[Palace] Costs of the Royal family

[clapham_gull]

The Royal Family are a form of UK business that is hugely proftitable and this refurb bill is merely an overhead cost in the Profit & Loss Account of that business.

Just as a salesman wouldn't make many sales if he rocked up in a beaten up banger, or a model wouldn't get much work without top quality make-up the Royals need a decent pad to live in, it's part of the pomp and pageantry that fuels the tourism.

It's Harry's private house !!!

It isn't a Palace. Former workers cottages being knocked through into one.



Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

Renovating an existing royal residence not building it. Frogmore Cottage was built in 1801 for Queen Charlotte.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-06-25/the-2-4-million-cost-of-harry-and-meghans-new-home/

Can I visit it then ? When are the opening hours

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Can I visit it then ? When are the opening hours

Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

You'll have to get to know Harry. Maybe volunteer for the Invictus Games, and I'm sure he'll invite you for tea.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

More racism.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

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?

It's not actually their land though is it..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

 

[Brovion]

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that if we got rid of the monarchy people would stop visiting Britain? As you say there was no tourism in the 18th century - and people still go to the French Royal Palace! (And there was even less tourism at the time of the Pharoes)

 

[Perfidious Albion]

People love a royal wedding, thrill at a royal birth ( not myself I add ) but do not seem to want to pay for the institution.........?

 

[clapham_gull]

People love a royal wedding, thrill at a royal birth ( not myself I add ) but do not seem to want to pay for the institution.........?

No, they JUST DON'T WANT TO PAY TO RENOVATE A PRIVATE RESIDENCE FOR A MILLIONAIRE WHO COULD SIMPLY GET A MORTGAGE.

( or simply cut into their HUGE inheritance )

 

[Pavilionaire]

It's Harry's private house !!!

It isn't a Palace. Former workers cottages being knocked through into one.



Sent from my BLA-L09 using Tapatalk

It might not be a palace but after spending £2.5 mill on the place I expect it will look great in Hello magazine.

 

[FatSuperman]

Are you seriously suggesting that if we got rid of the monarchy people would stop visiting Britain? As you say there was no tourism in the 18th century - and people still go to the French Royal Palace! (And there was even less tourism at the time of the Pharoes)

Are you seriously asking that question? Do the tone and words in my posts lead you to believe in an utter imbecile? I’m not suggesting anything of the sort, I’m pointing out two things across these posts;

1. They pay IN a lot more than they take OUT
2. Even ignoring point 1, why risk getting rid of them given the paltry sum they cost, we don’t know what their tourism draw is, but it’s not £0

 

[The Spanish]

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?

well that and owning a significant part of the planet

 

[The Spanish]

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.



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.

Scandinavian royals are very popular and are similarly followed in the media on their scale - not to the global extent of ours but it's still very popular in those cut throat dog eat dog exploitative selfish societies of Norway Sweden and Denmark.

 

[oneillco]

Britain couldn't have become the largest empire ever without the royal family, and whether one believes if the empire was good or bad thing, we all benefit from it today as a country including the tourism from people who love our Royal family more than we do.

Having the largest empire ever is nothing to be proud of. Empires have generally gone out of fashion these days as they involve invading other countries, killing the opposition, controlling everything undemocratically, imposing your religion, and nicking the wealth. The funny thing is about those who hark back to the golden age of British Empire is that they are generally those most upset by "colonials" living in Britain now.

 

[Solid at the back]

Waste of money. Can't believe in this day and age we're being ripped off paying for this shit. Should be optional, those losers out there who are happy to pay for them, let them.

 

[clapham_gull]

I thought they'd be done by the local builder (or simply went for the highest quote) but rest assured loyal subjects, 2.4 million looks an absolute bargain.

As well as the general refit they've added:

- Two New Orangeries (Homebase were doing 2 for 1 over Easter apparently)

- A Vegetable Garden (Raised beds made from recycled Mary Rose beams)

- A Yoga studio (off ebay)

- Employed the interior designer that the Clooneys and the Beckhams use. Madge rung Becks apparently, cash job only.

