Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty

sussex_guy2k2 · Jun 27, 2017

Simster said:
Anyone sane can see it beggars belief. At a time when we are going to have an enormous Brexit bill and we're all wondering about the supposed value of lives in people in tower blocks, along comes an enormous pay rise for the wealthiest woman in the world, paid for by the state. It is a disgrace.

Unfortunately, the poor don't bring in tourists. Tourists can go to Africa, South America and Asia if they want to see real poor people. And let's be honest, their poor people are much better at being poor than ours are. Most of our "poor people" find it difficult to survive on their benefits with the iPhones and Playstations and 4k TVs... it really is a tough life.

I think, overall, that my point is your faux-outrage seems to be lacking a touch of reality.

Simster · Jun 27, 2017

sussex_guy2k2 said:
Unfortunately, the poor don't bring in tourists. Tourists can go to Africa, South America and Asia if they want to see real poor people. And let's be honest, their poor people are much better at being poor than ours are. Most of our "poor people" find it difficult to survive on their benefits with the iPhones and Playstations and 4k TVs... it really is a tough life.

I think, overall, that my point is your faux-outrage seems to be lacking a touch of reality.

That's absolute nonsense from start to finish really isn't it? I mean, what is the point of any of what you wrote?

You accuse me of faux outrage because I am unhappy that people were burnt to death in a tower block because cheap but pretty looking cladding was used all the while we are increasing the Queen's pay by £6m a year?

Clive Walker · Jun 27, 2017

regarding the repair work to Buck Palace (plumbing, door replacements and wiring):

Officials have said the repair work, which is set to take 10 years, is essential to avoid the risk of “catastrophic building failure”

That seems terrible timing considering the ongoing announcements relating to fire safety issues on numerous tower blocks up and down the country/.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Jun 27, 2017

In a week where we are paying 100m per DUP MP to let May keep a government she didn't need to weaken in the first place, I can't really get upset about a brilliant establishment and wonderful national building receiving additional funding.

Westdene Seagull · Jun 27, 2017

Thunder Bolt said:
£328M income to the Treasury from the Crown Estate for St James market, without all the other income.

As for refurbishing Buckingham Palace, do you think American tax payers contribute to the upkeep of the White House, or French tax payers for the Elycee Palace?

The 65p that British tax payers contribute is for security, so they don't get kidnapped or assissnated. We'd have to pay a similar amount to keep a President safe.

This with bells on.

In addition, a President would cost just as much. Also, something people appear to be missing is that this money doesn't go into the Queen's personal bank account - it's used for the upkeep of Palaces ( which are owned by the nation not her ) and to pay wages to normal people. All costs that would need to be paid if we had a President. You don't hear of the upkeep costs of the White House being part of Trumps pay. Equally this isn't part of the Queen's pay.

Simster · Jun 27, 2017

Westdene Seagull said:
This with bells on.

In addition, a President would cost just as much. Also, something people appear to be missing is that this money doesn't go into the Queen's personal bank account - it's used for the upkeep of Palaces ( which are owned by the nation not her ) and to pay wages to normal people. All costs that would need to be paid if we had a President. You don't hear of the upkeep costs of the White House being part of Trumps pay. Equally this isn't part of the Queen's pay.

Apparently it goes to a sovereign grant, which pays for the salaries of her household, official travel and upkeep of palaces. So I'll ask, what happens if in 5 years time, that the work hasn't been done to Buck Palace, and it is falling apart? Are we expected to just say "oh we obviously didn't give you enough in 2017, have some more money"? The answer is of course "yes we are" and that is exactly what will happen IMO. The reason for this is that the Queen owns Buckingham Palace but the government is responsible for it's maintenance in exchange for profits of the Crown Estate. This seems a total mess and I strongly suspect it's an arrangement that is not in the public interest - certainly not as much as the Crown Estate paying tax on everything it earns like any other business, the Royal family looking after what property is theirs, and the UK Govt looking after state property.

Here's a novel suggestion: how about the UK government takes full control of Buck Palace including maintenance, opens it up in it's entirety as a money making concern for tourism etc, and only closes it off to the public when the Queen is staying there?

Thunder Bolt · Jun 27, 2017

Simster said:
And your argument about the Queen "looking after" Buck Palace has always grated with me. When it comes to Royalty, who owns what has always been shrouded in confusion and secrecy*. Nobody really knows, and frankly nobody is making her stay at the palace anyway.

The Queen's personal properties are Sandringham estate, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, Clarence House, and Kensington Palace. Other residences are held in trust by the state for the royals.
They are managed by the independent charity Historic Royal Palaces, a nonprofit organization that does not receive public funds.

In contrast, the Queen Mother bought the Castle of Mey in 1952, and left it to the people when she died.

No confusion or secrecy. The facts are easily found, if you choose to look for them.

Thunder Bolt · Jun 27, 2017

Simster said:
Apparently it goes to a sovereign grant, which pays for the salaries of her household, official travel and upkeep of palaces. So I'll ask, what happens if in 5 years time, that the work hasn't been done to Buck Palace, and it is falling apart? Are we expected to just say "oh we obviously didn't give you enough in 2017, have some more money"? The answer is of course "yes we are" and that is exactly what will happen IMO. The reason for this is that the Queen owns Buckingham Palace but the government is responsible for it's maintenance in exchange for profits of the Crown Estate. This seems a total mess and I strongly suspect it's an arrangement that is not in the public interest - certainly not as much as the Crown Estate paying tax on everything it earns like any other business, the Royal family looking after what property is theirs, and the UK Govt looking after state property.

