UPDATE: Reviews section refreshed, redesigned, searchable: Go take a look
What a great fella paying £13 million in tax.
King can effectively deduct royal business from his tax bill.
The King also does not pay tax on the Sovereign Grant, which is money paid from the Treasury to the Royal Household to pay for official duties.
Compared to Trump very good value for money!
**** what they cost....... lets have somes news on what they bring into the country.
do you think all the foreign tourists come here because we are a nice country full of nice people ?
do they ****. they come because of royalty and it's history.
Thank god we have a figurehead who isn’t a complete ****.
Yeah, I'm with ton on this one. They are a historic, out of date, and posh family who have won the life lottery in many ways.
But they bring in masses of tourists, are decent ambassadors for all things 'UK' and under Charles and William we are seeing changes for the better.
How do you post a video on here these days?
they come because of royalty and it's history.
France seems to do alright tourist wise. I went to Warwick Castle once, did not go to see the lord of the castle. You are correct though "it's history".
How many visitors actually see the King, or previously the Queen? Or do they just visit London to be in, potentially, the same city as the King/Queen?
France gets more tourists and visits to royal palaces (as they are open to the public most of the time) and yet a royal family hasn’t been a thing for quite some time.
Do people honestly think that if the royal family stops being a thing no one would come to visit London?
Amazed nickc and TJ don't want to put the royle benefit wasters back to work!Tax avoiding wastes if space.
TBH @monkeycmonkeydo I've no great problem with the immediate Family and line of succession, they're as good as any other figurehead really. The hangers on and aunts and uncles can get in the the sea though. Personally I'd make them choose a house to live in though and give the rest to the Nat Trust or something like that, and take away most of their land (their ancestors probably helped themselves to it back in the day, we can do the same now, all's fair and all that) there's absolutely no need for their obscene levels of personal wealth, they can live on the same money as the rest of the senior civil servants do.
Having said all that mind you, without all the money, I'd not do what they do...
There was a good Today In Focus 6 part podcast about where the King gets all his wealth from. I seem to remember tennants on Sandringham complaining about the standards of the places they were living in. Cold and draughty, hadn't had work done to them for years etc. I'm not for or against the Royal Family but there's far too many of them and far too much money wasted on them. And I'm sure the tourism benefits are exaggerated, as has been said, plenty of people flock to Versailles. Maybe more tourists would go to Buck palace if we had a few beheadings there.
France gets more tourists and visits to royal palaces (as they are open to the public most of the time) and yet a royal family hasn’t been a thing for quite some time.
They also get a Mediterranean coast, two major mountain ranges and some of the best and highest skiing in Europe.
I mean, I don't really care about the Royal Family either way and wouldn't miss them personally. But a comparison to France for tourism is a bit apples and pears.
That said, I thought Charles speech in the US was worth setting aside a few quid for.
I'm not for or against the Royal Family but there's far too many of them and far too much money wasted on them.
There's a few scaled back examples in Europe of royal families that probably set a reasonable compromise.
The concept of Nigel Farage being head of state is unsettling.
What a great fella paying £13 million in tax.
A fairly pointless release of the bottom line.
The Crown Estate alone made £1.2bn, but a chunk of that is paid direct to HM Treasury.
If the state has spent a fortune on an unoccupied Buck House then it should be opened to the public, particularly if it isn't lived in, and recoup a bit more for HMT
The concept of Nigel Farage being head of state is unsettling.
I find the argument of "I dont want $AWFUL_PERSON_I_DONT_LIKE to be the temporary, elected head of state" to be a strange one. Surely the point of it is that you are stuck with the monarch for life. Being able to get rid of a head of state in an election is a plus, not a minus!
You should worry more about "$AWFUL_PERSON_I_DONT_LIKE to be the permanent head of state". I mean we were one heartbeat from Nonce Andrew being king for a few couple decades!
If the state has spent a fortune on an unoccupied Buck House then it should be opened to the public,
It will be soon, hes staying in Clarence House when the Buckingham Palace refurb is complete, so more of of Buckingham Palace will be open more often.
Personally I'm happy with the current arrangement and William will probably out live me so that's the head of state issue resolved in my lifetime.
do they ****. they come because of royalty and it's history
Cool, consign royalty to history and it’ll be a double win. Or just continue doffing your cap and tugging your forelocks to your betters. Blind obsequiousness to the concept of a monarchy in this day and age is quite pathetic , imho
Or just continue doffing your cap and tugging your forelocks to your betters. Blind obsequiousness to the concept of a monarchy in this day and age is quite pathetic , imho
Does anyone, has anyone ever done that in the modern age? I would give the same level of respect to whomever is "The head of state" regardless if it's an hereditary monarch, or Edith the Cleaner, chosen in a lottery.
Does anyone, has anyone ever done that in the modern age?
I'm sure some do but I don't know them.
The armed forces have this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
But I don't know how that's actually perceived by those taking it
this country is 7th in the international tourism league table and only Spain and Japan on that list have hereditary heads of state, who franky are not a factor in my visiting.
