PR Catastrophe for the Royal Family

[glasfryn]

I ask myself if I am bothered if on of the richest people in the world is struggling a little







no

 

[Creaky]

Why not? Windsor Castle would wipe it's feet as a tourist attraction, easily. Since 1979 we've privatised every other sodding thing, most of which actually had some relevance to the day to day lives of ordinary Britains, why not the Royal Family and their assets?

The more I think about this debate the more I see parallels with religion. The believers are blinded by convention to something anyone with any sort of questioning or critical mind moved away from donkey's years ago.

Fine - if you would be OK with that, the Tower of London could go as well and I'm sure property developers would offer reasonable sums for the Royal Parks.

I'm pretty certain a lot f the minor royals would be more than happy to see the Royal assets liquidated.

The only argument for the Royals being responsible for the maintenance of buildings such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Tower of London, (as well as all the art treasures they house), etc is that they belong to them. You can't have it both ways by turning around and suggesting that they be privatised without also accepting that the proceeds of those sales going to the Royal Family - I wonder how much the Crown Jewels would raise? - would finance a pretty good retirement!

I'm not particularly pro nor anti monarchy but I am pragmatic about the system we have and believe it's pretty good value for money.

 

[Billy the Fish]

I'm not sure why people mention North Korea. Their regime has nothing to do with being a Royal family, Kim Il-Sung was a political leader put in place by the Russians after WW2. He then convinced everyone that he was basically god and killed anyone who disagreed. Not really the best comparison.

 

[cunning fergus]

The difference of course being that we'd have a democratic right to vote them out if we thought they were taking the piss. It's not apples with apples is it?

Given your concerns about the democratic legitimacy of the UK's head of state, how do you feel about Manuel Borroso, or anyone else on the EU Commission...................they cost UK tax payers far more than £31m p.a. and have infinitely more political power on UK citizens lives than Liz has...................are you completely comfortable they are not taking the piss?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...onal-corporations-warn-activists-9057318.html

http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2013/11/leaked-european-commission-pr-strategy-communicating-ttip

 

[spring hall convert]

Given your concerns about the democratic legitimacy of the UK's head of state, how do you feel about Manuel Borroso, or anyone else on the EU Commission...................they cost UK tax payers far more than £31m p.a. and have infinitely more political power on UK citizens lives than Liz has...................are you completely comfortable they are not taking the piss?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...onal-corporations-warn-activists-9057318.html

http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2013/11/leaked-european-commission-pr-strategy-communicating-ttip

The EU comission is unelected. Isn't that kind of the arguement I'm making here?

 

[cunning fergus]

Your problem being that Buckingham Palace still exists with or without the British Royal family.

The Palace of Versailles is one of the biggest tourist attractions in France. How long ago did they last have a royal family?

If you were French you may be thinking £31m is a cost to bear in comparison to the £95m spent by Sarkozy in 2011.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cordon-blew-french-president-nicolas-674876

And after their Presidents go the cost to the taxpayer keeps ticking over.

http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20...zys-10-bodyguards-cost-over-700000-euros-year

In strictly money terms we at least have a head of state who can generate money, what a bargain.

 

[cunning fergus]

The EU comission is unelected. Isn't that kind of the arguement I'm making here?

If you are making the same argument, then we are agreed as BOTH institutions lack legitimacy.

However;

Which one has the most executive power?
Which one costs the UK taxpayer the most money?

Better to work on the big one first and then we can work our way down.

For example, if we were concerned about the abuse of the UK's tax system would you start with a cash in hand window cleaner of something more worthwhile like The Guardian Media Group?

 

[vegster]

One's heart bleeds for them.

It's all right for you tucked up nice and warm with your nice double glazing, you should try roughing it in a leaky, draughty castle.

 

[spring hall convert]

If you were French you may be thinking £31m is a cost to bear in comparison to the £95m spent by Sarkozy in 2011.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cordon-blew-french-president-nicolas-674876

And after their Presidents go the cost to the taxpayer keeps ticking over.

http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20...zys-10-bodyguards-cost-over-700000-euros-year

In strictly money terms we at least have a head of state who can generate money, what a bargain.

I see the point you are making and really well done for making it in a way that doesn't exist in the realms of fantasy.

