Letter: Pope’s visit v monarchy – which is better value?
Monday 12th July 2010, 6:00AM BST.
Once again your paper gives prominence to the expenditure incurred by Her Majesty and family, indicating your support for the republican movement witnessed in this country.
Some 62p per annum is a cheap price to pay for the monachy, and whilst this may be some £32 million for the year it is, I suggest, far better value than paying £10 million to protect the Pope on his forthcoming visit, details of which were perhaps conveniently omitted from your paper on July 5 when the announcement was made by Chris Patten.
John Mayne
Bridgnorth
Most Commented
- Shropshire Council will face £8m redundancy bill
- Clampdown on Shrewsbury chuggers
- Bishop's gay marriage views do nothing to support bible teachings
- Letter: Alcohol price plans annoy me
- Planners ordered to stay on Newport visit bus
- Letter: Angered by close encounter of the furred kind
- Letter: No sense in overseas job adverts
Shropshire Star on Twitter
Keep updated with the latest breaking news and content on our Twitter feed.
Lifestyle
Interactive Dining Out map
Hundreds of reviews by the Shropshire Star and Express & Star's teams to help you decide where to eat.
Entertainment
All the film reviews
Before you plan a trip to the pictures, get our critics' verdicts on all the latest movie releases.
OUR NEW APP
Get the new Shropshire Star app
Download the Shropshire Star’s new app to your iPad or iPhone to get one week of access to our digital newspapers absolutely FREE.
shropshirestar.com
Popular sections
Useful links
John, the monarchy costs the British taxpayer far more than £32 million a year. That figure does not include additional costs, such as for security. The real figure is estimated to be around £180 million a year. That figure has to be estimated as royal finances are far from transparent – we simply do not know how much of our money they spend.
The Pope’s visit is now expected to cost about £12 million pounds. That is the amount the monarchy takes from the British taxpayer every three weeks. Whether you agree with me or not that it is time we had a fully democratic, elected head of state, surely we can all agree there should be more transparency on the issue of royal finances.
Report abuse
All depends if your a catholic it is worth every penny , as for the Royals if you are for, they are worth every penny , against you would not pay them in washers . We all have to pay for things we are not happy with etc some people have trouble accepting that fact..
Report abuse
“Once again your paper gives prominence to the expenditure incurred by Her Majesty and family, indicating your support for the republican movement witnessed in this country.”
The Shropshire Star – support for the republican movement? Either the Bridgnorth edition is very different to the one we get in Telford or Mr Mayne is suffering from paranoid delusions.
Has he never read Shirley Tart’s gushing and totally uncritical tributes to the Royal family which so often grace (or should that be grease?) the pages of the paper?
Report abuse
The monarchy may cost a mere £32 million or more but what people don’t seem to realise is that their presence brings in hundreds of millions of pounds a year for our tourism economy, not to mention the additional higher profile is gives to business for their Royal Warrants.
Report abuse
in that case have them paid on commission for the stuff that the tourists buy, and not by the tax payer.
Report abuse
*sigh* – somebody else who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Report abuse
Maybe some of you Republican advocates would like see a Mugabe wannabe or heaven forbid a John Prescott or Tone and Cherie as your Head of State! …. even elected there are despots out there who would really give you something to gripe when it comes to expenditure! ….. in her long tenure Our Gracious Lady has given this Nation Sterling value! .. wish I could say the same for some of the hangers on though! …………..
Report abuse
It is a well-known fact that a presidency is, of course, totally cost-free.
(In the mind of republicans, that is…)
Report abuse
Why doesn’t the Pope do what it says in the Bible — sell all that he has and give the money to the poor?
There are millions of pounds worth of gold in the Vatican so why cant he pay his own way? He is only invited and so he should be free to pay for his own security arrangements.
Furthermore, the Bible also says that we should trust in God alone for all our needs, which includes protection.
BTW if his Holiness reads this; we as a nation are poor!
Report abuse
Republics cost money too you know..? Do you imagine the heads of state in Italy, France, and Germany cost nothing? Only an idiot falls for the old ‘monarchy is expensive’ argument as a reason to abolish it because the alternative is often more expensive.
Report abuse
Supporters of the monarchy are keen to point out that it brings a lot of money into this country and is therefore worth its costs! That may well be the case.
But the Head of State is not supposed to be some sort of grand campaigner and promoter for business; they are supposed to form part of the government of the country, a backstop to ensure the peaceful continuity of our nation. Over the years our Monarchy has been gradually stripped of just about all of its powers, to the point that should the present Monarch make any sort of stand on any subject that was against the wishes of the incumbent government it would create a constitutional crisis. Just look at the insults heaped on Prince Charles for his views on architecture.
