Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe it's performance related. " How are they going to measure that? Will they have to increase their productivity by shaking more hands per minute? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe it's performance related. " I totally agree. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I believe it's performance related. " Wonder if they will share their KPI's | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they do a great job.. Good on them " What is great about the job they do? Do you not think other people are capable of doing their job? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not against the monarchy, but I do feel that there have go to be ways of reducing how much we pay for them. " We could get rid of them it would save initial outlay but anyone who knows anything about marketing know you have to invest in a brand. The Royals are an emblem not dissimulator I the RR one or a rolls but they cover all brand Britain and keep jobs in the UK and help sell British goods abroad. How much free promotion on US tv alone do the royals brining in and generate sales of British products. In reality there is a bigger picture that is not obvious but has a big effect on exports and tourism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think they do a great job.. Good on them "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's about 53.00 a year per person... So I hear! Still way too much. "They can have my 53.00 happily. I love the total family and all the pageantry they bring. Loved all of the jubilee stuff last year and am excited about the new baby coming. They are a huge draw in tourists etc. Many countries overseas love them and there is a good memorabilia market. I'd hate to live in a country with a boring president or prime minister. Despite the hand wave jokes they actually do attend a lot of engagements away from the public eye. They are provably the hardest working pensioners around | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Next year they will get 5% increase meaning they'll get 38million. Is this right? " Yes those figures are correct. As has been said so many times before, the amount is minuscule compared to what the institution itself generates. But that's not the discussion we should centre our energy on. Our country was not made yesterday, or a few weeks ago. It is the product of a thousand years. Would you really, really want change that for the sake of an extra 45p each a year? Cos that's what the figures mean. Btw I speak as a complete non royalist, but understand the value. Personally, I wouldn't walk to the end of the street to see HM, but it doesn't stop me understanding her value to others. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not against the monarchy, but I do feel that there have go to be ways of reducing how much we pay for them. " I watched a programme about then recently where it said that they reduce the running cost of the royal estate each year. It's something the queen is very keen on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's about 53.00 a year per person... So I hear! Still way too much. "Wrong. You can't have it both ways! If its £38m for em to carry on and there's what 80 million of here, then it's thes than 50pence!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's about 53.00 a year per person... So I hear! Still way too much. "I think you'll find it's about 70p per year per person. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This video is apt for this..... http://youtu.be/bhyYgnhhKFw btw, it's about the cost of the cost of the Royal Family." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's about 53.00 a year per person... So I hear! Still way too much.
They can have my 53.00 happily. I love the total family and all the pageantry they bring. Loved all of the jubilee stuff last year and am excited about the new baby coming.
They are a huge draw in tourists etc. Many countries overseas love them and there is a good memorabilia market.
I'd hate to live in a country with a boring president or prime minister.
Despite the hand wave jokes they actually do attend a lot of engagements away from the public eye. They are provably the hardest working pensioners around "
They should get more money, not less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So get rid of them, there do you feel so much better, does that £38 million sort everything out ? No. Actually there's a vast amount of money and work undertaken and generated by them that isn't reported.....because of course it doesn't make a good story ! Do they live a privileged life? Yes of course, but life is and always has been about imbalances and inconsistencies. Fir me they are part of the United kingdom's identity to the rest of the world. Despite what many think they do a lot of charitable work and act as ambassadors. Its sad that so many would be emphatic about 11 guys chasing a football being paid extortionate amounts of money and who think about very little other than themselves, yet scorn something that forms our country. " Spot on | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So get rid of them, there do you feel so much better, does that £38 million sort everything out ? No. Actually there's a vast amount of money and work undertaken and generated by them that isn't reported.....because of course it doesn't make a good story ! Do they live a privileged life? Yes of course, but life is and always has been about imbalances and inconsistencies. Fir me they are part of the United kingdom's identity to the rest of the world. Despite what many think they do a lot of charitable work and act as ambassadors. Its sad that so many would be emphatic about 11 guys chasing a football being paid extortionate amounts of money and who think about very little other than themselves, yet scorn something that forms our country. Spot on "
Sack all the footballers and give their wages to the royals- at least the royals earn their wages! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So get rid of them, there do you feel so much better, does that £38 million sort everything out ? No. Actually there's a vast amount of money and work undertaken and generated by them that isn't reported.....because of course it doesn't make a good story ! Do they live a privileged life? Yes of course, but life is and always has been about imbalances and inconsistencies. Fir me they are part of the United kingdom's identity to the rest of the world. Despite what many think they do a lot of charitable work and act as ambassadors. Its sad that so many would be emphatic about 11 guys chasing a football being paid extortionate amounts of money and who think about very little other than themselves, yet scorn something that forms our country. " What a brilliant post... some seem to think that they get money for nothing... not true at all.. they could double their allowance for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!!" Why is it outrageous to bow ( and actually it would be curtsey) to her monarchs...??? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So get rid of them, there do you feel so much better, does that £38 million sort everything out ? No. Actually there's a vast amount of money and work undertaken and generated by them that isn't reported.....because of course it doesn't make a good story ! Do they live a privileged life? Yes of course, but life is and always has been about imbalances and inconsistencies. Fir me they are part of the United kingdom's identity to the rest of the world. Despite what many think they do a lot of charitable work and act as ambassadors. Its sad that so many would be emphatic about 11 guys chasing a football being paid extortionate amounts of money and who think about very little other than themselves, yet scorn something that forms our country. Spot on
Sack all the footballers and give their wages to the royals- at least the royals earn their wages!"Bit footballers stent paid for by the tax payer. They are paid by private clubs from the revenue they make from ticket sales and merchandising and sponsorship etc. If we sacked the footballers nothing would change in the government spending  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the reported figure is 55p per person per year. The amount is performance related and based on revenues generated by the royal family. Buck Palace needs some serious work done. It doesn't bear close scrutiny. I thought the interior was looking tired and shabby." i love tradition, would hate to see 2,000 years of tradition end for the sake of 55p | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!!" Bet some of them visited royal landmarks though. Or did you survey them all?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" So get rid of them, there do you feel so much better, does that £38 million sort everything out ? No. Actually there's a vast amount of money and work undertaken and generated by them that isn't reported.....because of course it doesn't make a good story ! Do they live a privileged life? Yes of course, but life is and always has been about imbalances and inconsistencies. Fir me they are part of the United kingdom's identity to the rest of the world. Despite what many think they do a lot of charitable work and act as ambassadors. Its sad that so many would be emphatic about 11 guys chasing a football being paid extortionate amounts of money and who think about very little other than themselves, yet scorn something that forms our country. Spot on
Sack all the footballers and give their wages to the royals- at least the royals earn their wages!