My point is that it isn't the head of state per se that generates the income. You could install Daffy Duck as Queen tomorrow and with careful management these institutions nominally in her posession continue to generate revenue. The Royal Household has been set a budget and they are failing to keep to it. Given the widespread carnage of public services we've had under this Government they really need to appreciate the ill feeling this is going to cause amongst a significant portion of the British public.

The difference here is that I don't really see the Royal family's possessions as truly belonging to them. The commoners did them a favour allowing them to continue as heads of state in name, rather than ceeding their possesions and sending them to the tower. I really think the least they could do is stick to their budget.

 

[spring hall convert]

If you are making the same argument, then we are agreed as BOTH institutions lack legitimacy.

However;

Which one has the most executive power?
Which one costs the UK taxpayer the most money?

Better to work on the big one first and then we can work our way down.

For example, if we were concerned about the abuse of the UK's tax system would you start with a cash in hand window cleaner of something more worthwhile like The Guardian Media Group?

100% agreed, there are probably bigger fish to fry. It's just that this fish is being widely reported today. I get pretty annoyed when the dyed in the wool Royalists can't see there is at the very least a debate surrounding the legitimacy of Royal funding. Let's be VERY clear here, the Britsh people do the Royals the favours, not the other way round.

 

[Diego Napier]

Fine - if you would be OK with that, the Tower of London could go as well and I'm sure property developers would offer reasonable sums for the Royal Parks.

I'm pretty certain a lot f the minor royals would be more than happy to see the Royal assets liquidated.

The only argument for the Royals being responsible for the maintenance of buildings such as Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Tower of London, (as well as all the art treasures they house), etc is that they belong to them. You can't have it both ways by turning around and suggesting that they be privatised without also accepting that the proceeds of those sales going to the Royal Family - I wonder how much the Crown Jewels would raise? - would finance a pretty good retirement!

I'm not particularly pro nor anti monarchy but I am pragmatic about the system we have and believe it's pretty good value for money.

Their vast tracts of Great Britain and hoard of paintings/fine art are a tired anachronism dating from the time when the monarch acquired pretty much what they liked with impunity. Divesting them of their obscene wealth is an act long overdue in these rather more enlightened and egalitarian times. There's no need to be as extreme as to suggest that any of their lands or property would be sold to property developers, a simple Act of Parliament could add them to the stock of properties successfully managed by the National Trust or National Parks. They could be left with enough to continue their gorgeous lives as million rather than billionaires.

 

[cunning fergus]

100% agreed, there are probably bigger fish to fry. It's just that this fish is being widely reported today. I get pretty annoyed when the dyed in the wool Royalists can't see there is at the very least a debate surrounding the legitimacy of Royal funding. Let's be VERY clear here, the Britsh people do the Royals the favours, not the other way round.

Well that’s somewhat aligned with my view, but then your concern with this matter seems disproportionate to the much more significant lack of democracy associated with the EU commission and correspondingly the costs bourne by the UK taxpayer.

Currently UK citizens contribute to the EU by way of a hefty annual levy in addition to the other forms of taxation like VAT of which a proportion goes direct to the EU.

This would all be well if the UK electorate had complete transparency on this aspect of taxation, and were happy to pay tax to an institution governed by an unelected politburo…………………..but we haven’t had that aspect of suffrage yet have we?

In contrast, we have had elections for many years in the UK and if the will of the people was to end the monarchy, then a political party would have been elected on that basis.

Your argument is like a bloke moaning about a splinter in his thumb having just lost his arms in a haybaler

 

[cunning fergus]

I see the point you are making and really well done for making it in a way that doesn't exist in the realms of fantasy.

My point is that it isn't the head of state per se that generates the income. You could install Daffy Duck as Queen tomorrow and with careful management these institutions nominally in her posession continue to generate revenue. The Royal Household has been set a budget and they are failing to keep to it. Given the widespread carnage of public services we've had under this Government they really need to appreciate the ill feeling this is going to cause amongst a significant portion of the British public.

The difference here is that I don't really see the Royal family's possessions as truly belonging to them. The commoners did them a favour allowing them to continue as heads of state in name, rather than ceeding their possesions and sending them to the tower. I really think the least they could do is stick to their budget.

