Who dares to be critical of the Royals?
Posted on Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 12:33pm
23 responses
I’m going in to the Senedd later today for a debate on Prince Charles. I am not sure what the set up is to be honest, but I know that Huw Edwards is hosting it, and that they want a mixture of Republicans and Monarchists to come together to discuss Charles and his role in Wales as we approach the 40th anniversary of his investiture. How it will be marked is any one’s guess, especially given that Charles has turned down an invite to return to Caernarfon…..
I asked people on Facebook for their opinions of Charles. Most have told me that they believe that the Royal Family is outdated, some are cynical that the next Armed Forces Day is to be held in Cardiff- is this paving the way for the next investiture? Others have commented on the need for democratic reform, and that reform of the Monarchy should form part of this discussion, while one message I had stated that Charles is a good ambassador for Wales, and that his ideas on the future of the language and culture are important.
This discussion takes place in a week where we learn that Prince Charles is funded by the taxpayer to the tune of £3m- with a rise of nearly a quarter this year. This despite his personal income rising by 8% in 2008, and 1% in 2009, and his tax bill has been slashed by 10%. Charles has also been embroiled in a fight over allegedly wading in and overriding democratic processes by insisting that planning permission on the old Chelsea Barracks for new housing be refused. I doubt whether Gordon Brown will take any notice of such events, given that he has recently ensured that any FOIs on royal documents for the next 20 years are blocked!
I’ve also googled Prince Charles today to find out what more he’s been doing of late and found out that he paid Camilla’s younger sister £400,000 for refurbishing his holiday homes. Where’s the outrage about this?! I’m look forward to the debate this afternoon. I’m especially interested in talking about Charles and the way he consistently wades in to political debates despite understanding that as heir to the throne, such actions are ill advised. When I filmed for the programme Week in Week Out last year on Prince Charles, Shan Legge Bourke- a close friend of Charles more or less admitted that he had instant access to Government Ministers in Wales, and had regular discussions on policy with the First Minister. Is this really appropriate for someone who is unelected, and has no public accountability? I sincerely believe that if reform or democratic renewal is now to take place as a result of the MPs expenses saga, that to not include any discussion on the Monarchy would be unacceptable. How can people argue against a House of Lords that is hereditary, and leave the Royal Family unquestioned? It simply doesn’t make sense.
I’m not sure how many Republicans will be there today. What I’m sure about is that even though there is a growing sense of opinion in favour of supporting the arguments that republicans such as myself put forward, many people still pander to the Royal Family despite their personal reservations. This is also still true of the media- on a UK level, and in Wales. I’ve read quite a few articles in the Western Mail this week and not one of them includes any balance, or poses any alternative thinking. Are they scared for their jobs, or their progress in their career if they dare to criticise the Royal family? If they were not intimated, then I am sure that we would see more stories about Republic day ( which I did work on but was totally ignored by the Welsh press), Royal expenses, their role and so on….
I am sure you will have varying opinions to mine, but feel free to share them….
UPDATE- the debate in the Senedd was interesting, but I am sorry to say that I will have to be a tad critical of the BBC in that the discussion was weighted towards the monarchists present. It will be interesting to see what is cut and what is kept in for the final show. Suzanne Campbell from the campaign group Republic tried to make very valid points about the finances of the Duchy but wasn’t really given that much of a fair hearing. Some of the contributions from the young people were excellent- why should somebody born in to a family benefit in this way, said one. Another girl said it is hypocritical that Charles has opinions on climate change when he travels the World over in private jets. Lembit Opik was sycophantically in favour of the Monarchy, so too was Ann Beynon from BT. Jeff Cuthbert sat on the fence, and the Royal Harpist spoke for an age about the wonders of Charles and the Royals. Now, how much is she being paid I wonder;-)
Bethan, from reading your post here i believe your not a royalist then? hmm well heres my opinion, the reason why people are so angry with MP/AM expenses are that those who have exploited the system have been elected by the people and were ment to be there to represent the people not just spend their taxes!! Yes there are legitimate expenses and those im sure people accept, but there have been such ridiculous claims using our taxes as payment! People have lost confidence in MP/AMs as they do not seem to be honest and trustworthy.
