[Palace] Costs of the Royal family

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

Open accounts - see Crown Estates and Sovereign Purse. It's all there to see.

 

[FatSuperman]

Would they be less of a draw to tourism if we didn't pay for them?

I don’t know. If we stop paying for them, will they stop providing the profits from their land and property into the UK kitty? We can’t very well have it both ways can we?

 

[Questions]

Prince Andrew is worth every penny.

Works tirelessly, never even has time for a round of golf nowadays.

Don’t be sarcastic..... you know very well why he couldn’t play golf


He was at Ascot

 

[dejavuatbtn]

I don’t know. If we stop paying for them, will they stop providing the profits from their land and property into the UK kitty? We can’t very well have it both ways can we?

Well, I guess we put a line in the sand by stop funding them and charge them tax, as in any other business, on their income. No doubt they will have plenty of exemptions in costs and charities, but at least they will maybe stop being charged as spongers.

 

[beorhthelm]

Well, I guess we put a line in the sand by stop funding them and charge them tax, as in any other business, on their income. No doubt they will have plenty of exemptions in costs and charities, but at least they will maybe stop being charged as spongers.

we do draw a line, theres a fixed grant from the crown estates, and they do pay tax on private income.

 

[FatSuperman]

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/

Surely they’ll still give us that money once we ‘get rid of them’?

Why the hell are people bringing up France? They effectively got rid of their monarchy in the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. I doubt many people were travelling the world on holiday back then. They are just a lot better at promotion than the UK tourist board. They have a broader appeal than the UK, principally because an enormous amount of people can travel there by road and rail. But also of course because of the ‘more reliable’ weather. Each has its own strengths, but since the rise of tourism, they haven’t really had a royal family to promote in any way.

 

[oneillco]

All peanuts when you consider how much the Roayal Family bring into the UK in tourism....allegedly

Yeah tourism to France died on its 4rse once they executed Louis XVI in 1793...

 

[FatSuperman]

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?

Just call your HMRC representative. Make sure you give them details of the many millions you freely give up to the treasury every year, as the Royal Family do.

I’m not actually particularly bothered by the Royals. But the ill-informed views on display here are so common it’s irritating.

 

[FatSuperman]

Yeah tourism to France died on its 4rse once they executed Louis XVI in 1793...

That’s exactly the point isn’t it. I doubt many people were willingly going to France to see Louis and the crew. You can guarantee that if they still had a Royal Family that are famous the world over, they would be promoting that as another great reason to come and get immersed in French culture and history. They don’t because they can’t!

Tourism back then was mainly invading armies.

 

[highflyer]

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/

But why would that change if we abolished the Monarchy and transferred the Crown Estates to full public ownership?
Which we should absolutely do (for non-financial reasons). But won't.

It's not like the value created by the crown estates is down to the personal toil of the royal family

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But why would that change if we abolished the Monarchy and transferred the Crown Estates to full public ownership?
Which we should absolutely do (for non-financial reasons). But won't.

It's not like the value created by the crown estates is down to the personal toil of the royal family

Ok so you sack the royalty. That does not give the government carte blanche to rob them of their personal land and houses. Some of the estate belongs to the people ie Buckingham Palace but Windsor and Sandringham are privately owned. Windsor was built by William the Conquer.


How much do you think it would cost to run properties for a President. Buckingham Palace could be used in the same way Macron uses the Elysee Palace? It would still need staff and security.
Renovating Big Ben is already costing £61million, and Westminster is taking £3.5Billion and 15 years to complete. I don't seem to see threads complaining about that?

 

[blue-shifted]

I'm fairly sentimental about this, so i'll say keep the Royal Family, but be acutely aware that the Daily Mail and others are looking to do a stich up article at every opportunity. (This will get worse after the queen goes as she is popular). To counter this, be very aware of what is being spent and make sure at little as possible is coming from the public purse.