Bit footballers stent paid for by the tax payer. They are paid by private clubs from the revenue they make from ticket sales and merchandising and sponsorship etc. If we sacked the footballers nothing would change in the government spending "Good point, but what about the huge costs of policing the events, traffic management, picking up the litter etc etc Although I digress. Ny point is that its a shame so many have no pride in a symbol of national identity but can be so emphatic about a sport ? Im not a staunch royalist but I find the angry lynch mob brigade very distasteful, especiallywhen they ddon't have the facts about self generated income from royal estates, which is put back into the pot etc. Of course they are well off and more affluent than you and I, but its a sad day when people demand their demise based on that and the 70 odd pence we pay every year ? Of course my opinion only, and ill join soxy in voting to keep them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Is that what you republicans want to chuck nearly 2000 years of history down the drain for? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!! Bet some of them visited royal landmarks though. Or did you survey them all?? The point is that there was not a Royal insight but the crowds still came and yes there were hoards around Buck House. Royalty has no place in a modern society. We should have an elected head of state who stands for the rights of the people he or she represents. Royalty belongs in the dark ages. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth "The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Next year they will get 5% increase meaning they'll get 38million. Is this right? " Right as in correct, or right as in proper? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!! Bet some of them visited royal landmarks though. Or did you survey them all?? The point is that there was not a Royal insight but the crowds still came and yes there were hoards around Buck House. Royalty has no place in a modern society. We should have an elected head of state who stands for the rights of the people he or she represents. Royalty belongs in the dark ages. " And while they were visiting buck palace did they have to stay in a hotel? Probably. Did they buy food and drink from restaurants and shops? Most likely. Did they buy tacky souvenirs? Presumably. There doesn't need to be a royal event or someone in residence for the royals to generate cash flowing into local businesses and creating jobs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. Let's get rid of the Royal Family, then what? Elected president? Why not? We could get a British version of Herman van Rumpoy (oops sorry I forgot, he wasn't elected by anybody either) or, wait for it, drum roll please, yes the one, the only, Tony Bliar. Yes believe me, if we had done it a few years ago, that is exactly who we would have got, and if it happened tomorrow someone equaly as slimy and probably just as expensive as the Royals
Is that what you republicans want to chuck nearly 2000 years of history down the drain for?"I am more interested in the future and the well being of most of the population rather than a select 300 (The Royal Household) In a democracy you elect those you want to speak on your behalf. Eleceting a leader Is not perfect but I dare say I would take over a dictatorship. The very fact that we talk of 2000 years history (its actually nearer 1000 but no matter) sums up the debate! Its gone and the antiquated and worn symbols need to go with it. The future ia about getting the youth to learn and work not about a royal baby or the fact an elderly man is admitted to hospital! On that last point when Phil was admitted to hospital I didnt see him waiting on a trolley in Wythenshawe A&E! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!! Bet some of them visited royal landmarks though. Or did you survey them all?? The point is that there was not a Royal insight but the crowds still came and yes there were hoards around Buck House. Royalty has no place in a modern society. We should have an elected head of state who stands for the rights of the people he or she represents. Royalty belongs in the dark ages. And while they were visiting buck palace did they have to stay in a hotel? Probably. Did they buy food and drink from restaurants and shops? Most likely. Did they buy tacky souvenirs? Presumably. There doesn't need to be a royal event or someone in residence for the royals to generate cash flowing into local businesses and creating jobs. " ........But the Royals were no where to be seen! Was it their day off? The biggest attractions were not royal estates! The London Eye was rammed! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought the reported figure is 55p per person per year. The amount is performance related and based on revenues generated by the royal family. Buck Palace needs some serious work done. It doesn't bear close scrutiny. I thought the interior was looking tired and shabby." Funnily enough I thought that when I was doing a survey for a lawyer representing a social housing tenant. This dear lady had lived in the house for 15 years and it was beautifully clean. It had serious damp problems but had been told be her social housing landlord that there was insufficient funds to repair the problem. Now £38m would go a long way to helping Mrs X! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!! Bet some of them visited royal landmarks though. Or did you survey them all?? The point is that there was not a Royal insight but the crowds still came and yes there were hoards around Buck House. Royalty has no place in a modern society. We should have an elected head of state who stands for the rights of the people he or she represents. Royalty belongs in the dark ages. And while they were visiting buck palace did they have to stay in a hotel? Probably. Did they buy food and drink from restaurants and shops? Most likely. Did they buy tacky souvenirs? Presumably. There doesn't need to be a royal event or someone in residence for the royals to generate cash flowing into local businesses and creating jobs. ........But the Royals were no where to be seen! Was it their day off? The biggest attractions were not royal estates! The London Eye was rammed!" I bet combined they were. If they draw crowds when they are otherwise engaged (they do dothings away ffrom the palace you know) doesn't that show what they mean to our country? People want to visit an empty housejust because its where the queen llives with a faint hope of seeing the flag flying but not really caring if it isn't. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship."The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention….. If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all …. The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation.... The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain... The | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship.