Hence we are in reality already a republic, as the monarchy has been reduced to nothing more than a figurehead. Oh yes they are still called Her Majesties Ministers it is still Her Majesties Government, and Her Majesty opens her Parliament and appoints the leader of the winning political party as Prime Minister, but once that is done she is reduced to powerlessness. The present monarch because of her experience and length of tenure might possibly on a very private level act as a moderator to some extent, but that cannot be a guarantee for the future.
Replacing the Queen with someone we elect, who would always be a political animal, perhaps someone like Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher might make Britain a recognised republic, but that person would not just be content with the political space allowed the Queen and would demand greater powers and would be much more likely to use them in a political manner, there would also need to be a form of constitution which set out the powers and responsibility of the new head of state. And to be honest I do not think our recent and present political leaders should be allowed to carve up the present constitution in order to serve their own interests and the interests of political parties.
Report abuse
As Harry Hill would say
“Ther’s only one way to find out- FIGHT!!!
Report abuse
Why are we even arguing about the cost of a monarchy and a religious sect? For thousands of years they and their entourages have brought and continue to bring nothing but misery to peoples the world over; that’s the true cost. What a joy it would be to wake up one morning without the pair of them. How so many people remain determined to be blind to the evil they have spread and yet continue to revere them is beyond me.
Report abuse
Does anyone actually think that if we didn’t have a Monarchy the “spare” money would be distributed between the NHS and the education system or you’d get a reduction in your council tax.
Nothing would change except Simon Cowell or Richard Branson would have a nice new house in London and we wouldn’t be better than the Americans anymore.
God save the Queen……
Report abuse
Didn’t we do a deal with the Royals whereby we let them live in a gilded cage but on the flip-side they had no power and we could inspect their daily lives, criticize & mock them mercilessly, deny them the basic rights of everyday folks & insist this fate was visited upon them for generation after generation & profiteer off their suffering by inviting (for a price) guests from other nations to peer at them?
As far as I know this deal hasn’t been broken, so what we’re discussing here is the price of the gilded cage over the price of the travelling circus that the unfortunate Pope is exhibited in (although at least he had the choice of whether he wanted the job).
Good luck to both of them, I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
Report abuse
How about the pope just stays at home?
Report abuse
I would really like the Pope to stay at home, save the money. He’s pointless, out dated and his religion causes more misery than joy. But if he wants to come over and explain why africans are educated to think that condoms are bad and cause aids, not prevent it, or if he wants to say sorry for all those children abused at the hands of catholic priest then he can come…for free.
Report abuse
The Pope’s visit versus (not “v”)the monarchy – which is better value? I would ask the question which is of any relevance? A constitutional figurehead representing a powerless symbol that has had no real influence for centuries; or a representative of a self appointed church who claims to be God’s earthly presence? Both belong in times gone by. I am a citizen of this country but I am no one’s subject. I have no belief in any God, and scriptures and fables written by men are the stuff of nonsense. Both the Pope and the monarchy are expensive and unnecessary.
Report abuse
I happen to believe we in this country have an almost perfect system of government. We have the solidity and permanance of heredity piers and monarchy who have little real power but are excellent in a crisis. The heredity principle means that they are not professional politicians and therefore tend to be largely immune from the temptations of corruption.Though there are obvious exceptions that some may point out. They tend to be already wealthy and many of them great landowners and captains of industry, they therefore have a vested interest in the success of the nation. Having said that I am a firm believer in democracy. Of course it’s proper that the laws of the land and the important decisions should be made by a democratic executive, as they already are in this country. But could it have been possible for a Hitler, Mussolini or a Stalin to have ever taken power in Britain with the solidity of our heredity nobility and royalty in place? I think not. Too much democracy can be a dangerous thing, just look at the facebook page for ‘fencing off the river severn in Shrewsbury’ to see what I mean! Republicans should read history and realise the value of stability and understand the complex reasons why we have the system we have before sending in the wrecking ball.
Report abuse
If their job is important then it shouldn’t be left to someone who may have no aptitude for it.
If their job is unimportant then it shouldn’t be left to someone who may have no desire to do it.
If it is somewhere in-between then it shouldn’t be left to someone who may have neither aptitude or desire.
I believe in the concept of the republic if only to end the human rights abuse that is heaped upon any person in any country who happens to be unfortunate enough to be born royal and have no choice in whether they do the job despite having no desire or aptitude.