 

[blue-shifted]

I suppose at some point the French must have taken a different tack to you that we can't just rob them of their personal property

Ok so you sack the royalty. That does not give the government carte blanche to rob them of their personal land and houses. Some of the estate belongs to the people ie Buckingham Palace but Windsor and Sandringham are privately owned. Windsor was built by William the Conquer.


How much do you think it would cost to run properties for a President. Buckingham Palace could be used in the same way Macron uses the Elysee Palace? It would still need staff and security.
Renovating Big Ben is already costing £61million, and Westminster is taking £3.5Billion and 15 years to complete. I don't seem to see threads complaining about that?

 

[wellquickwoody]

indeed, look at the tourism industry in post revolution france,

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

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.

I appreciate that other European countries have plenty of tourism. But with the UK soon to be outside the EU how many of those tourists will bother to go through the added paperwork of bureaucracy to visit the UK? Many people from around the world take lengthy vacations to Europe to travel extensively. With added paperwork/checks etc after leaving the EU, and the proposition of some on here wanting to abolish the monarchy, how many will keep coming?

I have been astonished at how much coverage the Royal family get down here, no chance of a republic anytime soon.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I suppose at some point the French must have taken a different tack to you that we can't just rob them of their personal property

It wasn't surprising when the French were starving to death and the Austrian Queen said let them eat cake. The closest we have to that ignorance now is Jacob Rees-Mogg and his sister.
Are you suggesting we guillotine them and seize the Rees-Mogg millions?

Actually, the richest person in Britain is the Duke of Westminster, who isn't royalty.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

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.

Parasites don't donate £344 million to the treasury from the Crown Estates. Strong and inaccurate language doesn't help truthful discussions.

 

[albion534]

Separate accounts show the Crown Estate provided a record £343.5m to the Treasury in 2018-19, up 4.3% on last year.


They bring in more than they take. So I don’t see the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FatSuperman]

I appreciate that other European countries have plenty of tourism.

As you say, it's a lot easier to tour countries in Europe, but more than that it's actually a lot cheaper than visiting here. Prices are higher here, in general the currency here is 'more costly' than the continent, although we are addressing that (unplanned!). Realistically we are never going to get the same numbers as somewhere like France for a load of different reasons. But that's not really relevant. The real question is;

If we ditch the Royal Family, do we gain more in cost savings than we lose in reduced tourism.

I think it's very difficult to answer that question, so my take on it is why bother risking it? They don't actually 'cost' us anything, given that they are a net contributor to the public purse. Obviously we could rob them, but what precedent does that set? Who else are we allowed to rob? Where do we draw the timeline and say 'well, they shouldn't have had that anyway'. Maybe we align everything to the French Revolution - that would please a load of people on here. So, anyone who owned anything PRIOR to 1793 has to forfeit that to the public. Anything purchased after that date is kept by the owner.

We'll have to be careful with people that have transferred ownership into tax efficient vehicles / management companies etc. Because obviously they still really own it. I think with the right people behind this, we could really get it done. I'm excited.

Obviously I'm happy to debate the start date. Maybe we should have a vote on it? Most of the young people would probably choose 2018, given they have sod all and would happily see everyone 'richer than them' brought down a peg or two.

On that basis, who ends up with the Falklands?

 

[beorhthelm]

On that basis, who ends up with the Falklands?

the Falklanders.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I appreciate that other European countries have plenty of tourism. But with the UK soon to be outside the EU how many of those tourists will bother to go through the added paperwork of bureaucracy to visit the UK? Many people from around the world take lengthy vacations to Europe to travel extensively. With added paperwork/checks etc after leaving the EU, and the proposition of some on here wanting to abolish the monarchy, how many will keep coming?

I have been astonished at how much coverage the Royal family get down here, no chance of a republic anytime soon.

Yes, the Queen is the head of state of Australia which is why you have a Prime Minister and not a President. In fact she is the head to 53 countries in the Commonwealth, including the one below, and Queen of 16 countries.

the Falklanders.

As for European countries, there is a royal family in Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. A Duchy of Luxembourg, and Principalities in Monaco and Lichenstein.