Your ideology belies your faux indignation on this matter.

My point is not fantasy, as the credible links indicate.

 

[Creaky]

Their vast tracts of Great Britain and hoard of paintings/fine art are a tired anachronism dating from the time when the monarch acquired pretty much what they liked with impunity. Divesting them of their obscene wealth is an act long overdue in these rather more enlightened and egalitarian times. There's no need to be as extreme as to suggest that any of their lands or property would be sold to property developers, a simple Act of Parliament could add them to the stock of properties successfully managed by the National Trust or National Parks. They could be left with enough to continue their gorgeous lives as million rather than billionaires.

Anachronistic it may be but like other 'old money' individuals the lands, art treasures and buildings do still belong to them. Why such ire over their wealth and goods compared to say the Duke of Westminster?

The value of the Crown Estates is comparable to that owned by The Duke of Westminster who derives an income from his property taxed at the UK's normal rates and he is just one example of old money.

By all means argue about the merits of the monarchy on a political basis but to do so on the basis that they cost the tax payer a single penny is a complete red herring.

 

[spring hall convert]

Your ideology belies your faux indignation on this matter.

My point is not fantasy, as the credible links indicate.

That's why I said doesn't exist in the realms of fantasy.

My indignation isn't faux though.

 

[Diego Napier]

Anachronistic it may be but like other 'old money' individuals the lands, art treasures and buildings do still belong to them. Why such ire over their wealth and goods compared to say the Duke of Westminster?

The value of the Crown Estates is comparable to that owned by The Duke of Westminster who derives an income from his property taxed at the UK's normal rates and he is just one example of old money.

By all means argue about the merits of the monarchy on a political basis but to do so on the basis that they cost the tax payer a single penny is a complete red herring.

You seem to be confused, I made no mention of tax payers.

 

[worthingseagull123]

As an ardent royalist I disagree ! The article is short on any real financial detail but if the overall suggestion is correct then the Royals need to deal with it and deal with it urgently.

That said I would still support keeping the Royal family. There is an argument that the running of the palaces etc should fall to the government and that the key members of the Royal family be paid a wage out of income generated from palaces and lands. After all, if we were a republic the taxpayer would have to pay for the palaces etc.

We should have a referendum on them.

Keep them as a charity, to allow the royalists to pay for them.

But I hope the electorate would agree that in the 21st century, the UK should not have an unelected head of state.

 

[Creaky]

You seem to be confused, I made no mention of tax payers.

You posted earlier

There's no need to be as extreme as to suggest that any of their lands or property would be sold to property developers, a simple Act of Parliament could add them to the stock of properties successfully managed by the National Trust or National Parks.

Both funded by central government grants - ('tax payers' money)

More interested though in why you feel the Royal Estate assets should be targeted before those of individuals such as the Duke of Westminster - or maybe you feel he should also be 'divested of his obscene wealth".

Who next, Euromillion winners, footballers

Beginning to sound very much like the old Russian communist system - and that worked out well, didn't it?

 

[spring hall convert]

We should have a referendum on them.

Keep them as a charity, to allow the royalists to pay for them.

But I hope the electorate would agree that in the 21st century, the UK should not have an unelected head of state.

We should probably have a look at the House of Lords whilst we're at it as well.

 

[beorhthelm]

... I get pretty annoyed when the dyed in the wool Royalists can't see there is at the very least a debate surrounding the legitimacy of Royal funding. Let's be VERY clear here, the Britsh people do the Royals the favours, not the other way round.

funny because i get annoyed when dyed in the wool republicans cant see there isnt much point debating the funding of the Royals.

so they have overspent £2.8m a year for the past 12 years, on top of a civil list of £7.9m. For that they pay for the up keep of half a dozen palaces and castles, field all manner of state engagments and so on. if you take the Queen and a few personal secretries and footman out of it, you'd still be paying the thick end of £10m. see how much other heads of state cost to fund, how much other estates cost to maintain.

fine, get rid, and replace with a nice president that will politically back or block the incumbant government, cost a couple of million anyway. in the process, lose the chairman of the board structure that has kept this nation sane when all around lost their heads revolting and lurching far left/right at various times in the past 300 years.