To me, the continued support of the monarchy is casually cruel, or at worst when based on balancing the countries financial books, monstrous.
Free the Buckingham Palace six !!
Report abuse
Religion causes nothing but problems…
Report abuse
I believe the ‘head of state ‘ portion of the expenditure is being funded by the UK government, as it would be by any other head of state.
The religious aspects of the trip, e.g. the visit to Cofton Park and to the Birmingham Oratory will be funded by the Catholic church.
As to which of the monarchy or the Pope is better to spend our money on, I couldn’t care less – they have much in common, both being cosseted, elderly, and of German descent.
Report abuse
Those of you who are still undecided about public funding of the Pope’s visit may like to bear in mind yesterday’s announcement by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican’s rule-making body (formerly known as The Inquisition….).
They have decided that Catholics taking part in the ordination of women are guilty of an equal crime and should face the same level of punishment as those sexually abusing children or the mentally handicapped.
Report abuse
#18 James [
But could it have been possible for a Hitler, Mussolini or a Stalin to have ever taken power in Britain with the solidity of our heredity nobility and royalty in place? I think not]
Read this James and don’t forget that the ancestry of our royal family!
The house of Windsor springs from the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert in 1840. He was the son of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in Germany and his name became that used by the British royal family.
A bit of a mouthful, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha turned out not to be Albert’s real surname, which was Wettin, the name of another aristocratic German dynasty.
It was only in 1917 that George V, worried by the anti-German feeling caused by the first world war, ordered the royal family to scrap Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Wettin for Windsor.
The name of the royal house is Windsor, but the surname of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh [Prince Philip] is Mountbatten-Windsor. The duke is also from the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg and so, arguably, are his heirs.
However, more embarrassing than names the length of a bus are the family’s links to Nazi Germany. The duke is Greek and some of his relatives sympathised with the Nazis; others joined them.
One brother-in-law, Prince Christoph of Hesse, was a member of the SS and flew fighters that attacked allied troops in Italy. Many of Philip’s relatives had Nazi links so that when he married Princess Elizabeth he was severely limited on the guests he could invite.
Like most of the British aristocracy in the 1930s, George VI and his wife, the late Queen Mother, hoped to avoid war with Germany. The king sent birthday greetings to Hitler weeks before Germany invaded Poland.
More notoriously, his brother, the former King Edward VIII, who became the Duke of Windsor after abdicating in 1936, was sympathetic towards Hitler. Even in 1970 he told one interviewer: “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.”
The duke and his wife, Wallis Simpson, had visited Germany in 1937 and were taken to meet the Führer. When they left, Hitler said of Simpson: “She would have made a good Queen.”
Suspicions lingered that if Hitler had successfully invaded Britain, he might have tried to make the duke king again. Confidential files released in 2003 revealed that Nazi officials thought the duke was “no enemy to Germany” and would be the “logical director of England’s destiny after the war”.
Last year files released from the national archives revealed how a former head of British naval intelligence thought the duke’s return was a real possibility. The British admiral, who had attended Hitler’s 1937 Nuremberg rally, featured in an MI5 report as having said that Hitler “would soon be in this country, but that there was no reason to worry about it because he would bring the Duke of Windsor over as king”.
Other royals also had links to the Nazis. Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, the father of Princess Michael of Kent, was a party member and an honorary member of the SS. And the brother of Princess Alice, a great-aunt to the Queen, was a Nazi who said that Hitler had done a “wonderful job”.
#21 BTW Rob, I was pretty disgusted at equating the making of lady bishops with the sin of child abuse too.
I cannot understand why any woman worth her salt would want to get involved with all this codswallop anyway but obviously not a view shared by Shirley Tart who writes the usual sychophantic drivel on the subject in Thursdays Star.
Report abuse
Eva,
At the end of your post I think you are confusing two debates – the C of E debate, ovr women bishops – where the Synod appears to have approved this move forwards; and the R.C. church’s continuing ban on women priests – it being the latter church who have made the controversial choice to consider such ordinations a sin.
Frankly, it’s all mumbo-jumbo and superstition to me, but I think it important we keep the various brands of mumbo-jumbo separate.
Report abuse
I don’t know why you say that Peter. The pope clearly stated two days ago that in his view god will judge the creating of women bishops as comparable with the sins of child abuse.
An appalling thing to say but designed to recruit those in the anglican church who do not agree with women being bishops either to now change to catholicism.
All based on scare tactics and manipulation of vulnerable people. :(
Report abuse