Here's a novel suggestion: how about the UK government takes full control of Buck Palace including maintenance, opens it up in it's entirety as a money making concern for tourism etc, and only closes it off to the public when the Queen is staying there?

The Queen does not own Buckingham Palace. It belongs to the State. You are also assuming she won't have the work done. I think she will. She's never turned out to be deceitful, unlike many politicians.

Simster · Jun 27, 2017

Thunder Bolt said:
The Queen does not own Buckingham Palace. It belongs to the State. You are also assuming she won't have the work done. I think she will. She's never turned out to be deceitful, unlike many politicians.

No it doesn't, it belongs to the Crown Estate, "a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch".

A fact that is easily found, if you choose to look for it.

And I didn't say she was deceitful, I don't dislike the Queen at all. But we should be funding the repairs ourselves, not handing over extra millions in the form of a top up to the sovereign grant. The problem with this arrangement is that there is no motivation for the Queen to get it done.

Thunder Bolt · Jun 27, 2017

Simster said:
No it doesn't, it belongs to the Crown Estate, "a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch".

A fact that is easily found, if you choose to look for it.

And I didn't say she was deceitful, I don't dislike the Queen at all. But we should be funding the repairs ourselves, not handing over extra millions in the form of a top up to the sovereign grant. The problem with this arrangement is that there is no motivation for the Queen to get it done.

The Crown Estate is donated to the Treasury, as I have posted many times, as opposed to my previous post, listing her private residences.

Come on, Simster, we've had these debates many times.

Westdene Seagull · Jun 27, 2017

Simster said:
No it doesn't, it belongs to the Crown Estate, "a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch".

A fact that is easily found, if you choose to look for it.

And I didn't say she was deceitful, I don't dislike the Queen at all. But we should be funding the repairs ourselves, not handing over extra millions in the form of a top up to the sovereign grant. The problem with this arrangement is that there is no motivation for the Queen to get it done.

Actually you're both right :

"The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."

It's easily found if you look for it :wink:

Simster · Jun 27, 2017

Regardless of the truth of this, what is wrong with untangling the whole sorry mess so that we can all make reasonable judgements on royalty and what they do and don't bring to the table?

* divvy up the Crown Estates so that royal and state ownership is separated.
* make the royal family pay tax on everything they earn, just like every other business.
* remove the many exemption clauses that are placed in nearly every state law that is passed. No more secrecy.
* the state to pay a single fixed fee and nothing else.

We can then have informed debates on the rights and wrongs of having a monarchy in 2017.

beorhthelm · Jun 27, 2017

Simster said:
... The reason for this is that the Queen owns Buckingham Palace but the government is responsible for it's maintenance in exchange for profits of the Crown Estate.

Queen Elizabeth does not own Buckingham Palace, its owed by the Crown. not sure if its explicit part of the Crown Estate, it is expected cost of maintenance comes from that source. so apart from being opened more to the public, the situation is as you suggest.

Blue3 · Jun 27, 2017

I am a supporter of the monarchy but in times of austerity when we are all supposed be be in this together I suggested to my MP that the money would be better spent on helping the homeless, I suggested that HRH would agree and if the roof leaks put a bucket under it at least until we as a nation can afford these repairs

Albion my Albion · Jun 27, 2017

Because of the public nature of being the sovereign we as non-public people will never know what it truly means to live that way or whether the compensation is worth it.

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Jun 27, 2017

Simster said:
It's hard to know where to begin with your tiresome nonsense. Just as it seems you couldn't be thicker than already proven, you go and surpass yourself. Firstly, I'm not a "lefty" - I'm slightly left of centre. You can tar me with a liberal brush if you like, but I wouldn't ever vote for 90% taxes. I just don't so see blatant injustice, which is exactly what this is.

Secondly, I don't know exactly what the Brexit bill will be because it is yet to be negotiated, but regardless I don't need to in order to make my point because I do know it will be in the magnitude of billions in the short term - even the pro-Brexit people on here would admit that. Not you though, as you're clearly a simpleton. My point being that we have absolutely loads to pay for, so why are giving a huge pay increase to the one of the nation's biggest spongers?

FFS, there you go again. I'm not a pro Corbyn lefty you thick tit.

The Queen a sponger

And you're not a lefty. :lol:

I can't tell if you are taking yourself seriously, or are just on a wind up. Are you thick or funny. It's hard to tell!

:flounce:

Herr Tubthumper · Jun 27, 2017

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
The Queen a sponger And you're not a lefty. I can't tell if you are taking yourself seriously, or are just on a wind up. Are you thick or funny. It's hard to tell!

1/10. The one is for the animated stuff at the bottom.

Tarpon · Jun 27, 2017

I'd like to drop my trousers to the queen
Every sensible child will know what this means

Tubby-McFat-Fuc · Jun 27, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
See, you can talk sense if you try.

I know. 38,000 posts and we are still waiting for your to do it.

Viva la revolution Comrade :yawn:

Simster · Jun 27, 2017

Tubby-McFat-Fuc said:
The Queen a sponger And you're not a lefty. I can't tell if you are taking yourself seriously, or are just on a wind up. Are you thick or funny. It's hard to tell!

Brilliant contribution there. And in what way have I flounced? Or as that just you being a fckwitt again?

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty

Well-known member

"the man's an arse"

Stand Or Fall

Well-known member

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

"the man's an arse"

Silly old bat

Silly old bat

"the man's an arse"

Silly old bat

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch

"the man's an arse"

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

"the man's an arse"

Share this page