Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Monarchy


Remmie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
4 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

And extra £30m will be taken from the public purse to cover losses on the crowns estates profits during covid.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/uk-pay-27-3-million-151025983.html

 

Amongst several other things that will have you screaming in to the void…

I’m starting to just be numb to it at the moment. One thing after the other and nothing is ever done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bjornebye said:

I’m starting to just be numb to it at the moment. One thing after the other and nothing is ever done. 

Be the change you want to see. You and a few of the lads steel a sub and nuke the fuckers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bruce Spanner said:

And extra £30m will be taken from the public purse to cover losses on the crowns estates profits during covid.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/uk-pay-27-3-million-151025983.html

 

Amongst several other things that will have you screaming in to the void…

I saw some passing reference on the BBC website the other day about us having to chip in more.

I guess all those castles won't clean themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Well indeed, and a chunk of the Crown Estate income comes from tourism. I don't see how that is relevant.

You asked whether we (presumably you meant the taxpayers) would still have to pay for the upkeep of the various palaces. The answer is no: they would generate more than enough to cover their upkeep through tourist spending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You asked whether we (presumably you meant the taxpayers) would still have to pay for the upkeep of the various palaces. The answer is no: they would generate more than enough to cover their upkeep through tourist spending.

 

That's what I'm saying though, this money comes from the Crown Estate, and is generated by such things as tourism already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Strontium said:

Wouldn't we have to pay for the upkeep of Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle etc even if the royals weren't living there?

I've just been looking this up.  The occupied palaces aren't part of the Crown Estates (which is basically a management company for the vast portfolio of land and buildings that we've decided to give to one family, for some reason); they're run by the taxpayer-funded Royal Households (which includes the costs of shit loads of ceremonial hangers-on and people with ridiculous fairytale job titles). The old, unoccupied ones are run by the Historic Royal Palaces agency and are self-funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've just been looking this up.  The occupied palaces aren't part of the Crown Estates (which is basically a management company for the vast portfolio of land and buildings that we've decided to give to one family that was stolen centuries ago, for some reason); they're run by the taxpayer-funded Royal Households (which includes the costs of shit loads of ceremonial hangers-on and people with ridiculous fairytale job titles). The old, unoccupied ones are run by the Historic Royal Palaces agency and are self-funding.

Fixed

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've just been looking this up.  The occupied palaces aren't part of the Crown Estates (which is basically a management company for the vast portfolio of land and buildings that we've decided to give to one family, for some reason); they're run by the taxpayer-funded Royal Households (which includes the costs of shit loads of ceremonial hangers-on and people with ridiculous fairytale job titles). The old, unoccupied ones are run by the Historic Royal Palaces agency and are self-funding.

 

Some misconceptions here... the Crown Estate is land and property that the royal family gave to us, so they wouldn't be personally liable for the burgeoning costs of running the whole country. In exchange they get 25% of the profit from the Crown Estate (usually 15%, but it's been increased temporarily to pay for the renovation of Buckingham Palace), and this is what pays for the Sovereign Grant, which replaced the Civil List.

 

The point I was making is that even if there was no royal family, we'd still need to pay for the upkeep of those royal properties (which is what the biggest chunk of that grant goes to), presumably from the same source of funding. I mean, you could just leave them to rack and ruin I suppose, but I don't think it would be popular or particularly wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Strontium said:

 

Some misconceptions here... the Crown Estate is land and property that the royal family gave to us, so they wouldn't be personally liable for the burgeoning costs of running the whole country. In exchange they get 25% of the profit from the Crown Estate (usually 15%, but it's been increased temporarily to pay for the renovation of Buckingham Palace), and this is what pays for the Sovereign Grant, which replaced the Civil List.

 

The point I was making is that even if there was no royal family, we'd still need to pay for the upkeep of those royal properties (which is what the biggest chunk of that grant goes to), presumably from the same source of funding. I mean, you could just leave them to rack and ruin I suppose, but I don't think it would be popular or particularly wise.

Leave them to go to rack and ruin like Versailles or the Louvre? Or Hampton Court? Or the Tower of London?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...