Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty

[Herr Tubthumper]

I meant on a national basis, not on here.

That is my national referendum question.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

Never been to London

Check out the visitor numbers at other ex-Royal palaces in Europe and come back.

Who on earth suggested the changing of the guard should go away ?

I've totally just realised what your username is

And the guards have to be there to guard someone...

In regards to the post below this one, why is a constitutional argument necessary?

 

[The Clamp]

I view the monarchy the same way I view Christianity.

I love the architecture, the ritual, the history, and the aesthetic of both but I fundamentally don't believe in them. I think both use up too much public money and are essentially a drain both financially and morally. I also think both are outdated. However, on balance, I would ultimately be sorry to see either of them disappear.

 

[Live by the sea]

The queen is worth every penny . Shame about all the Corbyn rabble rousers who think Marxism is a good idea for a leader. Corbyn out, not supporting terrorist sympathesiers !

 

[portslade seagull]

It's not compatible by any means.

One is a dilapidated ruin which is in need of major updating so it can serve its purpose to care for the thousands of tax paying citizens that require it. The other is just a house nonused by its occupier for much of the year and only part open to the public.

A house that brings millions into the economy via tourists

 

[Bulldog]

From the republics website. I have no idea if it's accurate but would tend to believe it rather than the establishments spin.

What the BBC said:
The monarchy costs each of us 65p
The Sovereign Grant is funded by the Crown Estate
The Crown Estate is owned by the Queen

A 'reality check' on their reality check:
65p takes the 'official' cost of the monarchy and divides it by the entire population. It ignores the true £345 million cost of the monarchy and pretends that all 64 million of us (i.e. every student, child, pensioner) is paying tax, which simply isn't true.

The Sovereign grant is funded by the government (i.e. the taxpayer) and is paid directly by the Treasury. This money is arbitrarily set at 25% of Crown Estate profits, but even if Crown Estate profits were £0.00, the government would continue to cough up £82.2 million each year.

The Crown Estate is owned by the Crown, and is entirely the property of the state / nation.
As the Crown Estate itself puts it, “The property we manage is owned by the Crown but is not the private property of the monarch.” It is no more the Queen's property than Number 10 belongs to the PM.

 

[drew]

From the republics website. I have no idea if it's accurate but would tend to believe it rather than the establishments spin.

What the BBC said:
The monarchy costs each of us 65p
The Sovereign Grant is funded by the Crown Estate
The Crown Estate is owned by the Queen

A 'reality check' on their reality check:
65p takes the 'official' cost of the monarchy and divides it by the entire population. It ignores the true £345 million cost of the monarchy and pretends that all 64 million of us (i.e. every student, child, pensioner) is paying tax, which simply isn't true.

The Sovereign grant is funded by the government (i.e. the taxpayer) and is paid directly by the Treasury. This money is arbitrarily set at 25% of Crown Estate profits, but even if Crown Estate profits were £0.00, the government would continue to cough up £82.2 million each year.

The Crown Estate is owned by the Crown, and is entirely the property of the state / nation.
As the Crown Estate itself puts it, “The property we manage is owned by the Crown but is not the private property of the monarch.” It is no more the Queen's property than Number 10 belongs to the PM.

Where does the figure of £345m come from and how would it differ if we had an elected head of state?

 

[Simster]

Where does the figure of £345m come from and how would it differ if we had an elected head of state?

I can't answer the first one, but I suspect it's on the republic website. What I can say is that I really cannot believe it would cost more in security to keep an elected head of state - apart from anything else you only have to worry about one person (and their immediate family). Just think of the number of people in our royal family whose security we are currently footing the bill for.

 

[Cian]

Australia had a vote and elected to keep HM as head of state.

They were offered a deliberately awful alternative, though, where they still didn't select their head of state in any structured manner. Polling at the time suggested that bringing in directly elected would have got a decent majority.

 

[BBassic]

This is just not true. People are fascinated in them in a gossipy, hello magazine way and that's about it. And that's the people who are interested in gossip. The others, could not care less.

I detest gossip, unless it's football related, but am fascinated by the Royal Family. Not the figures themselves but more the history, the institution etc etc. It's a bit sweeping to say that anyone with a passing interest in them is just a curtain twitching gossip.

 

[Nathan]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

View attachment 86713

Congratulations on your rebate ma'am.

 

[W.C.]

I detest gossip, unless it's football related, but am fascinated by the Royal Family. Not the figures themselves but more the history, the institution etc etc. It's a bit sweeping to say that anyone with a passing interest in them is just a curtain twitching gossip.

I was talking about my experience of people around the world in response to the 'we are the envy of the world' attitude. Yes, they are box office, but I don't think the royals themselves or the institutions are particularly respected. In my opinion like.

 

[The Clamp]

I think we can all agree that there's probably no better way to demonstrate democracy to a struggling country than having an unelected prince fly over in a helicopter firing missiles at them.