Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty

[drew]

I've yet to see that quantified. France has more visitors to it's ex palaces than we do.

If the only argument for a hereditary head of state is that's good for tourism in London that's ****ing lame.

Have you ever had a conversation with a tourist who claimed that the major reason they came to Englans for a holiday was because of the Queen ?

Gotta do better than that...


Sent from my LG-K520 using Tapatalk

It is difficult to quantify. Your comparing paying customers. Vast majority of those that go to see Buck house don't go through the turnstiles. They watch changing of the guard etc and then disappear to spend their money.

 

[Boys 9d]

When I watched the Changing of the Guard in Prague, I did it for the spectacle without any regard to who was being guarded.

 

[Clive Walker]

Abolishing the monarchy would be marvellous for a number of very valid reasons.

I can't be bothered to explain them all but I'll point out one!

The look on the minor royals faces when they realise they will have to do a proper days work to earn a basic standard of living. The unbelievable part of the monarchy is that through sheer biological luck they are living the life of luxury while doing nothing else to earn it.

I'd also like to see them burnt at the stake.

 

[maltaseagull]

One of the biggest landowners though.

I think the point is that 6 million would be better spent on the Grenfell victims than her personal wealth.

Insensitive and poor timing if you ask me.

My point was the poster was wrong!

While you may have a point about the timing, why shouldn't we cancel the order for the planes for the new aircraft carrier and spend that on making all the tower blocks safer?

 

[maltaseagull]

Regardless of the truth of this, what is wrong with untangling the whole sorry mess so that we can all make reasonable judgements on royalty and what they do and don't bring to the table?

* divvy up the Crown Estates so that royal and state ownership is separated.
* make the royal family pay tax on everything they earn, just like every other business.
* remove the many exemption clauses that are placed in nearly every state law that is passed. No more secrecy.
* the state to pay a single fixed fee and nothing else.

We can then have informed debates on the rights and wrongs of having a monarchy in 2017.

Bit of a misnomer in my opinion. (Based on your posts)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Abolishing the monarchy would be marvellous for a number of very valid reasons.

I can't be bothered to explain them all but I'll point out one!

The look on the minor royals faces when they realise they will have to do a proper days work to earn a basic standard of living. The unbelievable part of the monarchy is that through sheer biological luck they are living the life of luxury while doing nothing else to earn it.

.

You've seen the look on their faces? Were you there?

It's only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh who get any money from the Sovereign Purse. None of the others receive it.
The minor royals do work.
Prince William worked as a qualified helicopter pilot with the Air Sea rescue, and then whilst working for the Air Ambulance, he donated his wages to charity. They are rich, they don't need to work, but do countless hours for charities, a lot of which wouldn't exist without them.

Lord Linley (Princess Margaret's son) has a bespoke furniture business.
Zara Phillips (no title because Princess Ann didn't want her children to have titles) does masses of work with disabled children and horses.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Here is the BBC reporting it:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40412343

I see the lickspittles at the BBC have decided us proles don't deserve a say on it, making no comments section available. Truly part of the establishment.

I have been reading elsewhere on NSC that the BBC is a snowflake propaganda machine for the IRA-supporting homosexuals known as the Labour Party. When did this momentous volte-face take place, I wonder?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Abolishing the monarchy would be marvellous for a number of very valid reasons.

<snip>

I disagree. Unlike god, the Royals actually exist. They do provide a psychological embodiment of national identity for many, and as others have pointed out they work very hard and lead a good example. I admit they did not always do either, but times have changed. Two hundred years ago I'd have been a republican. Actually, 20 years ago I was a republican Personally they are not relevant to me, but I quite like the constitutional monarchy as a thing (and in practice, if we ever get Boris as PM, the queen CAN have the carpetbaggincockwomble **** executed - what's not to like about that?). Lastly, the financial balance sheet says the royals bring money into the country, and in spades - without causing needless harm to children or the ozone layer.

 

[drew]

Abolishing the monarchy would be marvellous for a number of very valid reasons.

I can't be bothered to explain them all but I'll point out one!

The look on the minor royals faces when they realise they will have to do a proper days work to earn a basic standard of living. The unbelievable part of the monarchy is that through sheer biological luck they are living the life of luxury while doing nothing else to earn it.

I'd also like to see them burnt at the stake.

Really? The Queen's personal fortune is estimated to be about £340m in 2015 so I doubt even the minor royals will have to worry!

 

[Spiros]

The key difference there is that diplomatic immunity is a necessary evil and we can't do anything about it unilaterally. On the other hand, we ought to be able to ensure all of our people are the same in the eyes of our law. Quite clearly, the Royal family (and not just the head of state) are all above the law. Some of what Prince Andrew has done would have seen anyone else up in court and possibly thrown in jail.

And your argument about the Queen "looking after" Buck Palace has always grated with me. When it comes to Royalty, who owns what has always been shrouded in confusion and secrecy*. Nobody really knows, and frankly nobody is making her stay at the palace anyway.

Anyway I think I'm done here. I find it so depressing that such a large majority in this country doesn't even question whether or not a monarchy is needed in this country. Fine to have that view, but to blithely accept huge financial increases to fund the privileged especially at a time like this really does sadden me.


*They are even protected in parliament by being excluded from various laws designed to improve transparency in various legal matters.

You refer to them as privileged but I wouldn't swap places with them. To me the job looks like golden handcuffs. I have the freedom to do more or less what I want, where I want when I want, with whom I want with no scrutiny. They don't.