The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention…..
If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all ….
The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation....
The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain...
The "Ok fair point. However the Royal Estates ( a Limited Liability Company) has assets of nearly £4b which covers overseas property. Lets say we sell off some of the Land in the Duchy of Cornwall estate and use that money on a public works contract as an example the estimated £1.3b it will cost to repair Britain's Roads. That would generate the multiplier effect. The estate would go to the private sector who would run it more efficiently The Landowner would not notice as he hardly goes there and the country benefits. The precedence for this is of course Mrs T and the privatisation of BT and other state-owned entities as that land is owned by the crown and the crown is the head of state! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!! Bet some of them visited royal landmarks though. Or did you survey them all?? The point is that there was not a Royal insight but the crowds still came and yes there were hoards around Buck House. Royalty has no place in a modern society. We should have an elected head of state who stands for the rights of the people he or she represents. Royalty belongs in the dark ages. And while they were visiting buck palace did they have to stay in a hotel? Probably. Did they buy food and drink from restaurants and shops? Most likely. Did they buy tacky souvenirs? Presumably. There doesn't need to be a royal event or someone in residence for the royals to generate cash flowing into local businesses and creating jobs. ........But the Royals were no where to be seen! Was it their day off? The biggest attractions were not royal estates! The London Eye was rammed! I bet combined they were. If they draw crowds when they are otherwise engaged (they do dothings away ffrom the palace you know) doesn't that show what they mean to our country? People want to visit an empty housejust because its where the queen llives with a faint hope of seeing the flag flying but not really caring if it isn't. " The flag was flying so I presume HRH was in maybe cleaning the windows? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. Let's get rid of the Royal Family, then what? Elected president? Why not? We could get a British version of Herman van Rumpoy (oops sorry I forgot, he wasn't elected by anybody either) or, wait for it, drum roll please, yes the one, the only, Tony Bliar. Yes believe me, if we had done it a few years ago, that is exactly who we would have got, and if it happened tomorrow someone equaly as slimy and probably just as expensive as the Royals
Is that what you republicans want to chuck nearly 2000 years of history down the drain for?I am more interested in the future and the well being of most of the population rather than a select 300 (The Royal Household) In a democracy you elect those you want to speak on your behalf. Eleceting a leader Is not perfect but I dare say I would take over a dictatorship. The very fact that we talk of 2000 years history (its actually nearer 1000 but no matter) sums up the debate! Its gone and the antiquated and worn symbols need to go with it. The future ia about getting the youth to learn and work not about a royal baby or the fact an elderly man is admitted to hospital! On that last point when Phil was admitted to hospital I didnt see him waiting on a trolley in Wythenshawe A&E!"the royal family can trace a blooline back to king alfred (871). various regions of britain have been ruled by a king or queen since 50 bc. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship.
The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention…..
If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all ….
The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation....
The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain...
The Ok fair point. However the Royal Estates ( a Limited Liability Company) has assets of nearly £4b which covers overseas property. Lets say we sell off some of the Land in the Duchy of Cornwall estate and use that money on a public works contract as an example the estimated £1.3b it will cost to repair Britain's Roads. That would generate the multiplier effect. The estate would go to the private sector who would run it more efficiently The Landowner would not notice as he hardly goes there and the country benefits. The precedence for this is of course Mrs T and the privatisation of BT and other state-owned entities as that land is owned by the crown and the crown is the head of state!"Are you suggesting selling off this 4 billion’s worth of national asset and getting rid of the monarchy?…. Just so we can spend this 4 billion raised on a few projects knowing once its gone, its gone.... and then of course by no longer having the royal attraction we’ve also lost the cash-cow that previously brought that money into our county…… Yes its important for any nations to invest funds inwardly so the money spent keeps going around within its own economy... But removing an already proven generator of income and replacing it with a speculative hope is not responsible fiscal management of public funds.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth "Good post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. Let's get rid of the Royal Family, then what? Elected president? Why not? We could get a British version of Herman van Rumpoy (oops sorry I forgot, he wasn't elected by anybody either) or, wait for it, drum roll please, yes the one, the only, Tony Bliar. Yes believe me, if we had done it a few years ago, that is exactly who we would have got, and if it happened tomorrow someone equaly as slimy and probably just as expensive as the Royals
Is that what you republicans want to chuck nearly 2000 years of history down the drain for?I am more interested in the future and the well being of most of the population rather than a select 300 (The Royal Household) In a democracy you elect those you want to speak on your behalf. Eleceting a leader Is not perfect but I dare say I would take over a dictatorship. The very fact that we talk of 2000 years history (its actually nearer 1000 but no matter) sums up the debate! Its gone and the antiquated and worn symbols need to go with it. The future ia about getting the youth to learn and work not about a royal baby or the fact an elderly man is admitted to hospital! On that last point when Phil was admitted to hospital I didnt see him waiting on a trolley in Wythenshawe A&E!"Firstly I said "nearly" 2000 years of history. English Royalty can be traced back to around the mid 8th century with King Egbert born 769, and 34th great grandfather to the Queen. However other regional royal lines go back much further, Mercia, Kent, and Cornwall were all Kingdoms. In fact you could even trace a form of royalty as far back (or even further) as Caratacus in the 1st century. Various wars and invasions have blurred the lines a bit but the root is still there. Then there is the 34 million quid that supports 300(your figure)in the Royal household, which at just over a hundred grand per head sounds quite a lot. What you forget to mention is how much of it is spent on maintenance involving work (and jobs) for outside contactors. Bring those figures into the mix and the cost per head is very small. Even the 34 million itself is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount the last government threw down the drain on just one failed computer project Antiquated symbols? Sorry but 3 Lions rampant still does it for me
As for Phil on a trolley at Wythenshawe A&E? If the NHS was fit for purpose and run for the benefit of patients rather than employees I (and I'm sure he as well) would be more than happy to be treated there. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I have been reading every ones comments,may I point out that we are being told that the queen is going to have a 5% paid rise, when us the lower class under paid are having pay freezes and in some case pay cuts.One rule for them and another for us." It’s only certain elements of a sensationalist media who a calling it a pay rise,,,,, Its not a pay rise …. It an increase in funding to be spent supplying British goods and services that are necessary to maintain the standards of a public asset….. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"For those who couldn't be arsed watching that YouTube link I posted. The royal family surrenders all profits from their land to the government, in return for money from the civil list. They would be financially better off, if they told the government to stick their handout and just lived in the profits of the land." But it's not their land .... The land belongs to the nation.... Therefore the nations finances are better off with the deal we have.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 projects. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's about 53.00 a year per person... So I hear! Still way too much.
