Shameful

[Triggaaar]

Not sure that is the case: apparently the Palace of Versailles is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world, and the single most lucrative tourist site in France.

Fair point.

I'm not bothered about having a monarchy, we're ruled by elected people anyway. I think the Queen does good work representing us around the world, but mostly I'd just like to know if we get value for money, and I think we do, as I'm sure they bring in more revenue than they cost.

 

[Bwian]

Not sure that is the case: apparently the Palace of Versailles is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the world, and the single most lucrative tourist site in France.

The Grand Palace in Bangkok is heaving with visitors every day it is open. Prior to his death, The King hadn't lived there for 20+ years. It is the building(s) foreign visitors are interested in. Interestingly, Thais get in for free-only farangs pay an entrance fee.

 

[Westdene Wonder]

But as already discussed in this thread, this is being paid for by the sovereign grant, which is basically the royal family's own money. They give the government some money, the government gives them back about 15%. That 15% then pays for stuff like this. So the royal family are paying for the renovation, and giving the country lots of money while they're at it.

Mental how few people know this.

Thank you for sorting this argument,end of story

 

[JBizzle]

Thank you for sorting this argument,end of story

I know, it's a miracle this thread is even still going (he says, aware of the irony that my posting continues it again)

 

[pb21]

Thank you for sorting this argument,end of story

This poster hasn't sorted it though. According to the Crown Estate website:

It [the Crown Estate] is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

... surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.

Then the sovereign grant is an agreed 15% of this revenue, revenue raised for the benefit of the nation.

In addition the sovereign grant is going to have to be increased, by 66% to cover this additional cost.

So money raised for the benefit of the nation's finances is given to the Queen and the amount is going up to fix the building.

That means that the public finances are going to be down, so either something doesn't get as much money or our taxes go up.

 

[pb21]

Fair point.

I'm not bothered about having a monarchy, we're ruled by elected people anyway. I think the Queen does good work representing us around the world, but mostly I'd just like to know if we get value for money, and I think we do, as I'm sure they bring in more revenue than they cost.

Arguably we do get value for money, but that doesn't mean that we can't get more value for money and a better deal.

 

[Triggaaar]

Arguably we do get value for money, but that doesn't mean that we can't get more value for money and a better deal.

What sort of better deal are you thinking of?

 

[spring hall convert]

I think we should look after our own rather than give all this money to immigrants.

 

[Tarpon]

Arguably we do get value for money, but that doesn't mean that we can't get more value for money and a better deal.

One of the challenges with trying to assess value for money is the royal family, and staff, are exempted from the Freedom of Information Act. Therefore details of publicly funded royal finances, and the monarchy’s interference in UK politics, must, by law, remain secret even if they are in the public interest. Government agreed this about five years ago.

If the royal family do generate profit & are value for money then why not allow more open scrutiny of the royal household’s accounts instead of effectively hiding them?

In addition, two or three years ago the government agreed that Buckingham Palace would be protected from any cuts to public funding, and that the monarchy would receive 15% of profits of the £9.9 billion Crown Estate. At the same time it was also agreed that the amount the Queen would receive would never be less than the amount received in the previous year...nice work if you can get it.

There have been huge increases in what the Queen has received:
£40m in 14-15 = 29% increase in the £31m of 12-13.
£76m in 17-18 = means that the agreed 15% has now jumped to 25%.

The Royals are protected from both scrutiny & austerity despite being publicly funded. In her 2016 speech she stated: 'My ministers will continue to bring the public finances under control so that Britain lives within its means...' Clearly this does not apply to the public financing of her and her family. Establishing value for money is a tad tricky in these circumstances.

 

[The Clamp]

But who would go to see Buck Palace if the Queen didn't live there? They go because it's her home, not because it's a Palace.

There are many, many Royal and historical buildings across the country that are visited where the royal or historical figure does not live there.

 

[1066gull]

I think the Queen should pay for it herself.

And for anyone arguing that it brings in tourism, Cheshire zoo gets more tourists than Buckingham Palace.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

 

[1066gull]

Is this really about the royals or the upkeep of a building of historical significance?

If I had my way, I would let the monarchy continue to the end of the current reign of the Queen and than disband it.

She does nothing for the thousands of people who are homeless on our streets.

Sent from my STV100-4 using Tapatalk

 

[Triggaaar]

There are many, many Royal and historical buildings across the country that are visited where the royal or historical figure does not live there.

True, but people line up outside BP and watch, despite the fact they can't go in (at that time).

 

[Triggaaar]

And for anyone arguing that it brings in tourism, Cheshire zoo gets more tourists than Buckingham Palace.

No one (other than animals) comes to England because of Cheshire zoo. People do come to England because of the Queen.