Shameful

[Tarpon]

The surplus revenue is public money because the Royals gave it to the Treasury in lieu of taxes. It was agreed with George IV, many many years ago. It works.
For those that want a trimmed down royalty, only the Queen & Prince Philip get paid.
For those who think about charity, Prince William donates his wages as an air ambulance pilot, to charity. Many charities wouldn't exist without royal patronage. The Invictus games are the latest,.

Liz? Is that you?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Liz? Is that you?

No, just a pensioner trying to get by.

Btw, I hope you were just as vociferous about the £7 billion being spent on the Houses of Parliament or the big conglomerates that don't pay their taxes. I'd join in on that. That would help our homeless, far more.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

At a time of Brexit uncertainty and cost-cutting to health and benefit budgets, someone sees fit to spend £369m on refurbishing Buckingham Palace. It is high-time they chipped in for some of this and if they don't like it they should abdicate.

Cards on the table; I am a republican. But I really do feel that regardless of your opinions on who should be head of state, this is truly shameful. My wife volunteers at a family support charity called Welcare, and every week there are people turning up in tears, worried about not being able to pay the heating bill or being turfed out of rented accommodation. There is advice being given on how to keep warm without turning up the heating, or how to feed a family of four on ludicrously small amounts of money. Meanwhile, the biggest spongers in the country (who also happen to be the wealthiest) get looked after like this. It really is an absolute DISGRACE.

I assume you disagree with the millions that the charity Historic Royal Palaces have spent in the last decade ( far in excess of this amount ) on keeping historic buildings standing ? Or indeed the money spent by the National Trust over the last decade keeping other historical sites existing ?

 

[beorhthelm]

Yeah I did.
The 'Crown Estate' is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch. It is not their money - it is pubic money. They're still laughing but they laugh at some of their 'subjects' more than others.

and its not their building being refurbished, its publicly owned one. move them out and you'd still have a public building in the centre of London requiring maintenance.

 

[Tarpon]

No, just a pensioner trying to get by.

Btw, I hope you were just as vociferous about the £7 billion being spent on the Houses of Parliament or the big conglomerates that don't pay their taxes. I'd join in on that. That would help our homeless, far more.

I probably would have commented on such a thread but can't recall.
Perhaps you can point me to it since with your strength of feeling I assume you started or commented on it?
Anyway two wrongs don't make a right blah blah.

 

[Tarpon]

and its not their building being refurbished, its publicly owned one. move them out and you'd still have a public building in the centre of London requiring maintenance.

This is the 'public' building that the Royals have consistently refused to allow public access to so it could generate the income to pay for its maintenance yeah?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is the 'public' building that the Royals have consistently refused to allow public access to so it could generate the income to pay for its maintenance yeah?

It's been open for guided tours since 1993.

 

[Diego Napier]

Even if I had attributed it your argument suggests an alternative source with a different view could refute it so it's provenance can't really be the issue. Once again I didn't suggest the figure was set in stone or 100% accurate more an example of the supposed savings from Austerity. Therefore not in any way an attempt at confirmation bias. On the wider point yes adding links from credible sources may help to reinforce a viewpoint but that was not my intention which is why there is no link. It may be a simple point but fundamentally factual that if we don't send tens of Billions to the EU the UK has the option of spending that money here.



My point, getting back to the topic of this thread, is prioritising what we choose to spend our money on. I am equating the reality of our situation. For 'far greater multi-dimensional benefit than can be represented by simple cash flow analysis' see subjective opinion.



Not at all, I am operating on principles relevant to the real world. Uk taxpayers money is better spent promoting the wellbeing of UK citizens in the first instance.



Your characterization of my viewpoint is conveniently simplistic but I haven't said any of that as you know.



As you should, your range and use of vocabulary is one of the highlights of this forum.

OK. I can see that by continuing in this vein then I could be fingered for the same titfer-tattery of which I've accused you. Let's try a different line of reasoning and I'll try to keep it logical, relatively brief and as unpatronising as I can (whilst still retaining what I fondly hope will be a subtle proselytising action).

I've accused you of being simplistic with your adherence to one of your prime belief systems, nationalism. A basic belief is by it's nature simple but unless the adherent is particularly ardent then their views will be tempered by other considerations. Every person on the planet is motivated by their own personal belief systems. Throughout the course of human evolution, these systems developed to help individuals survive and make sense of the world.