Wrong. You can't have it both ways! If its £38m for em to carry on and there's what 80 million of here, then it's thes than 50pence!!!"Must have heard wrong 53p .... Still way too much! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's about 53.00 a year per person... So I hear! Still way too much.
Wrong. You can't have it both ways! If its £38m for em to carry on and there's what 80 million of here, then it's thes than 50pence!!!
Must have heard wrong 53p ....
Still way too much!"If I pay your 53p for you will that make you feel better. In fact I will pay the 53p for ten forumites. But the condition is you can't moan about it again. You won't be paying so you won't have a say. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship.
The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention…..
If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all ….
The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation....
The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain...
The Ok fair point. However the Royal Estates ( a Limited Liability Company) has assets of nearly £4b which covers overseas property. Lets say we sell off some of the Land in the Duchy of Cornwall estate and use that money on a public works contract as an example the estimated £1.3b it will cost to repair Britain's Roads. That would generate the multiplier effect. The estate would go to the private sector who would run it more efficiently The Landowner would not notice as he hardly goes there and the country benefits. The precedence for this is of course Mrs T and the privatisation of BT and other state-owned entities as that land is owned by the crown and the crown is the head of state!
Are you suggesting selling off this 4 billion’s worth of national asset and getting rid of the monarchy?….
Just so we can spend this 4 billion raised on a few projects knowing once its gone, its gone.... and then of course by no longer having the royal attraction we’ve also lost the cash-cow that previously brought that money into our county……
Yes its important for any nations to invest funds inwardly so the money spent keeps going around within its own economy...
But removing an already proven generator of income and replacing it with a speculative hope is not responsible fiscal management of public funds.... Prove to me that the monarchy provides income to this country. Please do not say tourism. The White house gets three times as many visitors as Buck House.
You are totally incorrect on the surrendering of all crown estate would not generate income. Its £7.3b valuation is inefficient and staffed by Royal hangers on. Give it to the private sector to run on a profit and performance related basis! The queen could easily support her lavish life style without taking money from the tax payer.
£38m is probably the interest she earns from investments!
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Sourcesoffunding/TheQueenspersonalwealth.aspx
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oh I forgot the democratically elected leader bit. Us Brits are not very good at electing leaders, we have got serious form for electing bad ones. Just a quick scroll down the list of PM's since the war should confirm that. As Churchill once said "The greatest argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter" "That my dear is the price of freedom (well not if you use a social net working site!) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"OK. Let's get rid of the Royal Family, then what? Elected president? Why not? We could get a British version of Herman van Rumpoy (oops sorry I forgot, he wasn't elected by anybody either) or, wait for it, drum roll please, yes the one, the only, Tony Bliar. Yes believe me, if we had done it a few years ago, that is exactly who we would have got, and if it happened tomorrow someone equaly as slimy and probably just as expensive as the Royals
Is that what you republicans want to chuck nearly 2000 years of history down the drain for?I am more interested in the future and the well being of most of the population rather than a select 300 (The Royal Household) In a democracy you elect those you want to speak on your behalf. Eleceting a leader Is not perfect but I dare say I would take over a dictatorship. The very fact that we talk of 2000 years history (its actually nearer 1000 but no matter) sums up the debate! Its gone and the antiquated and worn symbols need to go with it. The future ia about getting the youth to learn and work not about a royal baby or the fact an elderly man is admitted to hospital! On that last point when Phil was admitted to hospital I didnt see him waiting on a trolley in Wythenshawe A&E!
Firstly I said "nearly" 2000 years of history. English Royalty can be traced back to around the mid 8th century with King Egbert born 769, and 34th great grandfather to the Queen. However other regional royal lines go back much further, Mercia, Kent, and Cornwall were all Kingdoms. In fact you could even trace a form of royalty as far back (or even further) as Caratacus in the 1st century. Various wars and invasions have blurred the lines a bit but the root is still there.
Then there is the 34 million quid that supports 300(your figure)in the Royal household, which at just over a hundred grand per head sounds quite a lot. What you forget to mention is how much of it is spent on maintenance involving work (and jobs) for outside contactors. Bring those figures into the mix and the cost per head is very small. Even the 34 million itself is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount the last government threw down the drain on just one failed computer project
Antiquated symbols? Sorry but 3 Lions rampant still does it for me
As for Phil on a trolley at Wythenshawe A&E? If the NHS was fit for purpose and run for the benefit of patients rather than employees I (and I'm sure he as well) would be more than happy to be treated there."And the dinosaurs ruled the earth 63 million years ago you point is irrelevant. Henry the 8th burnt witches...........more irrelevance I just do not see your point! How is Spain by the way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Next year they will get 5% increase meaning they'll get 38million. Is this right? " And worth every damn penny. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship.
The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention…..
If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all ….
The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation....
The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain...
