Preparations for a British regency ?

[<k>]

Apart from anything else, monarchs these days often have parents who live into their late eighties or even far longer. The royals are generally into sport, which keeps them healthy for longer than the average citizen. By the time a new monarch comes to ascend the throne, he or she is often close to, or older than, pensionable age. Perhaps in future we should have an obligatory abdication age, of anywhere between 65 and 75, to give the heir a chance to have a decent run-in before old age hits.

[chrisild]

Admittedly I am glad to live in a republic, so I do not follow such debates very closely. But part of the discussion in the UK, as I perceive it, is a little strange in my opinion: On one hand it is totally unthinkable that the Queen steps back at some point, like some other heads of state in European representative monarchies do. Nah, cannot happen, how dare anybody suggest that, etc.  Then again, it seems to be perfectly OK for some to "skip" her successor, so that somebody who is apparently more popular can become king ...

Well, maybe that could pave a path. Charles becomes king when Elizabeth dies, and then abdicates after x years, so that William would become the next king.

Christian

[<k>]

On one hand it is totally unthinkable that the Queen steps back at some point, like some other heads of state in European representative monarchies do. Nah, cannot happen, how dare anybody suggest that, etc.

This is because Elizabeth became Queen on that understanding. She herself promised to serve for her entire life, and she is not the sort of person who would break a promise. Nor should we now say, "We're changing the original contract and giving you the sack".  Which does leave a problem, of course, should the Queen become infirm, rather than dying in her sleep. The regency idea is a workable compromise.

[Figleaf]

With the notable exception of the US, most OECD countries have separated the functions of head of state and head of the government. With the notable exception of France, the head of state has a symbolic function: to represent the country on weddings, funerals parties and other such occasions. In human terms, that basically means doing nothing of importance except being there when called on. That function is vital.

Dutch variety artist Wim Sonneveld used to sing about the queen of Lombardia, whose only function was to wave at crowds from a horse-drawn carriage. One day, she decided she'd had enough of waving and had a hand made that would wave on its own. However, when the carriage had an accident, she was found out and killed by the Council of ministers. The hand waves on her grave in Lombardia.

People are not good at doing nothing. A favourite torture of prisoners is making sure they are isolated from the outside world and have nothing to do. It drives them crazy. A good head of state can take having nothing to do. It helps immensely to be not too bright and to have few opinions. It helps to have a charity hobby, as long as it doesn't have a political connection. It's the same for German presidents and for British royalty.

Presidents have the advantage that they know the job is temporary. Royalty has the advantage of being trained from an early age on. Presidents have the disadvantage of almost by definition having political interests. Royalty has the disadvantage of not having a choice. It's the oldest son/child, fit for the job or not. An interesting but somewhat moot point is that there are other systems of succession than the Western mechanism. I am thinking in particular of the Mongol system, where the ruler appoints one of his offspring as his heir (I believe the Saudis still do it that way.) This often led to civil war, but that was in feudal times, not in times when the system was empty of content. There is also a short-lived Roman succession, where the ruler adopts a successor as his own child, but that may be too presidential. Yet, tinkering with succession and timely abdication may be the key to giving monarchs an edge over presidents, if that's what you want. As royalty is a tradition thing, I wonder if it can be done, though.

If presidents or royalty make little if any difference, my economist training drives me to look at the price tag. At least that is clear. Monarchs are more expensive. The difference is largely in the cost of safety. They need protection from cradle to grave for themselves as well as for a good number of family members. If a nation is willing to bear the cost of royalty for the sake of tradition, that is their affair. I prefer to save the money.

Peter

[FosseWay]

Brexit just seems ill-advised to say the very least. Not the same level of mistake as current US politics but pretty important never the less.

I think (from the current perspective at least) Brexit is a worse mistake. OK, Trump may do something really world-changing like start flinging nuclear weapons around, but if he continues as he has begun, the US will have to put up with having a leader everyone else pokes fun at for a short while, and then restore normality in four years' time. Brexit is going to be a noose round the UK's neck for the rest of my lifetime.

Since the King/Queen doesn't really do anything  what difference does it make who is in that position? Well a popular person would be useful.

Broadly I agree on both counts. But it is important that the incumbent is seen to "do nothing" politically, too. The monarch of the UK has theoretical powers that are not used by custom. If someone sufficiently arrogant happened to fill that post (think a Trump-like person) they could use the theoretical constitutional setup to cause political problems, which the UK has enough of already. I'm not saying Charles necessarily would do this; people have complained that he is inappropriately outspoken, but IME that is in areas that are peripheral to the running of the country. If the monarch suddenly started stirring the Brexit pot, for example, then nothing good would come of it. I would prefer to see the remaining theoretical powers of the monarchy constitutionally abolished, as they have been in Sweden. This would mean that a lacklustre monarch would simply be a non-entity for a while, not a potential political timebomb.

If presidents or royalty make little if any difference, my economist training drives me to look at the price tag. At least that is clear. Monarchs are more expensive. The difference is largely in the cost of safety. They need protection from cradle to grave for themselves as well as for a good number of family members. If a nation is willing to bear the cost of royalty for the sake of tradition, that is their affair. I prefer to save the money.

