which is admittedely not a great deal in the scheme of things. I think you'll find most anti-monarchists have many other reasons to support abolition.

In message <10no0mt$16png$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 23:30:35 on Wed, 25 Feb

Of course it does! Most Republican propaganda I see majors on the concept of how much the Royal Family costs the taxpayer. Maybe £100m a year.

And that's without the deal they did for most of the profits of the Crown Estates to go to the Treasury (approx 1 billion a year), and the income from tourists who are drawn to the public pageantry.

In message snipped-for-privacy@news.individual.net>, at 08:51:33 on Thu,

Monarchy is about £100m/yr (ignoring the Crown Estates revenue and tourism boost), and while it's an outlier in so many ways, the US Presidency has cost that much just in off-duty golfing trips.

"Cost of security" is a red herring, because former incumbents to White House get Secret Service protection automatically for ten years (their budget 3 billion), so the occasional close protection officer parked outside Pizza Express in Woking is way down in the noise level.

Meanwhile we wring our hands at the cost of the Royal Train, but Airforce One costs about £150k/hr (and that'll be without counting the fighter escort).

In message <10np23n$1gf34$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 09:00:39 on Thu, 26 Feb

The salary/expenses for the Monarch or President, are much smaller than the costs of maintaining buildings like Buckingham Palace (or Chequers) and entertainment of foreign dignitaries.

The country (and many Commonwealth ones too) need a Head-of-State, so you can't have neither a monarch nor a President.

Many heads of state have accumulated much more worth than that.

eg Putin ~200bn, Saudi Royal Family trillions.

Sovereigns have a certain independence and inability to be bribed, which doesn't apply to Presidents on a re-election treadmill.

One of the frequently unasked questions is what would happen to the Crown Estates if the monarchy was abolished. Both the Windsors and the government would have a tenable claim to ownership.

As the Windsors don't own many Tanks or ICBMs they probably couldn't defend their claim. In the event of a referendum to abolish the monarchy I expect that if the majority voted for a republic they would also support the government's claim.

I wonder whether the Windsors could appeal to the European courts?

My point was simply that '...both the French and German Presidents each cost the country more than the British Monarchy' is a non sequitur after 'Ireland seems to have done quite well with its presidents...'

Why would it get to that? The law is clear on private possessions (dating right back to Magna Carta, whoever she was).

They could appeal the the UK's courts.

AIUI the *income* from the crown estates - *which the Windsors still own*...was ceded in return for a guaranteed government income.

Quite so, but too often overlooked (perhaps because inconvenient).

In message snipped-for-privacy@mid.individual.net>, at 14:00:34 on Thu, 26 Feb 2026, Bernard Peek snipped-for-privacy@shrdlu.com remarked:

Given they've already signed over all the revenues from the Crown Estates to the government, there's very little reason for the Windsors to keep up any future involvement. They could simply retire to their private estates and start charging money for opening supermarkets and things, rather than doing it for free.

"[T]hey've already signed over all the revenues from the Crown Estates to the government" in consideration of receiving (a smaller sum) from the Exchequer each year for the expenses of running the Monarchy.

If that funding were to cease, which it presumably would do if the Monarchy were abolished, the Crown Estate income would consequently come back to the family, the arrangement under which it was assigned to the Treasury having determined.

There would be nothing to support any other outcome.

Nothing that would comply with the Yooman Rites Act, at least.

Thus the cost *saving* of abolishing the monarchy would be about *minus* a billion a year. I wonder how any anti-monarchists realise that?

Most hatrd left rallyinmg cries are simplistic knee-jerk emotional proposition that always end up the opposite. Ergo Blair 'graduates earn twice as much so we will give everyone a degree' Or 'raising minimum wage will make poor people richer' except its Chinese poor people they really mean...

Still means no respect, though, the way it's used these days at any rate.

Exactly my point.

No idea, but if there was an invoice it would probably have been made out to J. Epstein

The mission of the Marxist-Leninist useful idiots isn’t related to the reality of the situation - the goal is destabilisation of society.

It goes beyond mere destabilisation, Spike. They want to destroy all the established institutions and start over with their own twisted vision of how reality should be, taking their inspiration from the Bolsheviks. And anyone who's read history will know how that worked out....