[Palace] Costs of the Royal family

[BBassic]

I wouldn't want their job for all the money in the world. they are constantly photographed, gossiped about, criticized and followed wherever they go. they are expected to do countless meet and greets and be ambassadors while walking a tightrope over what they say, wear and do.

Every aspect of their lives are scrutinised and documented and sod being a royal kid. They are front page on every magazine and paper every day and god forbid if they step out of line with a wrong skirt or dare to hold the baby bump.

They deserve double.

I wouldn't want their jobs either. A life in the public eye under that sort of scrutiny must be quite wearying. However they'll get zero sympathy from me whilst there are children in this country living in poverty because no matter how tough it might be to live the Royal life at least they'll always know where their next meal is coming from.

 

[Brovion]

*Sigh*. Regardless of the political implications we'd still get tourists if we didn't have a monarchy. People still visit the Palace of Versailles in Paris, the pyramids in Egypt, the Taj Mahal in India, etc etc etc. All those places have survived as tourist destinations long after the demise of their original royal owners.

 

[Two Professors]

Bet he would cost Great Britain a damn sight more!

 

[Deleted member 2719]

Neither of them is even royal, so they are taking the p*ss.

Too many snowflakes letting this ginger lad believe he is royal when clearly he isn't.

I feel for Charlie.

 

[beorhthelm]

cost of Royal Family are give or take fixed. they get a grant from the Crown Estate and allocate that spending as see necessary. a house in the estate has been renovated, sounds expensive imo, but no actual net cost to the taxpayer.

 

[bha100]

I must ask, could they not have simply paid for it themselves? they are wealthy enough, £2.4m in all honesty is pocket change to them, wouldn't have put even a dent in their finances, it's all about entitlement to them, why should we pay when the tax payer will

 

[Ernest]

We don't need to abolish the monarchy because if they carry on much more like this they will be the cause of their own downfall.

 

[AmexRuislip]

We don't need to abolish the monarchy because if they carry on much more like this they will be the cause of their own downfall.

Don't you have something in common with royalty

Sausages..............

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

I must ask, could they not have simply paid for it themselves?

Genuine question, where would their 'income' come from. If your 'job' is basically public engagements every day, what would be their 'wage' to 'pay for it themselves'

I'm sure someone could correct me on this, but whichever way you cut it, doesn't their income come from the government (in several forms) apart from maybe a few investments?

 

[NooBHA]

I am no fan of the Monarchy but refurbishing this building I have no issue with it being met.

The problem I have is with the Journalist who wheel out this terminology '' cost to the taxpayer '' in an attempt to sensationalise news stories.


They did the same when RBS and Northern Rock had to be ''bailed out several years ago - The ''cost to the public'' would truly have been ''realised'' if people who banked with those institutions had truly lost all their money in those banks, had they not been bailed out by the Government after all the Bankers mismanagement in the preceding years.

Tabloid newspapers keep trying to make us believe that we personally are paying for these costs and often the people who most get up in arms are people claiming benefits and who are not taxpayers anyhow. Although I do have some sympathy in that regard in that the funds could be used to help many of the less abled bodied people, less able to work. Thus there no doubt is some sort of ''cost to the taxpayer''

So by all means fund the cost of the upgrade of these properties but I wish The Press would stop making the people of this country feel that we have some sort of ownership in them. We do not and it is patronising when newspapers try to indicate that people personally have some sort of ownership stake in them when most of us will never see them from anywhere, other than from the other side of a 12 feet wall.

 

[Stephen Seagull]

Why are they not residing in Sussex?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

I am no fan of the Monarchy but refurbishing this building I have no issue with it being met.

The problem I have is with the Journalist who wheel out this terminology '' cost to the taxpayer '' in an attempt to sensationalise news stories.


They did the same when RBS and Northern Rock had to be ''bailed out several years ago - The ''cost to the public'' would truly have been ''realised'' if people who banked with those institutions had truly lost all their money in those banks, had they not been bailed out by the Government after all the Bankers mismanagement in the preceding years.

Tabloid newspapers keep trying to make us believe that we personally are paying for these costs and often the people who most get up in arms are people claiming benefits and who are not taxpayers anyhow. Although I do have some sympathy in that regard in that the funds could be used to help many of the less abled bodied people, less able to work. Thus there no doubt is some sort of ''cost to the taxpayer''

So by all means fund the cost of the upgrade of these properties but I wish The Press would stop making the people of this country feel that we have some sort of ownership in them. We do not and it is patronising when newspapers try to indicate that people personally have some sort of ownership stake in them when most of us will never see them from anywhere, other than from the other side of a 12 feet wall.

Plus thousands of taxpayer have been handed free money from the banks by PPI being renamed mis-sold PPI despite the benefits, successful claims under policies and peace of mind received by policy holders.

 

[1066familyman]

Absolutely. The UK gets hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds pumped into the UK economy just because of monarchy and history. I personally don’t really care about them, but getting rid of them would be a mistake of Brexit magnitude.

Has it not occurred to you that removing the royal family does not remove our history?
Tourists would still come even if we got rid of this parasitical family.

 

[bha100]

Genuine question, where would their 'income' come from. If your 'job' is basically public engagements every day, what would be their 'wage' to 'pay for it themselves'

I'm sure someone could correct me on this, but whichever way you cut it, doesn't their income come from the government (in several forms) apart from maybe a few investments?

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a20745405/prince-harry-net-worth/

 

[Bulldog]

The greatest threat to the continued existence of the royals isn't republicans like myself, but the arse licking sycophants that think giving ever more millions to an already rich family, somehow make you a super patriot.

I'm guessing that most people think their spending should be heavily reduced in line with public spending in general.

Allowing them to stick their noses in the trough at will, simply infuriates the middle ground and the just about/ not managing majority, turning them into republicans as well.

The people who love the royal family should be the ones shouting for change, more open accounts, reduced funding and a real oversight on just how little work they actually do for their fortunes.

 

[A1X]

I'm just in the process of purchasing a new house. Anyone know where I can apply for this kind of money from the Government to do mine up?

 

[maltaseagull]

We don't need to abolish the monarchy because if they carry on much more like this they will be the cause of their own downfall.

Once Jeremy gets in No10 and creates the Peoples Democratic Republic of England ?

 

[A1X]

Absolutely. The UK gets hundreds of millions if not billions of pounds pumped into the UK economy just because of monarchy and history. I personally don’t really care about them, but getting rid of them would be a mistake of Brexit magnitude.

This is a great point. I mean nobody ever visits Paris anymore.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

We, the taxpayer, would still have those costs for the upkeep of historic buildings if we got rid of Royalty. I'd rather a politically neutral head of state over a political one any day.

In regards to the actually property in question, Frogmore Cottage. I believe this is part of the Queen's property portfolio, which she has given to her grandson as a residence for his family.

I don't think the property is open to the public. it looks like Frogmore house itself is only open to the public 4 days a year.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We don't have to get rid of them. But surely we can look to cut back on how much we spend on them.
They are independently wealthy. They could survive without the handouts.

How much do the Crown Estates give to the Treasury? That bit always gets left out for some reason.

£344million is how much.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/06/25/crown-estate-hands-treasury-344m-bumper-year/