The Ok fair point. However the Royal Estates ( a Limited Liability Company) has assets of nearly £4b which covers overseas property. Lets say we sell off some of the Land in the Duchy of Cornwall estate and use that money on a public works contract as an example the estimated £1.3b it will cost to repair Britain's Roads. That would generate the multiplier effect. The estate would go to the private sector who would run it more efficiently The Landowner would not notice as he hardly goes there and the country benefits. The precedence for this is of course Mrs T and the privatisation of BT and other state-owned entities as that land is owned by the crown and the crown is the head of state!
Are you suggesting selling off this 4 billion’s worth of national asset and getting rid of the monarchy?….
Just so we can spend this 4 billion raised on a few projects knowing once its gone, its gone.... and then of course by no longer having the royal attraction we’ve also lost the cash-cow that previously brought that money into our county……
Yes its important for any nations to invest funds inwardly so the money spent keeps going around within its own economy...
But removing an already proven generator of income and replacing it with a speculative hope is not responsible fiscal management of public funds.... Prove to me that the monarchy provides income to this country. Please do not say tourism. The White house gets three times as many visitors as Buck House.
You are totally incorrect on the surrendering of all crown estate would not generate income. Its £7.3b valuation is inefficient and staffed by Royal hangers on. Give it to the private sector to run on a profit and performance related basis! The queen could easily support her lavish life style without taking money from the tax payer.
£38m is probably the interest she earns from investments!
"Sorry was your last post intended to answer my response to your earlier post.... ? Because you introduced the figure of 4 billion which you now increased to 7.3 billion and your just making random statements of opinion about inefficiencies and hangers-on ,your also making guesses about the potential of accrued interests payments on investments…. Are you anticipating all the Royal assets would be bought by British investors thus eliminating the possibility that foreign investors might buy them and channel off any income they then derive from those assets to overseas economies…. Even if British investors could be found we’d still be foolish handing over the running of an institution that already makes an annual profit,,,, The private sector has to pay dividends to its share holders meaning far less revenue would come into the taxman than is presently generated from the system now in place,,, It would be interesting to hear what people advocating the abolition of the monarchy would do about all jobs that would be lost by people who work for business that rely on the royal tourist trade as well as all the jobs lost by people employed providing all the trapping of the royal attraction…. How do the republicans propose the country funds their future financial wellbeing or are they necessary casualties of a republican plan… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Next year they will get 5% increase meaning they'll get 38million. Is this right? " Oh that's a paltry sum. I mean one just never knows where the next Daimler is coming from. 'We're all in it together' don't forget. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship.
The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention…..
If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all ….
The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation....
The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain...
The Ok fair point. However the Royal Estates ( a Limited Liability Company) has assets of nearly £4b which covers overseas property. Lets say we sell off some of the Land in the Duchy of Cornwall estate and use that money on a public works contract as an example the estimated £1.3b it will cost to repair Britain's Roads. That would generate the multiplier effect. The estate would go to the private sector who would run it more efficiently The Landowner would not notice as he hardly goes there and the country benefits. The precedence for this is of course Mrs T and the privatisation of BT and other state-owned entities as that land is owned by the crown and the crown is the head of state!
Are you suggesting selling off this 4 billion’s worth of national asset and getting rid of the monarchy?….
Just so we can spend this 4 billion raised on a few projects knowing once its gone, its gone.... and then of course by no longer having the royal attraction we’ve also lost the cash-cow that previously brought that money into our county……
Yes its important for any nations to invest funds inwardly so the money spent keeps going around within its own economy...
But removing an already proven generator of income and replacing it with a speculative hope is not responsible fiscal management of public funds.... Prove to me that the monarchy provides income to this country. Please do not say tourism. The White house gets three times as many visitors as Buck House.
You are totally incorrect on the surrendering of all crown estate would not generate income. Its £7.3b valuation is inefficient and staffed by Royal hangers on. Give it to the private sector to run on a profit and performance related basis! The queen could easily support her lavish life style without taking money from the tax payer.
£38m is probably the interest she earns from investments!
Sorry was your last post intended to answer my response to your earlier post.... ?
Because you introduced the figure of 4 billion which you now increased to 7.3 billion and your just making random statements of opinion about inefficiencies and hangers-on ,your also making guesses about the potential of accrued interests payments on investments….
Are you anticipating all the Royal assets would be bought by British investors thus eliminating the possibility that foreign investors might buy them and channel off any income they then derive from those assets to overseas economies….
Even if British investors could be found we’d still be foolish handing over the running of an institution that already makes an annual profit,,,, The private sector has to pay dividends to its share holders meaning far less revenue would come into the taxman than is presently generated from the system now in place,,,
It would be interesting to hear what people advocating the abolition of the monarchy would do about all jobs that would be lost by people who work for business that rely on the royal tourist trade as well as all the jobs lost by people employed providing all the trapping of the royal attraction….
How do the republicans propose the country funds their future financial wellbeing or are they necessary casualties of a republican plan…
The 4 billion is an estimate of the value of the Duchy of Cornwall. The total crown estate is valued at £7.3b. With a balance sheet value of £7.3b what profit would you estimate it generates? You will not find a figure as its classified. KMPG estimated it to be circa £100m back in 2009. Its badly run and has no real management behind it and it exists but to service and give patronage to royal hangers on. How in gods name can you take seriously an organisation that has a part of its website headed "Royal Animals" One more fact that is readily available on the web. The Prince of Wales has two equerries which are personal assitants who sort out his mad day dealing with kids and juggling a job and all that. The two naval officers are paid £75k per year............by the MOD. Open your eyes and stop being blinded by the illusion. Its the upper and ruling classes making sure they stay that way.
One final point, I will support the monarchy if the new baby, whom I wish health and happiness, goes to a state school. Its just an illusion!
" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Next year they will get 5% increase meaning they'll get 38million. Is this right? " This is a long thread
Simple answer or IMO no i don't think it's right especially at a time when the common man/woman can barely afford to make ends meet or even provide basic needs, food shelter warmth.
