PR Catastrophe for the Royal Family

[worthingseagull123]

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

Absolutely. That can go as well.

 

[Diego Napier]

You posted earlier



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?

I posted not from a fiscal or political perspective but a moral one; I'd assumed that was obvious.

You not I refer to the Duke of Westminster again, well, one at a time, his head isn't so far above the parapet.

You not I refer to Communist Russia; re-introducing your political theme again eh?

Your extrapolations are way off beam, tedious, getting rather wierd and a transparent ploy to shift the ground. Don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions on my behalf.

Nice smileys by the way, do you get to many games?

 

[spring hall convert]

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.

- Why does the head of state need "half a dozen palaces and castles?"

 

[Creaky]

I posted not from a fiscal or political perspective but a moral one; I'd assumed that was obvious.

You not I refer to the Duke of Westminster again, well, one at a time, his head isn't so far above the parapet.

You not I refer to Communist Russia; re-introducing your political theme again eh?

Your extrapolations are way off beam, tedious, getting rather wierd and a transparent ploy to shift the ground. Don't put words in my mouth or make assumptions on my behalf.

Nice smileys by the way, do you get to many games?

I beg your pardon if I had the temerity to assume you were talking from a fiscal perspective when the thread is about the way the Royals are funded

Of course I refer to the Duke of Westminster, assets on a par with the Queens so perfectly reasonable to ask why aim your confiscation desires at the Queen rather than someone like the Duke - after all which of the two does more for the nation?

If you believe in the confiscation of wealth then you really do need to put forward a better argument to justify such actions rather than just calling anyone who disagrees with you tedious.

So WHY do you believe it would be justified to simply 'divest', (your word ), anyone of their belongings?

Not sure about the connection between the smileys and number of games I attend but to answer your question, all home games and a good number of away fixtures

 

[beorhthelm]

- Why does the head of state need "half a dozen palaces and castles?"

well done for completely missing the point. they dont, but the those palaces and castles are there, if you didnt have the royal household overseeing the upkeep, it would fall to another body of state. it probably be called the Royal Estate Managment, like the Crown Estate, having nothing to do with the person but be the proxy for the state's ownership.

 

[Diego Napier]

I beg your pardon if I had the temerity to assume you were talking from a fiscal perspective when the thread is about the way the Royals are funded

Of course I refer to the Duke of Westminster, assets on a par with the Queens so perfectly reasonable to ask why aim your confiscation desires at the Queen rather than someone like the Duke - after all which of the two does more for the nation?

If you believe in the confiscation of wealth then you really do need to put forward a better argument to justify such actions rather than just calling anyone who disagrees with you tedious.

So WHY do you believe it would be justified to simply 'divest', (your word ), anyone of their belongings?

Not sure about the connection between the smileys and number of games I attend but to answer your question, all home games and a good number of away fixtures

Your immediate reaction is sardonic not rhetoric! How trite and yet, incuriously apposite.

Again you refuge is extrapolation; let's see if this sinks in - I'm not interested in this Duke of yours that you keep obsessing over, I don't believe in the confiscation of wealth; I don't believe it is justified to simply divest anyone of their belongings. Stop putting words in mouth, you really are being tedious (not, as you suggest, anyone who disagrees with me, just you).

I simply don't believe that the monarchy should retain their vast horde of ill-gotten gains.

 

[spring hall convert]

well done for completely missing the point. they dont, but the those palaces and castles are there, if you didnt have the royal household overseeing the upkeep, it would fall to another body of state. it probably be called the Royal Estate Managment, like the Crown Estate, having nothing to do with the person but be the proxy for the state's ownership.

The head of state needs one building, the others would, I assume, wipe their own feet as tourist attractions. I really don't get what is so tough to understand about this. Why do we need to support a whole family of flunkies to keep some old buildings upright?

 

[beorhthelm]

The head of state needs one building, the others would, I assume, wipe their own feet as tourist attractions. I really don't get what is so tough to understand about this. Why do we need to support a whole family of flunkies to keep some old buildings upright?

So do that, and Buckingham palace too. but it wont make any difference to the financal implication, and I thought you making a point about that, as thats the whole starting issue in hand. I imagine you are under the misunderstanding that the civil list pays for the royal family, which hasnt been the case for a long time (and now renamed "Sovereign Grant"). it goes on the estate, ceremonial and official expenditure.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Basically, some civil servants have fvcked up big time over a number of years. Not really the fault of the Royal Family per se.