Trebles all round !!!!

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

Are you seriously asking that question? Do the tone and words in my posts lead you to believe in an utter imbecile? I’m not suggesting anything of the sort, I’m pointing out two things across these posts;

1. They pay IN a lot more than they take OUT
2. Even ignoring point 1, why risk getting rid of them given the paltry sum they cost, we don’t know what their tourism draw is, but it’s not £0

Where is the EVIDENCE that they pay in more than they pay out?

 

[Fitzcarraldo]

People love a royal wedding, thrill at a royal birth ( not myself I add ) but do not seem to want to pay for the institution.........?

You've answered your own question. There isn't any mystery. Some enjoy a royal event, some don't (like yourself). The people who don't are likely to not want to pay.

 

[clapham_gull]

Where is the EVIDENCE that they pay in more than they pay out?

There isn't any, neither is there any evidence that they boost tourism. It simply isn't there.

You see, I'm not advocating a Republic - because that's a much much wider and complicated deal. Will never happen, who will untangle that ?

What completely bemuses me is that instead of defending the concept of an un-elected Head of State concept, supporters simply cite "value for money" and "tourism" as if the Royals are an attraction at Disney Land.

And then fail to back it up with any concrete figures at all.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A REPUBLIC, we're talking about 2.4 million spent on a minor Royals house at the Tax Payers Expense !!!!

Costing twice as much as doing up the residence for the actual heir to the throne !!

Keep waving your plastic flags, there will be an extra Duchy Original potato in your stocking at Christmas.

 

[Hamilton]

As Prince Charles has often advocated, he’s happy to pay tax as long as the Crown Estates revenue is counted as royal family income rather than going straight to the exchequer.

Personally, I’m not a monarchist, but I’m definitely not a republican. We can barely elect a parliament, so I don’t want the position of head of state politicised.

Let’s hold the politicians we have to account before creating new ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[symyjym]

Having the largest empire ever is nothing to be proud of. Empires have generally gone out of fashion these days as they involve invading other countries, killing the opposition, controlling everything undemocratically, imposing your religion, and nicking the wealth. The funny thing is about those who hark back to the golden age of British Empire is that they are generally those most upset by "colonials" living in Britain now.

Ouch how quickly this took a turn and suddenly you are implying that I am a Nazi.

For good or for bad, which I said, and without being emotionally attached, for a country of our size to have had the largest global empire ever is quite impressive no matter how you want to look at it because to attain that status was driven by innovation and the desire for discovery. It's an innate human thing.

Why aren't we allowed to be impressed by our state of the art ship building and ruling the waves for 150 years after being the focus for invasion ourselves? We had the Barbary pirates raiding our ships off Cornwall and shores for booty and slaves for 300 years and were constantly under the threat of siege and invasion. We were forced to become great ship builders and we ended up doing it very well. Surely there is no shame in this is there?

Captain Cook was a master map maker with maps that can only now be bettered by Google. He peacefully discovered lands yet he was chopped up on a beach by the natives after a misunderstanding. It wasn't plain sailing and we were as tough on our people as we were on others. Scientifically and technically we were leaps and bounds ahead of the world and all from this tiny innocuous Island competing against France, Holland, Spain and Portugal on the world stage.

Why are we not allowed to be impressed by connecting all our industries by canal and later by railways with tunnels and bridges that drove the industrial revolution and the men working down coal mines and construction to feed it? Just because the Romans fed Christians to the lions it doesn't make Rome any less impressive.

And yes empires have gone out of fashion and we learned that it is not important on reflection, and that is why we were the last great empire and one that abolished the slavery that had been going on for thousands of years. We also put a stop to the ancient Hindu tradition where a widow would burn herself to death on her husband's pyre. That has to be a good thing too surely?

Historically the British Empire was very impressive and there is no argument to that statement.