I thought Cameron said we're in it together, don't see why the monarchy should be exempt  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship.
The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention…..
If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all ….
The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation....
The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain...
The Ok fair point. However the Royal Estates ( a Limited Liability Company) has assets of nearly £4b which covers overseas property. Lets say we sell off some of the Land in the Duchy of Cornwall estate and use that money on a public works contract as an example the estimated £1.3b it will cost to repair Britain's Roads. That would generate the multiplier effect. The estate would go to the private sector who would run it more efficiently The Landowner would not notice as he hardly goes there and the country benefits. The precedence for this is of course Mrs T and the privatisation of BT and other state-owned entities as that land is owned by the crown and the crown is the head of state!
Are you suggesting selling off this 4 billion’s worth of national asset and getting rid of the monarchy?….
Just so we can spend this 4 billion raised on a few projects knowing once its gone, its gone.... and then of course by no longer having the royal attraction we’ve also lost the cash-cow that previously brought that money into our county……
Yes its important for any nations to invest funds inwardly so the money spent keeps going around within its own economy...
But removing an already proven generator of income and replacing it with a speculative hope is not responsible fiscal management of public funds.... Prove to me that the monarchy provides income to this country. Please do not say tourism. The White house gets three times as many visitors as Buck House.
You are totally incorrect on the surrendering of all crown estate would not generate income. Its £7.3b valuation is inefficient and staffed by Royal hangers on. Give it to the private sector to run on a profit and performance related basis! The queen could easily support her lavish life style without taking money from the tax payer.
£38m is probably the interest she earns from investments!
Sorry was your last post intended to answer my response to your earlier post.... ?
Because you introduced the figure of 4 billion which you now increased to 7.3 billion and your just making random statements of opinion about inefficiencies and hangers-on ,your also making guesses about the potential of accrued interests payments on investments….
Are you anticipating all the Royal assets would be bought by British investors thus eliminating the possibility that foreign investors might buy them and channel off any income they then derive from those assets to overseas economies….
Even if British investors could be found we’d still be foolish handing over the running of an institution that already makes an annual profit,,,, The private sector has to pay dividends to its share holders meaning far less revenue would come into the taxman than is presently generated from the system now in place,,,
It would be interesting to hear what people advocating the abolition of the monarchy would do about all jobs that would be lost by people who work for business that rely on the royal tourist trade as well as all the jobs lost by people employed providing all the trapping of the royal attraction….
How do the republicans propose the country funds their future financial wellbeing or are they necessary casualties of a republican plan…
The 4 billion is an estimate of the value of the Duchy of Cornwall. The total crown estate is valued at £7.3b. With a balance sheet value of £7.3b what profit would you estimate it generates? You will not find a figure as its classified. KMPG estimated it to be circa £100m back in 2009. Its badly run and has no real management behind it and it exists but to service and give patronage to royal hangers on. How in gods name can you take seriously an organisation that has a part of its website headed "Royal Animals" One more fact that is readily available on the web. The Prince of Wales has two equerries which are personal assitants who sort out his mad day dealing with kids and juggling a job and all that. The two naval officers are paid £75k per year............by the MOD. Open your eyes and stop being blinded by the illusion. Its the upper and ruling classes making sure they stay that way.
One final point, I will support the monarchy if the new baby, whom I wish health and happiness, goes to a state school. Its just an illusion!
"I'll not bother responding to your personal opinions and anecdotal statements because simply put, that all they are !!! So what we have here is the figures you've quoted are basically nothing more than estimates that you cant substantiate because in your words the truth is classified…. And now trying to draw compassion to the estimated figures by asking me to provide you with my estimates,, Sorry but I’m not going to debate figures plucked out of the air or try and change your opinions that people who don't see things your way have their eyes closed,,, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just immigrate to the above FFS - I promise you, you'll never regret it!!!" Love living where I am thanks. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" All I have to say on the matter is that people calling for the dissolution of the Monarchy are not speaking on my behalf…… I fail to see how anyone can’t grasp a basic understanding of the huge economic benefits the whole of GB PLC attracts by funding the royal budget. She doesn’t stuff the money we give her down the back of the couch….. Any money given to the Royal household simply filters back into the pocket of the general public… It’s spent in ways that support the British economy by creating jobs and paying for services and goods that provide British families with jobs and income,,,, Not only that, our Monarchy attracts in huge amounts of overseas cash by bringing in tourist from all over the world who spend their money in British shops restaurants hotels and travel etc which all goes towards providing jobs and security for tens of thousand of British families…. The financial worth to GB plc from the investment of funding the Royal budget vastly exceeds the expenditure… Thats my 10p's worth The £38m from the civil list could be spent on a regional youth project helping youngsters find work or help with Education. How can we possibly afford a Royal Family when we are closing local services such as swimming pools and libraries? Ozzy Osbourne has just announced further cuts in public expenditure but the civil list has been increase and money is being given to a family with a personal wealth estimated at £1.6b. Its just wrong in times of hardship.
The tax paid on monies generated within the country by all the business who’s income does benefit by the existence of the Royal household is already partly used to fund those sorts of projects you mention…..
If as a country we take away our means of generating a profitable return for investment, those projects you mention could not be funded at all ….
The figure you mention of 1.6 Billion is not sitting in some bank somehwere,,,,, its a projected asset worth that belongs to the nation....
The queen and any member of the royal faimily does not have personal access to the figure you mention nor have they any ability to plunder it for personal gain...
The Ok fair point. However the Royal Estates ( a Limited Liability Company) has assets of nearly £4b which covers overseas property. Lets say we sell off some of the Land in the Duchy of Cornwall estate and use that money on a public works contract as an example the estimated £1.3b it will cost to repair Britain's Roads. That would generate the multiplier effect. The estate would go to the private sector who would run it more efficiently The Landowner would not notice as he hardly goes there and the country benefits. The precedence for this is of course Mrs T and the privatisation of BT and other state-owned entities as that land is owned by the crown and the crown is the head of state!