I'm not sure that you can draw that conclusion. First you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet, and in the UK's case at least, the royal family and all the pomp and ceremony around it attract visitors and therefore income. I've no idea whether the cost of maintaining the royal family is more than, less than or equal to the income thus created, but in any case it must be offset against the cost. Second, I very much doubt whether the security operation around the Queen costs anything like the one around the US president, regardless of who he is. Also, the Queen is the Queen - there is one of her, there are no ex-queens. There are currently six (I think?) living US ex-presidents, all of whom get CIA protection for life over and above what the serving president needs.

[augsburger]

Well, running from the Paparazzi wasn't the main problem, the main problem was the guy doing the driving might have had a little too much to drink to deal with the situation.

[Figleaf]

I'm not sure that you can draw that conclusion. First you have to look at both sides of the balance sheet, and in the UK's case at least, the royal family and all the pomp and ceremony around it attract visitors and therefore income. I've no idea whether the cost of maintaining the royal family is more than, less than or equal to the income thus created, but in any case it must be offset against the cost.

I heard that argument before. I think it's empty propaganda. At best, I can imagine that a coronation would attract a significant number of non-official visitors. There hasn't been one since 1953, which may be fortunate, since the cost of a coronation are probably far greater than the income from royalty watching international tourists. Other events attract journalists, not tourists.

An anecdote: my wife is a royalty watcher. She reads whatever she can on the Dutch royal house. The British royal house comes in at quite a distance, with all the others, from the Thai royal house to the claimants of thrones no longer in existence. Once, we were in London when the UK queen was to appear at St. Paul's, near our hotel. My wife stood along the route, opposite the entrance to St. Paul's among the paper flag-waving crowd. That night, she reported to me she had seen the cars speeding by, the queen got out where the public couldn't see her, my wife caught a glimpse of what may have been her hat and she was pushed around by self-important security men. She confessed that if there were another opportunity, she wouldn't try again. Do you think she'd travel just for a UK royal event?

Second, I very much doubt whether the security operation around the Queen costs anything like the one around the US president, regardless of who he is. Also, the Queen is the Queen - there is one of her, there are no ex-queens. There are currently six (I think?) living US ex-presidents, all of whom get CIA protection for life over and above what the serving president needs.

You seem to have forgotten about all the family members of the UK queen. Anyway, the comparison with US presidents is false, first because if the UK were a to become a republic, it is likely that the head of state would have nothing to do, unlike a US president, second because everyone except US officials feels that security for the US president is way over the top. (Nevertheless, two US presidents were murdered on the job, one in my lifetime and - also in my lifetime, one survived an attempt to kill him.)

The source of the expenditure stats is an article from ESB, a magazine for professional economists in Dutch. It used government budget data and compared them with budget expenditure for German presidents. IIRC, their main problem was finding hidden cost items, e.g. security is spread among the budget of the ministries of domestic affairs (police), defence (military police, air patrols) and foreign affairs (on-tour security). They didn't count traffic disruptions.

Peter

[FosseWay]

Anyway, the comparison with US presidents is false, first because if the UK were a to become a republic, it is likely that the head of state would have nothing to do,

No more or less than the Queen has to do, presumably. Remember that if the Real IRA, Islamic State, al-Qa'eda or whoever succeeded in assassinating the Queen, they would not be doing that because they have a particular animus against Mrs Mountbatten, but because of what she represents. That would be just as true of someone seeking to assassinate the presidents of Ireland, Germany or Israel (for example), all of whom have an essentially ceremonial role, and it would be just as true of a ceremonial president of the UK.

That reason also exists as a motive for assassinating executive leaders such as the US or French presidents or the UK prime minister, but these figures will also attract the attention of murderers who have it in for the specific post-holder, especially if s/he is internationally divisive, such as Trump or Putin.

As to the number of people affecting the security budget - there is certainly scope for reducing the size of the royal household in the UK to match its continental cousins. But given the number of government and opposition politicians that need protection, the addition of say 20-ish royals (HMQ, Prince Philip, their children and spouses, and grandchildren) is not particularly significant. Some of those 20 "places" would still be needed for the president and his/her immediate family, plus former presidents.

[Figleaf]

It is not an open question for me whether terrorists prefer murdering many people or people with name recognition. The stats say they prefer mass murder. There are few if any instances of terrorist murder of people with high name recognition. Sure, the best of those are hard targets, but many more (e.g. cinema and TV stars, sports "heroes") are not. It may be different for homegrown lunatics, like John Hinckley and Wilkes Booth, but the sophistication and efficiency of such loners is much less.

I found the calculations in ESB convincing. They are a bit old now (from what I remember, they were first published shortly before 1984) but I suppose that the "security" item must have grown in the intervening years with a similar percentage for royalty and presidents, making the cost gap between them even wider.

No amount of argumentation will make say 20 royal family members less onerous than one family and say 6 ex-presidents.

Peter