Correspondence with local councillors

Sent: 09 September 2009 15:32
To: Laurie Fraser - Member; Liz MacDonald - Member; Graham Marsden - Member; Sandy Park- Member
Subject: Form from website: hereditary position, privilege and power in the 21st century

I am writing to enquire what your views are regarding Britain having a hereditary monarchy as Head of State? You may be aware there is a growing movement towards democracy for Britain in this regard (see www.republic.org.uk ). I believe passionately that monarchy is an indefensible and unjust anachronism which must be extricated from the machinery and finances of the state as soon as possible, for a more fair and aspirational future. Please take time to look at the information on the website and then I hope we can count on your support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your email. As a councillor I am used to having and being asked my views on a range of aspects of the community I serve, this is the first on the monarchy

I worked in London for some years as an hotelier in a very large city centre hotel, and there’s no doubt that many of the foreign customers we served were attracted by our Royalty, visiting palaces etc – I saw at first hand the millions of pounds of foreign currency which these visitors generated for Britain.

I then lived overseas, in Commonwealth countries, where membership was often a calming factor and made these countries safer, pro-British and often as a result, bought much from the UK in preference to other countries.

Finally, I respect the Queen for the job she does and the way she does it. I also respect Princess Anne, who has visited Nairn on numerous occasions, whether to open the new Community Centre, or to visit other places within our community like Nairn CAB (as patron of the Citizens Advice organisation). I had a lengthy chat with her after she had opened Nairn CAB some years ago; she spoke with authority and knowledge about benefits and rates payable, I found that impressive.

I’m perhaps less convinced about other members of the royal household, and their cost to the public purse, so to answer your question, I have mixed views on the subject but on balance am more pro than anti at present – but the royal list could do with paring down, I feel!

That is the view I hold now, I may of course change it at a future date.

Regards, Graham Marsden

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your prompt reply.

Like you, many people cite tourism as a reason for retaining the monarchy, but if it is looked at more closely this argument does not in fact stand up. The most popular tourist country in the world is France, and like them without the monarchy we would still have the palaces, castles and houses, as in fact they belong to us and Elizabeth Windsor is merely a custodian. In fact they would be more of a tourist attraction as they would be open to the public more and would therefore be able to not only be self-sufficient but actually make a profit like the Tower of London - currently Buckingham Palace is only open to the public 63 days a year and is not even able to pay for its repair. A piece of falling masonry recently narrowly missed Princess Anne. Palace officials have refused to open it up any more though they have been asked to do so by government, yet they have simultaneously asked for more taxpayers' money yet not provided the paperwork requested by the public accounts committee. Two Spanish tourists were even arrested recently for taking photographs of the wall around Buckingham Palace! There would be far more available for tourists to see without the monarchy being encumbent. If they came to see the royals they would probably be disappointed as they're not on show anywhere. Also, ask yourself if you were going to visit Norway, Sweden or Denmark for instance, would you be going there because of their monarchies? The people and history of this country are well interesting enough to attract visitors, I do not believe this resides in the continued elevation of one particular family.

Re the Commonwealth. The various nations of the Commonwealth are turning their backs on the monarchy as they look to a more democratic future. Most countries in the commonwealth are already republics. A recent survey by the Royal Commonwealth Society found that less than a quarter of Commonwealth citizens want Charles to head the organisation after his mother dies. So a hereditary monarchy only seems to unite the commonwealth against it.

As you rightly observe, some members of the royal family are much more sympathetic than others! Princess Anne stands out as not having requested security for her children and that can be contrasted to her brother Andrew's daughters' colossal security bill which is coming out of the Metropolitan Police budget (taxpayers' money again). Anne also took no royal titles for her children. People cannot help the family that they are born into, and if you look at the royals as human beings the argument against monarchy becomes even more powerful. 'Around the throne gather the unwholesome parasites'. The establishment, of murky palace officialdom who hide behind the names of buildings ('Clarence House said today' 'The palace says') would sacrifice the royals in a second to save themselves, and these people surround them from birth. The queen's father was catapulted into being king, a job which he was not equipped for and which her mother certainly believed contributed to his premature death. There is a book 'God Save the Queen?' by Johann Hari which goes into more detail on how abusive to the individual royals as human beings the system of monarchy really is.

But for democracy, a fairer society and for us, with the system of hereditary monarchy it's a lottery whether we get a half-decent royal or a selfish, immoral, tyrannical one or something in between, or one who can cope with the job or one who can't. We can't choose and we can't claim to be a fully formed democracy until any of our children can be told "Yes you can", not just the ones born into one family.

Sincerely,

Marjory Smith

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, but I do not want a republic.

Laurie

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Could you explain what your reasons are for supporting the monarchy?

Thanks.

Marjory