Monarchy and Mosquitoes
What do the two have in common? Mostly they're both on my mind recently. I was savaged by a mosquito recently that even bit the bottom of my foot! And I watched a documentary on the House of Windsor last night. But I think there is slightly more of a link between the two. As far as I can tell, they have similar leeching qualities. Now, I've no personal problem with monarchies, particularly as I've never lived under one myself. I rather enjoy reading about their eccentricities from a safe distance. But it continues to baffle me that perfectly reasonable people continue to foot the bill for what is basically a trumped up mascot for their country who has no real political power. I suppose we pay celebreties more than they deserve, but at least that's not tax dollars.
But I'm a reasonable person. Honestly, it wouldn't bother me to live somewhere like Britain because I don't believe the queen would have any more power over me there than she does here. I doubt anyone reading my blog feels any ardent attachment to monarchy, but if they do, I'd love to hear any reasoning behind keeping them in power, other than to watch their overpriced human drama.
3 comments:
In terms simply of expenditure the British Monarchy costs far less than do the presidencies of comparable republics such as France or Germany. More importantly, the Monarchy is self-financing in the sense that the cost to the taxpayer is offset in two important ways: firstly by the money that the Revenue receives from the Crown Estates, and secondly by the way that the money the Monarch does receive from the Government doesn't even cover her expenses and so she underwrites the cost of going about her official duties out of her own pocket. (On top of this, the Queen is also a taxpayer, and under the inequitable tax-system we have in this country she gives the Government a much higher proportion of her income than most people do.)
If Britain were to "get rid" of the Monarchy three things would happen: (i) the Government would lose most of the revenues from the Crown Estates; (ii) it would lose the Monarchy's significant diplomatic, business and governmental expertise; and (iii) it would have to underwrite the cost of some sort of presidency itself.
More to the point (and, as a foreigner you won't understand this) most British people actually quite like the Queen, and the same is true of all the European monarchies. (The same cannot really be said of elected presidents.)
Wow, first of all, thanks for reading my obscure thoughts at all and thinking enough of them to give such a detailed and though-out answer.
Perhaps I should express controversial opinions more often. I'm amazed as I never imagined anyone outside my small group of friends reads my blog. Though, I'm usually rather cautious of what I say since I acknowledge the possibility. I didn't mean to give any offense, though I do believe what I said, I might have stated my thoughts a little more tactfully. Honestly, I do have admiration for the diplomatic work much of the royalty has done. Still, I generally find these things out through personal research since in the US, at least, there isn't a lot of press coverage as to their positive aspects. But it still seems to me that their best purpose is that of a high profile diplomat and that the Crown Estates could be just as lucrative as tourist attractions.
And despite my criticism, I also like the queen. Or at least, find her very interesting. But admittedly she's not my queen, so I probably never could quite understand how one of her subjects would feel.
I notice your criticism of the US's proposed change in health care and I have to, respectfully, disagree with that. Maybe we do have the best health care for the small percentage of the population that can afford it. I do not happen to be one of these, so the point is moot. If you believe only rich people deserve to live, yeah, it's great. But the BIGGEST issue is that of people being denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions and that, even if you do pay for health care here, the companies are NOT serving you, they're serving the shareholders. If there's a situation where you die and they turn a profit, they'll find any loophole they can to boot you out of their plan. They are under NO legal obligation to serve you no matter how much you pay them.
If you don't believe me, then come on over if you have a terminal illness and see how well our current system serves you. I've heard that our system makes competition and better medical advances, but once again, kinda useless to the millions of us who could never dream of affording it. I'm not talking about poor people either but medical expenses can and have bankrupted plenty of hard-working middle class citizens.
So maybe neither of us ought to judge what we've never experienced.
The Crown Estates are already tourist attractions - and hideously overpriced at that! At the moment all that money goes straight to the Government. If the Monarchy were to be "abolished" that money would instead go to Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor and the Government would only be able to claw back 40% at the most in tax.
I write "abolished" because short of murdering or exiling every member of the Royal Family it's not at all clear how one does "abolish" a monarchy. In this country, all that would happen would be that the Royals would be relieved of their official duties (diplomacy, policy discussions, ceremonies, etc.) and possibly ordered out of their official residences. They probably wouldn't even object to much of this, especially given that most of them have private residences such as Balmoral and Sandringham, which they prefer anyway. And there'd be a protracted legal wrangle over who really owns the Crown Estates and presumably other things as well. (Without a monarchy it's not entirely clear what the government would want to do with the Crown Jewels. Perhaps the Prime Minister could wear them to parties!)
All that I've read about American healthcare suggests that most Americans can get it and it's a good deal better (albeit more expensive) than you'll get anywhere else. Americans also seem to be obessessed with their health (especially their teeth) in a way that people in this country simply aren't. The rush for Obamacare just seems like irrational panic and fear, with no proper thought about the consequences. (Do Americans really want rationing and death doctors, like we have in this country? I suspect most don't want tax-funded abortion either.)
Post a Comment