Are you suggesting selling off this 4 billion’s worth of national asset and getting rid of the monarchy?….
Just so we can spend this 4 billion raised on a few projects knowing once its gone, its gone.... and then of course by no longer having the royal attraction we’ve also lost the cash-cow that previously brought that money into our county……
Yes its important for any nations to invest funds inwardly so the money spent keeps going around within its own economy...
But removing an already proven generator of income and replacing it with a speculative hope is not responsible fiscal management of public funds.... Prove to me that the monarchy provides income to this country. Please do not say tourism. The White house gets three times as many visitors as Buck House.
You are totally incorrect on the surrendering of all crown estate would not generate income. Its £7.3b valuation is inefficient and staffed by Royal hangers on. Give it to the private sector to run on a profit and performance related basis! The queen could easily support her lavish life style without taking money from the tax payer.
£38m is probably the interest she earns from investments!
Sorry was your last post intended to answer my response to your earlier post.... ?
Because you introduced the figure of 4 billion which you now increased to 7.3 billion and your just making random statements of opinion about inefficiencies and hangers-on ,your also making guesses about the potential of accrued interests payments on investments….
Are you anticipating all the Royal assets would be bought by British investors thus eliminating the possibility that foreign investors might buy them and channel off any income they then derive from those assets to overseas economies….
Even if British investors could be found we’d still be foolish handing over the running of an institution that already makes an annual profit,,,, The private sector has to pay dividends to its share holders meaning far less revenue would come into the taxman than is presently generated from the system now in place,,,
It would be interesting to hear what people advocating the abolition of the monarchy would do about all jobs that would be lost by people who work for business that rely on the royal tourist trade as well as all the jobs lost by people employed providing all the trapping of the royal attraction….
How do the republicans propose the country funds their future financial wellbeing or are they necessary casualties of a republican plan…
The 4 billion is an estimate of the value of the Duchy of Cornwall. The total crown estate is valued at £7.3b. With a balance sheet value of £7.3b what profit would you estimate it generates? You will not find a figure as its classified. KMPG estimated it to be circa £100m back in 2009. Its badly run and has no real management behind it and it exists but to service and give patronage to royal hangers on. How in gods name can you take seriously an organisation that has a part of its website headed "Royal Animals" One more fact that is readily available on the web. The Prince of Wales has two equerries which are personal assitants who sort out his mad day dealing with kids and juggling a job and all that. The two naval officers are paid £75k per year............by the MOD. Open your eyes and stop being blinded by the illusion. Its the upper and ruling classes making sure they stay that way.
One final point, I will support the monarchy if the new baby, whom I wish health and happiness, goes to a state school. Its just an illusion!
I'll not bother responding to your personal opinions and anecdotal statements because simply put, that all they are !!!
So what we have here is the figures you've quoted are basically nothing more than estimates that you cant substantiate because in your words the truth is classified….
And now trying to draw compassion to the estimated figures by asking me to provide you with my estimates,,
Sorry but I’m not going to debate figures plucked out of the air or try and change your opinions that people who don't see things your way have their eyes closed,,,
"Look on the net...............the figures are there. Are we not allowed personal opinions? We live in a Democracy and I disagree with you view but would defend your right to express it! Viva L' Republic!!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Look on the net...............the figures are there. Are we not allowed personal opinions? We live in a Democracy and I disagree with you view but would defend your right to express it! Viva L' Republic!!! " Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and I defend that right absolutely,,,, Obviously not everyone will agree on every subject and the best way to understand other people perspectives is to engage in the healthy enthusiastic though exchange of the sort taking place here in forums …. I love hearing the view of other people and the reason behind the justification for holding those views… But I can’t debate a topic that’s being argued with unsubstantiated facts and figures plucked from the net,,, Those immortal words of Abraham Lincoln sum it up perfectly where he was quoted as saying “don't believe everything you read on the Internet” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think it's about 53.00 a year per person... So I hear! Still way too much.
Wrong. You can't have it both ways! If its £38m for em to carry on and there's what 80 million of here, then it's thes than 50pence!!!
Must have heard wrong 53p ....
Still way too much!
If I pay your 53p for you will that make you feel better.
In fact I will pay the 53p for ten forumites. But the condition is you can't moan about it again. You won't be paying so you won't have a say.
