Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Open accounts - see Crown Estates and Sovereign Purse. It's all there to see.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Palace] Costs of the Royal family
- Thread starter Garry Nelson's teacher
- Start date
Open accounts - see Crown Estates and Sovereign Purse. It's all there to see.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,830
I don’t know. If we stop paying for them, will they stop providing the profits from their land and property into the UK kitty? We can’t very well have it both ways can we?
Don’t be sarcastic..... you know very well why he couldn’t play golf
He was at Ascot
dejavuatbtn
Well-known member
Well, I guess we put a line in the sand by stop funding them and charge them tax, as in any other business, on their income. No doubt they will have plenty of exemptions in costs and charities, but at least they will maybe stop being charged as spongers.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,313
we do draw a line, theres a fixed grant from the crown estates, and they do pay tax on private income.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,830
Surely they’ll still give us that money once we ‘get rid of them’?
Why the hell are people bringing up France? They effectively got rid of their monarchy in the EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. I doubt many people were travelling the world on holiday back then. They are just a lot better at promotion than the UK tourist board. They have a broader appeal than the UK, principally because an enormous amount of people can travel there by road and rail. But also of course because of the ‘more reliable’ weather. Each has its own strengths, but since the rise of tourism, they haven’t really had a royal family to promote in any way.
oneillco
Well-known member
- Feb 13, 2013
- 1,259
Yeah tourism to France died on its 4rse once they executed Louis XVI in 1793...
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,830
Just call your HMRC representative. Make sure you give them details of the many millions you freely give up to the treasury every year, as the Royal Family do.
I’m not actually particularly bothered by the Royals. But the ill-informed views on display here are so common it’s irritating.
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,830
That’s exactly the point isn’t it. I doubt many people were willingly going to France to see Louis and the crew. You can guarantee that if they still had a Royal Family that are famous the world over, they would be promoting that as another great reason to come and get immersed in French culture and history. They don’t because they can’t!
Tourism back then was mainly invading armies.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,435
But why would that change if we abolished the Monarchy and transferred the Crown Estates to full public ownership?
Which we should absolutely do (for non-financial reasons). But won't.
It's not like the value created by the crown estates is down to the personal toil of the royal family
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Ok so you sack the royalty. That does not give the government carte blanche to rob them of their personal land and houses. Some of the estate belongs to the people ie Buckingham Palace but Windsor and Sandringham are privately owned. Windsor was built by William the Conquer.
How much do you think it would cost to run properties for a President. Buckingham Palace could be used in the same way Macron uses the Elysee Palace? It would still need staff and security.
Renovating Big Ben is already costing £61million, and Westminster is taking £3.5Billion and 15 years to complete. I don't seem to see threads complaining about that?
blue-shifted
Banned
I'm fairly sentimental about this, so i'll say keep the Royal Family, but be acutely aware that the Daily Mail and others are looking to do a stich up article at every opportunity. (This will get worse after the queen goes as she is popular). To counter this, be very aware of what is being spent and make sure at little as possible is coming from the public purse.
blue-shifted
Banned
I suppose at some point the French must have taken a different tack to you that we can't just rob them of their personal property
indeed, look at the tourism industry in post revolution france,
I appreciate that other European countries have plenty of tourism. But with the UK soon to be outside the EU how many of those tourists will bother to go through the added paperwork of bureaucracy to visit the UK? Many people from around the world take lengthy vacations to Europe to travel extensively. With added paperwork/checks etc after leaving the EU, and the proposition of some on here wanting to abolish the monarchy, how many will keep coming?
I have been astonished at how much coverage the Royal family get down here, no chance of a republic anytime soon.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
I suppose at some point the French must have taken a different tack to you that we can't just rob them of their personal property
It wasn't surprising when the French were starving to death and the Austrian Queen said let them eat cake. The closest we have to that ignorance now is Jacob Rees-Mogg and his sister.
Are you suggesting we guillotine them and seize the Rees-Mogg millions?
Actually, the richest person in Britain is the Duke of Westminster, who isn't royalty.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Parasites don't donate £344 million to the treasury from the Crown Estates. Strong and inaccurate language doesn't help truthful discussions.
albion534
Well-known member
Separate accounts show the Crown Estate provided a record £343.5m to the Treasury in 2018-19, up 4.3% on last year.
They bring in more than they take. So I don’t see the issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They bring in more than they take. So I don’t see the issue.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FatSuperman
Well-known member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 2,830
As you say, it's a lot easier to tour countries in Europe, but more than that it's actually a lot cheaper than visiting here. Prices are higher here, in general the currency here is 'more costly' than the continent, although we are addressing that (unplanned!). Realistically we are never going to get the same numbers as somewhere like France for a load of different reasons. But that's not really relevant. The real question is;
If we ditch the Royal Family, do we gain more in cost savings than we lose in reduced tourism.
I think it's very difficult to answer that question, so my take on it is why bother risking it? They don't actually 'cost' us anything, given that they are a net contributor to the public purse. Obviously we could rob them, but what precedent does that set? Who else are we allowed to rob? Where do we draw the timeline and say 'well, they shouldn't have had that anyway'. Maybe we align everything to the French Revolution - that would please a load of people on here. So, anyone who owned anything PRIOR to 1793 has to forfeit that to the public. Anything purchased after that date is kept by the owner.
We'll have to be careful with people that have transferred ownership into tax efficient vehicles / management companies etc. Because obviously they still really own it. I think with the right people behind this, we could really get it done. I'm excited.
Obviously I'm happy to debate the start date. Maybe we should have a vote on it? Most of the young people would probably choose 2018, given they have sod all and would happily see everyone 'richer than them' brought down a peg or two.
On that basis, who ends up with the Falklands?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,313
the Falklanders.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Yes, the Queen is the head of state of Australia which is why you have a Prime Minister and not a President. In fact she is the head to 53 countries in the Commonwealth, including the one below, and Queen of 16 countries.
As for European countries, there is a royal family in Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. A Duchy of Luxembourg, and Principalities in Monaco and Lichenstein.