|
|
|
|
|
|
by matthewh806
1373 days ago
|
|
|
I would say both; you can oppose the procession itself for all of its pomp and archaic tradition at a time where the country is dealing with a cost of living crisis and also have that also be more broadly a protest against the monarchy in general. A large portion of the life of the royal family is public, even funded by the taxpayer, so to me it makes sense to allow for opposing viewpoints to be heard. Perhaps you can argue that a memorial service isn't the most appropriate time (though, I don't really subscribe to this viewpoint given just how much this memorial is rammed down our throats) to protest, I do think its where its likely to generate the most coverage. There is never going to be a more appropriate time to get people to listen Edit: Just to clarify the point further - Not all of the arrests being discussed were made in Edinburgh (where the procession took place). Its debatable how much impact a person holding a blank sign in Oxford has on the events in Edinburgh (though I would wager its infinitesimally small). Equally, holding a sign with a swearword on it doesn't really "disrupt" in any meaningful sense either. A lot of people defend the police action on the grounds that it "may" have lead to violence via provocation and the person was arrested for "their own safety", but in that case why follow through with the charge? Rather than "de-arresting" (whatever that means) afterwards |
|
|
To respond only to your financial arguments: there are different ways of looking at the costs and benefits of the UK royals.
Firstly, taxation:
“the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m”. Last tax year HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) “collected £716.0 billion in taxes”[0].
Let’s assume the “cost of living crisis” affects 10 million people. £100 million given to them would mean an extra 10 quid per person per annum. A worthwhile difference, but hardly solving the problem. There’s way more pounds of flesh or fat to cut elsewhere in the budget.
Secondly: costs and waste are easy to see, but gains are often not seen. Does the UK earn more from the royals than the royals cost?
“[The royals] contributed an estimated $2.7 billion annually to the U.K. economy prepandemic. The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism, but Haigh notes there are other financial benefits, such as free media coverage of Britain (which was an estimated $400 million in 2017). There are also many valuable royal warrants granted by the monarch—essentially a stamp of approval on high-end consumer products like Barbour jackets and Johnnie Walker whisky. [snip] The economic advantages for companies and institutions in the royal family’s orbit far exceed the $550 million cost associated with the family’s massive operating expenses, according to Haigh.”[-1].
Of course, there are non-monetary costs and gains of the monarchy that are much harder to value.
Pure ownership in dollars “How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works”[-1³] can be compared against the wealth of other dynastic wealth families. It doesn’t make the top 10 in the world[π]. And probably not #1 in the UK[§] with the first royal family showing at #12 (although there are non-$ benefits such as status of being royalty, and non-$ costs/risks).
Even in New Zealand we are all paying a few dollars a year for costs related to the monarchy[1].
[-1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/arielshapiro/2021/03/10/inside-...
[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hmrc-tax-and-nics-r...
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_New_Zealand
[π] https://www.investopedia.com/articles/insights/052416/top-10...
[§] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/sunday-times-rich-list
Edits: added details.