"I don't have a say now!! And it's still no. Such privilege is disgusting. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Look on the net...............the figures are there. Are we not allowed personal opinions? We live in a Democracy and I disagree with you view but would defend your right to express it! Viva L' Republic!!! Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and I defend that right absolutely,,,, Obviously not everyone will agree on every subject and the best way to understand other people perspectives is to engage in the healthy enthusiastic though exchange of the sort taking place here in forums …. I love hearing the view of other people and the reason behind the justification for holding those views… But I can’t debate a topic that’s being argued with unsubstantiated facts and figures plucked from the net,,, Those immortal words of Abraham Lincoln sum it up perfectly where he was quoted as saying “don't believe everything you read on the Internet” I did smile! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Look on the net...............the figures are there. Are we not allowed personal opinions? We live in a Democracy and I disagree with you view but would defend your right to express it! Viva L' Republic!!! Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion and I defend that right absolutely,,,, Obviously not everyone will agree on every subject and the best way to understand other people perspectives is to engage in the healthy enthusiastic though exchange of the sort taking place here in forums …. I love hearing the view of other people and the reason behind the justification for holding those views… But I can’t debate a topic that’s being argued with unsubstantiated facts and figures plucked from the net,,, Those immortal words of Abraham Lincoln sum it up perfectly where he was quoted as saying “don't believe everything you read on the Internet” I did smile! Just to say the figures are from the Monarchy's own web site even the Royal Animal part! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just immigrate to the above FFS - I promise you, you'll never regret it!!! Love living where I am thanks." Well good luck to you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Just immigrate to the above FFS - I promise you, you'll never regret it!!! Love living where I am thanks. Well good luck to you "Thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Royal patronage is designed to dull the senses of the great unwashed. On average a Buckingham House garden party costs £250k The event is to allow commoners to be congratulated by the monarch or one of entourage for services rendered to charity of good causes. The very fact that you could have Phil The Greek congratulating a lollipop lady from Wythenshawe for her services to the community and then asking her to bow for him is quite frankly outrageous. I was in London last Saturday and there was not a royal to be seen but the place was full of tourists. Go figure!! Bet some of them visited royal landmarks though. Or did you survey them all?? " you don't need royalty to have royal landmarks. no royal family in france but plenty of palaces to visit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"generating money or not.. I cannot understand the concept of royalty(in any country),Iam therefore uninterested in anything they do most of the time good for those who care.." Neither can I There product behave disgracefully on our money. It drives me mad its beyond prehistoric that we as a nation still put up with such. Nonsense. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Monarchy is part of our national identity and recognised around the World. Who can name a dozen Presidents off the top of their head? While far from perfect, it is a part of our culture and we would be poorer both financially and culturally without it. Take the recent Trooping of the Colour. Nobody does these kinds of ceremonials like the Brits and they are the envy of many nations. As to individuals, many royals have served their country in the military and been in harms way. You can't say that for many career politicians. As for monarchy as an institution, and the cost of it, the US State Department has said that it costs @$1.4billion a year to take care of the US Presidents familys' comings and goings, and associated security. That's more than all the remaining crowned heads of Europe put together. While you're at it, ask the Yanks how their republican dream is turning into a socialist nightmare. A lot of them are looking at us now, having criticised our way of life for the last 237 years and are starting to think that, actually a constitutional monarchy doesn't look quite so bad any more."
Well said. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Monarchy is part of our national identity and recognised around the World. Who can name a dozen Presidents off the top of their head? While far from perfect, it is a part of our culture and we would be poorer both financially and culturally without it. Take the recent Trooping of the Colour. Nobody does these kinds of ceremonials like the Brits and they are the envy of many nations. As to individuals, many royals have served their country in the military and been in harms way. You can't say that for many career politicians. As for monarchy as an institution, and the cost of it, the US State Department has said that it costs @$1.4billion a year to take care of the US Presidents familys' comings and goings, and associated security. That's more than all the remaining crowned heads of Europe put together. While you're at it, ask the Yanks how their republican dream is turning into a socialist nightmare. A lot of them are looking at us now, having criticised our way of life for the last 237 years and are starting to think that, actually a constitutional monarchy doesn't look quite so bad any more.
Well said."I believe this is a popular opinion amongst people who 'only visit the UK once a year for a few days,' | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Monarchy is part of our national identity and recognised around the World. Who can name a dozen Presidents off the top of their head? While far from perfect, it is a part of our culture and we would be poorer both financially and culturally without it. Take the recent Trooping of the Colour. Nobody does these kinds of ceremonials like the Brits and they are the envy of many nations. As to individuals, many royals have served their country in the military and been in harms way. You can't say that for many career politicians. As for monarchy as an institution, and the cost of it, the US State Department has said that it costs @$1.4billion a year to take care of the US Presidents familys' comings and goings, and associated security. That's more than all the remaining crowned heads of Europe put together. While you're at it, ask the Yanks how their republican dream is turning into a socialist nightmare. A lot of them are looking at us now, having criticised our way of life for the last 237 years and are starting to think that, actually a constitutional monarchy doesn't look quite so bad any more.
Well said.
I believe this is a popular opinion amongst people who 'only visit the UK once a year for a few days,'
"Yep quite true. The evil scourge of socialism aided and abeted by republicanism drove me away while the traitors Bliar and Broon were in charge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
Well said.
I believe this is a popular opinion amongst people who 'only visit the UK once a year for a few days,'
Yep quite true. The evil scourge of socialism aided and abeted by republicanism drove me away while the traitors Bliar and Broon were in charge. "And there, probably not for the first (or last) time we see a perfect example of the non sequitur. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
Well said.
I believe this is a popular opinion amongst people who 'only visit the UK once a year for a few days,'
Yep quite true. The evil scourge of socialism aided and abeted by republicanism drove me away while the traitors Bliar and Broon were in charge.
And there, probably not for the first (or last) time we see a perfect example of the non sequitur. "Hmmm. I only dropped the republicanism bit into the mix so it wouldn't be.
As for the rest of the thread, if the republicans ever get a majority (which I doubt in the near future but maybe someday) then go for it, abolish the monarchy. Republicanism, Socialism, Communism, call it what you will has already destroyed Britain, so why not finish the job. Unless the EUSSR beat you too it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's an EUSSR when it's at home?" The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (even they bottled using the full title of Communist) has now been replaced by The European Union of Suicidal Socialist Republics. The only real difference was that politburo wore a chest full of medals, and the EU commission are still having them minted. You really should take more interest in current affairs | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Many of the pro-royals on here seem to favour Liz and Phil - what about when Charles and Camilla are King and whatever - will you still be as proud of them? We'll have two dogs at the palace - King Charles and the other one "The future of the Monarchy, if it has one, lies with William and Kate. Charles and Camilla would be an annoyance to be endured, although they could make it even more unpopular should they hang around too long... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You would think with all the cash given to the monarchy they would spend a bit on funking up the national anthem, it is so shite it's unreal, even embarrassing at footy matches - unlike land of my fathers or Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau which IMO is goose bumping awesome." Lets get Lord Gary of Barlow to write one. At least it might be in a real language eh x | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