We know that every organism on the planet is motivated by self preservation. During the most recent stage of our evolution, humans lived for over 5 million years in small groups of nomadic hunter gatherers, a simple existence with simple belief systems based on collective self preservation. Meeting another tribe was a relatively rare event but would probably mean trouble; stranger danger is not a 21st century maxim. Over the millennia, the sense of tribal belonging gradually became ingrained in the human psyche, becoming a natural partner with their innate physiological needs. Other mammals share identical instincts, my pack your pack, my tribe your tribe, us and them.

12,000 years ago the agrarian revolution marked a step change in human societal development and at a stroke put paid to those millions of years of simplistic, relatively idyllic lifestyle and introduced settled communities, land ownership, money, wealth, materialism, back breaking hard work, starvation, racism, slavery, epidemics, sexism, disease, nation states, empires, famine, judicial systems, war, feudalism, capitalism, communism, democracy, consumerism etc. In spite of this enormously accelerated change, our strong need for belonging, to be part of the tribe, remains deeply ingrained.

As a direct result of this transition, tribalism has transmogrified into nationalism. One of your primary belief systems is now determined by the precise spot on the globe where your mother delivered you. Countless millions share your belief. The strength of an individual's adherence to their birth location determines the strength of their nationalism; in you the force is strong (Luke/Anarkin?).

The randomness of this accident-of-birth-location nationalism is further compounded by point in time. 15,000 years ago, nobody lived in the British Isles. 1200 years ago there was no England and feudalism rather than nationalism dominated your existence. 310 years ago there was no Great Britain. At this point in time your basic tribal proclivity (along with millions of others) is informing you how important Britain and England are (along with Sussex & BHA of course). In a few years time that may be just England rather than both. If evolution and history teaches us anything, in the not too distant future this spot on the globe will certainly not be a nation state of either Britain or England.

I suggested earlier that prime belief systems are modified or ameliorated by conflicting needs or beliefs. So an ardent nationalist can emigrate for the benefit of his family or racialist temper her views through working or living with people of different ethnicity or by a simple act of kindness. So too this nation that sits amongst the world elite, established through a succession of totally random events, has been modified through the slow growth of another belief system, human rights. There is still enormous inequality but the population enjoy extensive benefits that have not been earned but bestowed by good fortune.

The world is now a global estate. In it, we occupy a position at the pinnacle of wealth and influence. The world will continue to be in transition but is currently built on anachronistic "isms" that will eventually become outmoded. I understand your adherence to nationalism, it's one of my belief systems too but I also recognise that we have so much in this country compared with people elsewhere. Acts such as withdrawing from the EU won't result in greater wealth or power for the ordinary British person, they are just shiny chimera proferred by shabby politicians and newspapers well versed in Goebbels's arcanely malevolent skills. Those changes can be effected by the British government for British people within the EU, if they so choose.

Human rights is my primary belief system and what I believe gives the world the best opportunity to survive and be happy. I also believe that withdrawal from international co-operation in any form is a retrograde step. By taking an isolationist stance, turning us and other parts of the globe inwards, retrenching and erecting protectionist barriers, I believe we are pandering to our basest fears, the old fear of strangers, swimming against the tide and making the world a more dangerous place.

 

[SeagullinExile]

The house belongs to the nation and is a wonderful historic building. I for one am delighted with this news. 10 years of work and training a new breed of British skilled craftsmen. Great value.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Tell that to the poor families who struggle to put food on the table mate

 

[Tarpon]

It's been open for guided tours since 1993.

Yes on a very restricted basis which limits the potential income severely. Income generated from visits to Buckingham Palace would vastly increase if, as MP’s have repeatedly requested, it was opened as a year-round attraction. However, the royal family have consistently refused to do this. As previously stated: This is the 'public' building that the Royals has consistently denied public access to so it could generate the income to pay for its maintenance

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Tell that to the poor families who struggle to put food on the table mate

Tell that to the government who get the money from the crown. They need to do something about it.

 

[lawros left foot]

Without the controversy of who should pay, and ignoring the Royalist versus Republican argument, does anyone really belief the cost of this will match the estimate, of £369 mil?
As it is a Government contract, i would be willing to bet that the eventual cost will be a lot nearer to 1/2 a billion.

 

[Blue3]

Add this and the £2 billion to be spent on the Houses of Parliament it is a disgrace hand both buildings over to the national trust they have pots of money take them permanently off the the tax payers bill, and instead spend this on building social homes owned by society and rented to the needy at affordable rates

 

[pb21]

Tell that to the government who get the money from the crown. They need to do something about it.

