TheBobmus said:
I hope you were expecting all this Republican angst when you posted that, because here's mine.
Firstly, I would like to say that even if we do make umpteen millions off the monarchy no amount of money should be able to pay for the right that I have to stand for the highest office in government be taken away from me. She's not even a good head of state, if we had a democratic one he/she could make actual important visits (ok, the Queen makes a few, but mostly she just travels the Commonwealth) to places to make trade agreements etc. rather than hand these powers to the PM, what are called prerogative powers which are illiberal themselves.
Furthermore, she doesn't even represent the feelings of the people with what little power she has. Just the other week she had the King of Bahrain and that corrupt chap from somewhere-in-Africa round for tea, whereas if we had a democratically elected head of state, he/she would at least to an extent be more representative of the wishes of the people, because of course he/she would have been voted in by them. Although you might make the point that the Queen isn't evil and isn't overtly propping up dictatorships there is nothing constitutionally that stops her from doing so.
Now I would like to address the issues raised in the video itself regarding the money. Firstly, that cost doesn't take into account things like security and costs of visits on local councils. The Guardian (I know probably biased, if you're really bothered I can check the BBC) quotes her actual cost at £150 million per year http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/jun/29/royalaccountsareallspin. Also, even if that £40 million was right, I'm fairly sure she can carry out her job equally well (or badly) on a fraction of that. For example, she doesn't have to spend £400,000 on garden parties each year to be a good head of state.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that video seemed to be saying that if Parliament took away her civil funding, then the Queen would take away the rent from her land (btw I refuse to accept that figure can be that high until I see a reliable source). However, Parliament is sovereign. If they voted to pass a law saying the Queen no longer gets all her funding and we get to keep the rent, she cannot say no, even when it comes to royal assent because Parliament holds de jeure sovereignty in the land i.e. what they say goes.
Finally, I dispute the credibility of that video when it claims it knows how much of the tourist industry is created by the monarchy, and who's to say it wouldn't stay when the monarchy are gone? The video says that France isn't as popular as us because we have a monarchy for realz, but in reality, France gets almost 3 TIMES the amount of tourists we do per year, and our GDP per capita is higher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Tourism_Rankings. Furthermore, only 3 of the top 10 tourist attractions have anything to do with the monarchy http://news.icm.ac.uk/business/uk%E2%80%99s-top-ten-tourist-attractions/3381/ and non one even pays to go into Buckingham Palace, they just look at it from the outside.
So any way, thus ends the lecture of the dedicated republican. Get rid of the monarchy and give the money we get from it to the true cornerstones of society - teachers, nurses, doctors etc.