By the way, although I disagree with your views on the subject I respect the way you are arguing your side without resorting to to abuse or sarcasm. Even though I haven't changed my mind you have made me think

 

[Spiros]

who are these senior member of the royal family you speak of? attending trade meetings etc,

About 10 years or so ago a relative of mine was part of a trade delegation to China. This particular relative is not very pro royal. Prince Andrew was on the trip and apparently was the star turn. He only had to be at your negotiations without saying much and you had the Chinese keen to talk to you. Like I said, personally I don't get it but it seems to work
P

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Currently Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and the Duke and Duchess of Kent receive millions of pounds of state subsidy for their lavish homes, travel and security. Princess Alexandra, the Queen’s cousin who few have heard of and fewer would recognise, is also receiving subsidy. Over 80% of people believe they should receive nothing.

They have a grace and favour residence, which isn't state subsidised, but subsidised by the Queen.
http://www.express.co.uk/expressyou...e-and-Princess-Michael-of-Kent-really-hard-up

Princess Alexandra, the same, but as a widow and 80 years old, you would expect the family to look after the granddaughter of King George V.

 

[Tubby-McFat-Fuc]

You've seen the look on their faces? Were you there?

It's only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh who get any money from the Sovereign Purse. None of the others receive it.
The minor royals do work.
Prince William worked as a qualified helicopter pilot with the Air Sea rescue, and then whilst working for the Air Ambulance, he donated his wages to charity. They are rich, they don't need to work, but do countless hours for charities, a lot of which wouldn't exist without them.

Lord Linley (Princess Margaret's son) has a bespoke furniture business.
Zara Phillips (no title because Princess Ann didn't want her children to have titles) does masses of work with disabled children and horses.

Oh don't be like that and pop his bubble. Just humour him, and tell him we should shoot them all, rather than point out facts that will upset the fragile little snowflake.

 

[Clive Walker]

You've seen the look on their faces? Were you there?

It's only the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh who get any money from the Sovereign Purse. None of the others receive it.
The minor royals do work.
Prince William worked as a qualified helicopter pilot with the Air Sea rescue, and then whilst working for the Air Ambulance, he donated his wages to charity. They are rich, they don't need to work, but do countless hours for charities, a lot of which wouldn't exist without them.

Lord Linley (Princess Margaret's son) has a bespoke furniture business.
Zara Phillips (no title because Princess Ann didn't want her children to have titles) does masses of work with disabled children and horses.

Currently Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and the Duke and Duchess of Kent receive millions of pounds of state subsidy for their lavish homes, travel and security. Princess Alexandra, the Queen’s cousin who few have heard of and fewer would recognise, is also receiving subsidy. Over 80% of people believe they should receive nothing.

 

[clapham_gull]

It is difficult to quantify. Your comparing paying customers. Vast majority of those that go to see Buck house don't go through the turnstiles. They watch changing of the guard etc and then disappear to spend their money.

If it's difficult to quantify why bother ?

Come up with some constitutional argument of which there are many or why alternatives (*) are seductive but bad.

But please

1) Tourism ( can't quantity)
2) Value For Money - same as above
3) Continuity - they don't live forever.

The Royal Family are effectively invisible beyond the odd appearance on television and state events.

If we are to keep them they require massive modernisation and at least a point.

You will never get rid of the Royal Family, but there has to be an alternative to keeping an effectively powerless institution in place at such great public cost. The reason they are lauded when turning up at public events / tragedies is they are political benign in the same way as modern celebrities like Beckham are.

Much gnashing of teeth when the Head of State expresses an opinion (or not) about Brexit.

I genuinely feel sorry for them, especially the younger ones.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nsc is going crazy again. My post 112 is answering post 114, which was before mine when I quoted it.
[MENTION=6886]Bozza[/MENTION]

 

[clapham_gull]

About 10 years or so ago a relative of mine was part of a trade delegation to China. This particular relative is not very pro royal. Prince Andrew was on the trip and apparently was the star turn. He only had to be at your negotiations without saying much and you had the Chinese keen to talk to you. Like I said, personally I don't get it but it seems to work
P

You would have the same effect if the Beckhams turned up.

They are the Royal Family after all and celebrity has it's place However it is a real oddity that so much money is spent on a politically benign institution.

Trade trips fine. Security fine.

We will keep your palaces going as Tourists attractions - but all those staff and extended family getting a hand out ?

No - sorry. Because of simply who they are a myriad of companies would employ them just to turn up and say hello.

Prince Charles, Andrew and Anne - get a job.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If it's difficult to quantify why bother ?

Come up with some constitutional argument of which there are many or why alternatives (*) are seductive but bad.

But please

1) Tourism ( can't quantity)
2) Value For Money - same as above
3) Continuity - they don't live forever.

The Royal Family are effectively invisible beyond the odd appearance on television and state events.

If we are to keep them they require massive modernisation and at least a point.

You will never get rid of the Royal Family, but there has to be an alternative to keeping an effectively powerless institution in place at such great public cost. The reason they are lauded when turning up at public events / tragedies is they are political benign in the same way as modern celebrities like Beckham are.

Much gnashing of teeth when the Head of State expresses an opinion (or not) about Brexit.

I genuinely feel sorry for them, especially the younger ones.

What great public cost? 65p per person per annum - for security which would be provided for any head of state. This has been covered many many times.

The Treasury is better off with the income from the Crown Estates, than without it, which is why no politician has tried to get rid of the monarchy.

 

[cunning fergus]

The magic money tree spring to life again then. Lovely stuff.

There is no magic money tree, there is literally a forest of the f@ckers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34326934

We are a country that has had Govts for many years borrow billions to give it away in foreign aid or to the EU, this indicates we have plenty of money.............

 

[portslade seagull]

It's the money from tourism which far outweigh the cost of the Royals.