OT: Andrew

In message <10nl86r$99h8$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 22:20:10 on Tue, 24 Feb

I've never been to anywhere in the Caribbean.

A massive +1

It depends on whether or not I was allowed to choose the ingredients for the meal.

The other thing we will not know and will probable never find out is how many stupid ideas a Prime Minister might have had, got sunk during the regular meetings between monarch and PM.

:-)

There are two parts to politics.

1. Getting elected
2. Running the country

Mostly the requirements for each are entirely contradictory

In message <10nmlnf$n560$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me, at 11:17:03 on Wed, 25 Feb

I suspect it would be (a) too hot, and (b) boring.

Mushroom Wellington?

Which has nothing to do with the price of fish.

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).