Coming back to the Royal Family, They are very important to this country, just with the tourism alone they help to put money into our economy.
In the year 2006-07 The Queen cost the taxpayer just 62 pence per person.
Head of State expenditure is met from public funds in exchange for the surrender by The Queen of the revenue from the Crown Estate. In the financial year to 31 March 2006 the revenue surplus from the Crown Estate paid to the Treasury amounted to £190.8 million.
I do not see the Royal family to be a problem at all! Illegal immigration, Illegal wars etc that are costing us all our money and dragging this county down. So please Bethan and all other AM/MPs stop bothering yourself with stupid things like this and get on with proper WORK!
Thanks
Sam
Didn’t (Prince) William open the Western Mail offices? They are all chummy, anyhow, so that’s hardly surprising.
I think a fully balanced debate in needed about the monarchy. The most intriguing point is that, although there are no elections for the head of state, the Monarchy is arguably validated through the popular consent of the majority of people and Parliamentarians.
Sam, I think this is of public interest. I am equally outraged by some of the things that MPs claimed, but there is no scrutiny of the Royals’ expenses, and there should be if they are taking tax payers money.
Al- fair point. It just goes to show that the media are not unbias in this regard. This is true in the Spin Doctor’s column today in the Wales on Sunday, taking issue with my press release which is critical of Charles’s expenses and taxes.
It’s time the monarchy was scrapped. We hear the monarchists claim how the royals are good value for money. Let’s hope that one of our newspapers take a real look at the expenses that the royals steal off the people. The monarchy are one big scam. They aren’t useful for anything including the oft flouted tourist attraction. They are just an insult to democracy.
There is no evidence the royals attract any tourism at all – France is the top tourist destination with no monarchy. If all our palaces, houses and royal art collection were open to the public (who BTW actually own them) think how many more tourists would come to see all that. Also consider, if you were going to Sweden, Denmark, Norway or wherever, would you be going because of their monarchies? Didn’t think so. So why do you think anyone comes here for ours? They’d probably be sadly disappointed if they did anyway – they’re not actually on display anywhere you know.
Many Cornish folk who live in the constitutional duchy have been very critical of the Duke and his gerrymandered Duchy, and you would have thought our Welsh brothers would support us a bit more but no! Rare is it that they mention the Cornish question.
Some facts about the Duchy: http://duchyofcornwall.eu/
The Cornish Stannary Parliament: http://www.cornishstannaryparliament.co.uk/
I don’t believe this “they bring in tourists argument. Are tourists going to stop coming just because we abolish the monarchy, I doubt it. Its the history of these isles that attracts tourists no one is going to tear down buck house after abolition. Does the fact that The Queen is in Balmoral effect tourism in London? No.
On the cost of the Monarchy the thing I most object to is their exemption from inheritance tax. Why should one family have its wealth protected, this is the twenty-first century privalage must end.
Well done for taking part Bethan. Twenty years ago a Republican taking part in this type if debate would have been unthinkable – now it is becoming unthinkable not to have a Republican on a panel. Monarchists continue to spout out the same old tired drivel – if there is an economic case for the Royal Family I want to have access to a properly costed business plan. I am sure as a higher rate Tax Payer I pay far more than 62p per annum to the Royals – I want to know exactly how that is spent and what are the tangible benefits I receive.
Sam’s remarks are typical Monarchist propaganda without any basis in truth.
Tourism – no evidence to support this at all. And do we want to live in a Democracy, or a Theme Park? If Tourism is a reason for selecting Heads of State then Mickey Mouse should be President of the USA.
62 pence – actually if you factor in numerous omissions such as security it is nearer £3 per person. Which makes Royalty more than 20 times more expensive than MPs.
The Crown Estate belongs to us, so the Queen is not surrendering anything. Conversely the taxpayer surrenders an estimated £182m per year on Royalty, whereas Heads of States from European Republics cost around £5m – £10m.
MPs expenses, Illegal immigration, etc. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
P.S.
For the truth regarding many other Monarchist myths…
http://republic.org.uk
It wouldn’t matter to me if the Royals were absolutely free, I would still want a republic. That would be fair, democratic and accountable.
