Forum menu
I read in the guardian that the much publicised slimed down monarchy Charles wants is going to get a 45% increase in the sovereign grant from 2025. It just beggars belief.
It just beggars belief.
Only if you ignore where the UK has been going for the last decade or so.
Ah well, bit of a saving from Liz and Phil passing, and Harry and his missus getting cut off though !
It's barking mad they get any money at all, the Crown Estate is minted.
It's also barking mad we even have a Monarchy in the first place...
It must be hard living on just £86m a year in state handouts. Wonder if him and the Mrs claim the winter fuel allowance too (probably costs a few quid to heat 4 or 5 huge houses with over 100 bedrooms combined).
Yet plenty on fawning sycophants think its more important that say employing another 2000+ nurses a year for the same ££.
What a foooked up country.
Know your place, scumbags!
I have finally realised it's not worth knowing about or moaning about 🙁
M'Lord... Never will be My Lord.
Reading the article in full. The extra money in 25/26 and 26/27 will pay for Buckingham Palace renovations. The King's allowance has stayed the same for ~4 years so a real terms cut. I do get there is an arguement we should just get rid of the monarchy, that their role doesn't marry with the modern UK, but it's complex isn't it? I haven't seen the figures recently for how much tourism they and the key historic sites bring in and the influence of diplomacy etc.
The bigger question for me remains is the Government of the time doing the best it can for public good with Crown Estate profits?
If you turned over all the residences and crown jewels etc... to the english heritage or some such like and binned off the actual royals I still think there would be significant 'royal' tourism. Its not like the americans flying over actually get to see Charlie
I think they should be forced to fund themselves through their extensive estates. No hand outs.
I haven’t seen the figures recently for how much tourism they and the key historic sites bring in
The Palace of Versailles is a very popular tourist attraction, and the French got rid of their lot...
😉
We need to bin off most of the Government first !
It’s barking mad they get any money at all, the Crown Estate is minted.
Plus the rents from 12 miles from the shore.
Isn't that how it's 'funded' though. The "Crown Estate" makes some money, and a portion of that funds the Royals. They don't directly get an increase every time e-ON put another turbine in?
I mean yes, they could just run that land for a profit anyway and use it to prop up the governments coffers instead. But lets be honest, Swinley would have been a housing estate now if it was owned by Bracknell.
Not [i]from[/i] 2025, [i]for[/i].
the increase would be “temporary, only for the financial years of 2025-6 and 2026-7” and would be used to complete renovation works at Buckingham Palace
Mummy left the place in a right state, obvs.
I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing the "but tourism" argument.
It's nonsense. There are no ****ing Pharaohs but people still go to the Pyramids.
Even the Coronation was supposed to bring in loads of money but it simply didn't and the UK economy took a hit.
This family of grifters are not decent people, they had very strong links with the Far Right in the 1930's. Edward VIII was a full on collaborator and he was Lizzies "favourite Uncle".
We need to get rid.
We need to bin off most of the Government first !
Yes I think we have much bigger issues to sort in this country before we start worrying about a few million quid, save your boiled wee for the big issues, emotive as some people find the monarchy they really aren't the cause of all our problems and getting rid at the moment would just be a fantastic dead cat in the right's culture war.
Its not just a few million though is it.
If you add all the free money, plus other hidden costs, like extra security implications its probably over £100 million.
Keep them, fine but reduce the amount of money annually by say 10%. Plus cut off some of the extended, 6th in line to the throne so have some free cash on us craziness.
Good job he only has two kids
It’s barking mad they get any money at all, the Crown Estate is minted.
The Crown Estate is a national body, his stipend is a percentage of the profits.
Also, if you read the article;
The complicated formula used to determine the sovereign grant was introduced in 2011 by the then prime minister, David Cameron, and his chancellor, George Osborne. Removing parliament’s centuries-old control over royal funding, they created a new formula that tied the monarch’s funding to a percentage of the profits of the crown estate.
So they could either change that again (not bloody likely) or just maintain the status quo.