That's not strictly true though is it?

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

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

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our...thecrownestate

 

[Blue3]

Modular homes is required these can be purchased for £30,000 a unit that's 66,000 homes that could be funded from these two projects plus a third of the U.K. Is owned by the aristocracy a small percentage of this needs to be redistributed so that homes can be built.

We have a society where so many of our young are trapped in a cycle of povety that is impossible for them to escape from for the rest of us as a society we hardly bat an eyelid and all the while billions are spent on the few the Houses of Parliament, Buckingham palace if the roof leaks put a bucket under it as that's what most of the country has to do

 

[JC Footy Genius]

OK. I can see that by continuing in this vein then I could be fingered for the same titfer-tattery of which I've accused you. Let's try a different line of reasoning and I'll try to keep it logical, relatively brief and as unpatronising as I can (whilst still retaining what I fondly hope will be a subtle proselytising action).

I've accused you of being simplistic with your adherence to one of your prime belief systems, nationalism.....

.... The world is now a global estate. In it, we occupy a position at the pinnacle of wealth and influence. The world will continue to be in transition but is currently built on anachronistic "isms" that will eventually become outmoded. I understand your adherence to nationalism, it's one of my belief systems too but I also recognise that we have so much in this country compared with people elsewhere. Acts such as withdrawing from the EU won't result in greater wealth or power for the ordinary British person, they are just shiny chimera proferred by shabby politicians and newspapers well versed in Goebbels's arcanely malevolent skills. Those changes can be effected by the British government for British people within the EU, if they so choose.

Human rights is my primary belief system and what I believe gives the world the best opportunity to survive and be happy. I also believe that withdrawal from international co-operation in any form is a retrograde step. By taking an isolationist stance, turning us and other parts of the globe inwards, retrenching and erecting protectionist barriers, I believe we are pandering to our basest fears, the old fear of strangers, swimming against the tide and making the world a more dangerous place.

Splendid analysis and very informative DN. Agree with much of it. Just to say despite my nationalistic tendencies I am aware of the ultimate futility and randomness of my position.

This isn't a Brexit thread so I won't bang on about it giving us the opportunity to expand our horizons, be more outward looking, less Eurocentric. Forming our own trade deals with numerous countries, reducing barriers and tariffs. Or the ongoing desire among much of the European political class for ever closer Union causing dangerous economic and political tensions across Europe. Ironically helping to fuel nationalism.

A pleasure as always DN.

 

[crookie]

The house belongs to the nation and is a wonderful historic building. I for one am delighted with this news. 10 years of work and training a new breed of British skilled craftsmen. Great value.

Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk

Mostly be benefitting Eastern Europeans judging by the building sites I deliver to. Berkeley Homes big development here trumpeted it would be creating 300 jobs. Any time of the dozens I've delivered there in the past couple of years, not once has a British person signed for it.

Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk

 

[Brighton Mod]

Its a lot of money, to our republican poster I should like to add that we could always have a £410m+ building as the Scottish Parliament Building at Holyrood plus its £140k a month maintenance bill and what a complete concrete monolith it is devoid of character, functionality and any class.

Buck House in the centre of London, totally iconic, attracting millions and representing everything British should be preserved. Yes its a load of money and I baulked the price, but its not the Royal family who will be appointing contractors or probably even being consulted on this.

 

[SeagullinExile]

Tell that to the government who get the money from the crown. They need to do something about it.

To be fair that's a good call...

Here's a petition started two days ago that's already got over a 110,000 names. Those of you that feel strongly enough should take the time to sign

Apologies if someone has posted this already!

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/make-royals-pay-for-palace-renovation?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=18_11_2016_breakingnews&bucket=facebook-post-18_11_2016_breakingnews

 

[beorhthelm]

To be fair that's a good call...

Here's a petition started two days ago that's already got over a 110,000 names. Those of you that feel strongly enough should take the time to sign

Apologies if someone has posted this already!

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/make-royals-pay-for-palace-renovation?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=18_11_2016_breakingnews&bucket=facebook-post-18_11_2016_breakingnews

thats absolutly genius petition, demostrating perfectly the lack of understanding on this issue: "The Crown and its estates should be made to fund its own renovations.". well it is, so you've refuted the purpose of your own petition.