I WATCHED BETHAN LAST WEEK ON THE BBC AND IT WAS REFRESHING TO SEE A POLITICIAN SPEAKING THEIR MIND AND SAYING WHAT NEEDED TO BE SAID ON THE SUBJECT OF THE OUTDATED ROYALS,AS A REBUBLICAN THIS CAME AS A NICE SURPRISE,I DONT LIVE IN WALES,BUT I WISH MY MP WAS AS STRAIGHT FORWARD AND HONEST.ALSO,SHE’S NOT BAD LOOKING EITHER.
Sam – if you knew Bethan you’d know how hard she works. She was elected democratically and has every right to voice her opinion.
To me, the royal family has no relevance to us here in Wales, the name ‘Prince of Wales’is in itself a joke at best. The old tourism argument may be relevant if you live in Windsor or London but if you ask visitors to Wales why they come, few would say the royal family. If England wants the royals, they’re welcome to them.
why should anyone inherit power and wealth through no effort or skills of their own? The fact is the house of windsor enjoys lavish wealth and power purely because of who they are – they have done nothing whatsoever themselves to earn this wealth and power!
The monarchy is outdated and I certainly would never bow the knee to any of them. I do not recognise Elizabeth Windsor on any level.
Prince Charles, nice well meaning man, but why he should hold such sway defeats me.
They do cost millions and will be looking for more as the present civil list comes to review next year
They cost far more that 69 p, that’s just the civil list ,you have to add all other cost to that.
Tourism – that would still be there , they come not to see the Royals but the panoply of monarchy ,palaces ,jewels , paintings etc.
Also I do not see tourism suffering in places who do not have royals
I am appalled at he privilege shown to Andrews dreadful daughters and such like.
Time to dispense with this past its sell by relic .
Bethan, today’s news tells us that the Royal Family costs each man woman and child in the UK 69p per year. What ever way you look at it that is cheaper and far better value than an elected head of state and all the costs associated with that. You and your republican views are well known and your more than entitled to them, but you should accept that you are in the minority and have been for some time. Personally I’m a long standing supporter (if thats the right word) of the royals and I think most people would agree with me that the last thing the British public have a desire for right now is an elected head of state and more politicians, which will mean more elections more politicians and yes more claims for duck islands and water pipes under tennis courts etc.
Interestingly I noticed in the release of AM’s expenses today, one of your highest claims after your rented second home was £2240.00 on the development of your blog and website (before hosting and bandwidth). I know your criticism of the Royal go far beyond their cost to the taxpayer, but how can you justify spending so much public cash on a website, when most AMs either get their party to pay for one or only charge a few hundred pounds at most?
Good post.
I am an agnostic republican, if I was given the choice to end the Monarchy, I would. However, I don’t see it as a priority necessarily.
An interesting aside to all this, did you notice the absence of one of the ‘usual suspects’ in this debate – the taxpayers alliance. Remember those defenders of the good fight against public money being wasted?
Considering they are political ‘neutral’ supposedly, it is funny they had very little to say on this matter, considering they are pretty much gun for hire normally with these stories.
[...] not just MP’s expenses that are making the news this week. Bethan Jenkins spoke on Sunday at a discussion held in the Senedd about the Royal Family. Apparently Prince [...]
Paul, look at the campaign website for the group Republic. You will see that they cost far more than 69p a year. Whether the Republican argument is a minority or not, people are still have a right to have their say.
On the issue of my website, I could not get it funded by the party as my official site can’t be party political. You are advocating that I pay the party when this has been criticised in other instances!
From my blog. Cornish or English heritage? Why doesn’t the Duke pay?: http://thecornishdemocrat.blogspot.com/2009/07/english-heritage-or-cornish-heritage.html
the debate that took place on bbc wales the other nite – where bethan and others made a very effective case against the monarchy and having a price imposed on us i thought – would never have taken place 20 years ago..and maybe not even 10 years ago!
The political landscape in wales has simply been transformed in the last decade or so.
No longer do we have to argue with diehard ‘unionists’ over whether or not wales is a nation…now the arguement is over when – not if – wales takes its rightful place among all the other self governing and sovereign nations of the world (over 60 of whom are smaller than wales i believe)
text correction..that should be ‘having a PRINCE imposed on us’…….