But yeah, by all means focus your anger on the smaller parasite, I'm sure your actual masters would be happy with that if it keeps the heat off of them. £120m is a drop in the ocean compared to what these ****s have cost us since they came to power.
Much of their travel arrangements come out of defence budgets so are not even included.
I think they should be forced to fund themselves through their extensive estates. No hand outs.
afaik thats exactly what happens, except the majority of the cash from those extensive estates goes back to the state.
Not those extensive estates - they were handed over on the bankruptcy of George III. Disappointing to see that they have their sticky mitts back in that pot. Their own extensive estates.
But yeah, by all means focus your anger on the smaller parasite, I’m sure your actual masters would be happy with that if it keeps the heat off of them. £120m is a drop in the ocean compared to what these **** have cost us since they came to power.
Yup,
Royal family over 5 years ~£500million
Braverman's floating migrant detention centers £2.6billion.
They don’t directly get an increase every time e-ON put another turbine in?
Actually they do by default.
The sovereign grant is a percentage of the crown estates revenue so each new turbine mean more cash for Charlie.
I agree that this is a drop in the ocean. The whole POINT of a monarchy in the 21st C is that their loyal subjects give them truckloads of money.
My personal view is that we should get rid, and I'd certainly vote for that if it was ever an option.
But it doesn't make sense to worry that a king might have too much money. It comes with the territory. Bin them all off, and we can rinse the Palaces for far more in tourism money than we do when people are still living in them.
Bin them all off, and we can rinse the Palaces for far more in tourism money than we do when people are still living in them.
The renovation of Buckingham Palace should involve booting the Royals out, who don't want to live there anyway, convert it into half visitor centre and half luxury hotel.
You could generate a decent income and definitely boost tourism.
If you add all the free money, plus other hidden costs, like extra security implications its probably over £100 million.
And?
I know companies who’ve spent more than that on their call-centre software.
It’s not really that much in the grand scheme of things.
I take it they spend that every year on their software? Christopher Hitchens found that Charles managed to compress his 'duties' into on average 3 days per month. The rest of the time he was free to shoot animals, go on holiday, be a tampon, conduct illicit affairs, write spidery letters to ministers and so on. Don't know what the photographers do but I once stood next to him in Oakham and he's a tiddler. He is a symbol of the Europe beating levels of inequality in this country, nasty, brutish and short.
Nothing to add except that you're allowed to be angry about more than one thing, we don't have to start at the absolute worst thing the tories do, fix that, then move onto the next worst.
I think they should be forced to fund themselves through their extensive estates. No hand outs.
I thought the money was based on the income received from the Crown Estates? So effectively self funding.
Oh, and worth remembering it is not the monarchy who have ****ed the country over for 12 years, don't get distracted
I really don't care. But if the best you've got to complain about is the king's height and something about the recently deceased queen's uncle who abdicated in the 1930s then I'd suggest that we're perhaps reaching a little.
It's the same thread with the same arguments every time, all bluster and no substance. Someone will be here in a minute to mention cap-doffing. If you want to know how much money the crown is making / taking / spending, all of this stuff is in the public domain, isn't it?
Reading the article in full. The extra money in 25/26 and 26/27 will pay for Buckingham Palace renovations.
Why have they not been maintaining it in the first place then? Why has it got so bad. They’ve spent the money on tendons instead
A bit of leg pulling and humorous potshots can be refreshingly subversive. Just think of what the DoE did for diplomacy and what Charles did for Marriage Guidance, even Hobbes himself might have had a little titter.
Most peoples arguments against the Monarchy are based on ill informed and inaccurate numbers from folks who just get angry at the headline but don't know the facts behind it. I guess that's exactly why some fools still vote tory, by not knowing facts.
Know your enemy. It's certainly not the King, He may be very wealthy but he is fighting and lobbying for environmental change and using his influence for the greater good.
I guess that’s exactly why some fools still vote tory, by not knowing facts.
Oddly enough the same fools are often royalists. I suspect for the exact reason you claim. They are the sort of people who dribble out PR pieces about tourism and confuse the crown estates with the royals own contributions.