As Marina Hyde asks in today's guardian, why are we doubling their core funding to £100m when they have a vast network of land and high end properties? Are we enabling a culture of dependence?
Does anyone, has anyone ever done that in the modern age?
State opening of parliament, oath of allegiance, head of the Church of England, enforced state mourning for dead monarchs, having to refer to someone as "Your majesty" , royal weddings taking over the capital and a bill for taxpayers, on and on we go. I actually like that I live in a republic now, ymmv.
Does anyone, has anyone ever done that in the modern age? I
yes.
I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.
Mps oath
Yeah, I'm with ton on this one. They are a historic, out of date, and posh family who have won the life lottery in many ways.
But they bring in masses of tourists, are decent ambassadors for all things 'UK' and under Charles and William we are seeing changes for the better.
I used to think this, but I think it’s massively outdated now. The history wouldn’t be any less important if you did away with the lot of them. It also blindly denies the opportunity of considering alternatives just to avoid change.
The concept of Nigel Farage being head of state is unsettling.
why do we need a head of state?
We being the UK?
Are we talking about a head of government, i.e. the PM, or a head of state, i.e the King?
The head of state in a lot of countries is arguably less powerful than the head of government, it all depends on the political system, but everyone has a head of state.
Some heads of government are less powerful than others, e.g. FM of Scotland, so why do we bother with them?
Mps oath
Sure, so do the Brownies. What's your point caller? It's a form of words, I'm sure (along with everyone else on this thread) you can recite the Lord's Prayer, should I make assumptions about your religiosity?
the point is our Mps have to make this obsequious oath to the king contrary to what was claimed.
So what is the purpose of the UK head of state?
Other contries they have an overt political role.
Why do we need a ceremonial head of state that our elected representatives in Westminster have to swear this obsequious oath to?
the point is our Mps have to make this obsequious oath to the king contrary to what was claimed.
And God, don't forget that bit...They make the same oath in Spain and some other European countries that still retain a monarchy, more Parliaments than not have some sort of Oath that binds them to something that isn't their party. It doesn't by itself, signify any sort of 'blind' obsequiousness, any more than being mere tradition which as it relates to Parliament; is entirely made up by Victorians.
Other contries they have an overt political role.
not Ireland (who can name their HoS without Googling? For some reason I can only remember Mary Robinson) who have a purely ceremonial one.
We could just make it a job for the Speaker or Black Rod or someone.
more Parliaments than not have some sort of Oath that binds them to something that isn't their party. It doesn't by itself, signify any sort of 'blind' obsequiousness, any more than being mere tradition
it is a reason why Sinn Fein 's MPs don't take their WM seats.
because other countries do it is not a reason we should.
Anyone got an actual reason for the head of state or the obsequious oath?
if you feel the need for an oath it couldbe to serve the people
So at 100M they cost each taxpayer about 3 quid a year. I worry about funding them as much as I worry about spending 3 quid on anything else. Though I think I got more personal enjoyment from the cake on yesterday's ride than I will from the royals this year. And when one of them gets married or dies it usually means a great day for road riding as the masses are glued to their televisions watching whetever "pageantry" is going on
Sure, so do the Brownies. What's your point caller? It's a form of words, I'm sure (along with everyone else on this thread) you can recite the Lord's Prayer, should I make assumptions about your religiosity?
I could probably remember it but I sure as shit wouldn't say it. Cheapens it for those that believe imo. Blindly just saying shit you don't believe is a massive problem in society imo.
it is a reason why Sinn Fein 's MPs don't take their WM seats.
Going off piste.
To some degree this is an old canard put about to obscure why Sinn Fein MPs don't sit in Westminster; that they believe Westminster has no place governing Ireland. Abstentionism has been a republican policy for decades, the first female MP elected to Westminster was a Sinn Fein abstentionist (things they don't teach you in British schools, just swoon over the Astors).
It's an excuse used to hide a more nuanced standpoint.
**** what they cost....... lets have somes news on what they bring into the country.
do you think all the foreign tourists come here because we are a nice country full of nice people ?
do they ****. they come because of royalty and it's history.
More people go to Legoland than visit Windsor castle each year.
Stonehenge draws 1.4 million visitors annually and it's builders have been replaced by the Beakers, Celts, Saxons and the Normans in the intervening period. We can probably evict the Saxe-Coburgs and people will come and see what's here.
It isn't the royals that are alive that are pulling the tourists, it is all the history that attracts the tourists. There may be some thinking they'll get lucky and stand next the some royal person, but they are in a vast minority.
I'm not a fan and I really don't understand why they need all that land and buildings AND get a handout to live from the people of this country.
Stonehenge draws 1.4 million visitors annually and it's builders have been replaced by the Beakers, Celts, Saxons and the Normans in the intervening period. We can probably evict the Saxe-Coburgs and people will come and see what's here.
And Stonehenge is rubbish