It’s certainly not the King, He may be very wealthy but he is fighting and lobbying for environmental change
His concern for the environment is rather selective. The royal estates have a bad reputation for wildlife crime and are often wildlife deserts unless it happens to suit his inane ideas about what the countryside should be.
This is insulting and arrogant ‘but they bring in the tourists’ FFS. Only saw 2 French cars getting on the ferry I’m on now.
To be fair, the French may not be the target audience - history and all that. Be good to actually have some data on tourism though as it is always spouted out, i.e. number of tourists coming specifically because of Royal shit , number who it swayed to come amongst other reasons, and those that it played zero part in them visiting UK.
If you want to know how much money the crown is making / taking / spending, all of this stuff is in the public domain, isn’t it?
No.
Go and pull up the security bill for starters (it was amusing when Harry fell out of favour with the right wing rags how quickly they cottoned onto how much security costs).
Or the charges to embassies whilst the royals are on tour.
As always your sneering attitude on this subject is only matched by weaknesses in your argument.
The extra money in 25/26 and 26/27 will pay for Buckingham Palace renovations.
How do we go about reclassifying our local secondary school as a palace? It's literally crumbling down around the kids studying there. No extra money to sort the building, or to fund the meagre pay rise due for the teaching staff.
As always your [insert random ad hom here] on this subject is only matched by weaknesses in your argument.
As opposed to everyone else's robust and well-evidenced ones.
As I said, I really don't care about the royals. What irks me is when opinions get slung about as facts. This is how we got brexit.
Look at all the "sneering" going on here about previous comments on tourism. (Selective reading much?)
Does anyone know in real terms what it's worth to the economy? Or what it would be worth instead if we had an empty palace and no royals? Do YOU know? I don't, I have no idea and I expect it'd be rather difficult to work out with any degree of accuracy.
Do people holiday to the UK for no other reason than to visit the Queen King? Of course not and it's frankly patronising to argue that that's what people mean. But it's one component of a greater whole just in London alone. Phone boxes, taxis, Routemasters, the Tube, Beefeaters, various Squares, West End theatres, the Union Jack, bulldogs, paying ten quid for a Guinness in a "traditional" Irish pub, etc etc etc. Americans in particular tend to have a right hardon for all that guff IME, you should've seen the amount of shit my friend from Chicago took back home.
I wouldn't go to France solely to see the Eiffel tower, but there are other interesting things too. I would probably swing by if I were somewhere near Paris and maybe buy an overpriced sandwich whilst trying to keep my partner out of the tat shops. Yet I wouldn't go en vacences if it were a desert wasteland.
Would you go to Egypt just to see the pyramids? Would it still be in the same position on your list of desirable destinations if they weren't there?
If we were to abolish the royal family then it would impact revenue from tourism. It has to, we'd have less of something. QED. No-one ever said "hey, let's go into town, it'll be great, they've just closed the chip shop!" Whether that hit would be a net economic gain overall, I wouldn't even know where to begin so I'll leave that to you and your calculator.
[A ton of edits there for my crappy writing, sorry to anyone mid-reply]
The royal family's tourism marketing skills could be replaced by genuinely democratic arrangements, though. If we get rid of them, they can be replaced by something else. ie a president, or make them purely ceremonial.
People really underestimate how influential they are. The aristocracy will always do right by the king. They also perpetuate a hierarchal structure to UK society which is holding back development in all forms. It also embraces inequality.
Getting rid of the monarchy is not an end in itself. More a step towards a better future for everyone.
There is some more information here (from a long-standing organisation):
https://www.republic.org.uk/the_truth_about_the_royals
You could still have the changing the the guard and open up the palace to visitors like Versaille so that we can see all those art works hidden away. I used to commute past Buckingham Palace every day on a motorbike and I never really saw that many people there and I certainly never saw a member of the family. I did used to see Buster Edwards selling flowers on the same commute. In comparison, the Tate Modern, British Museum, National Gallery, Tate Britain are real crowd pullers. Anyway, it's a much bigger issue than attracting tourists.