You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
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.
Did you know that if any royal visits your town the local council picks up ALL the security costs associated with the visit.
Even if you don't (immediately) get rid of the royal family you don't need to give them a pay increase especially when so many other essential services are underfunded. They will still be here (unless removed) regardless. I don't think they will upsticks and head off to another country.
Did you know that if any royal visits your town the local council picks up ALL the security costs associated with the visit.
I did not. Do you have a source for that, I'd like to read more.
If a royal visit your town and the council picks up all - excuse me - "ALL" the security costs then is that a net profit or loss to the town? What about non-financial impacts like road closures or wellbeing improvements? They don't tend to rock up for a bacon sandwich, that's more of a politician's roll role.
Goodness me Cougar, you really do come across as a right a**e sometimes. Apologies for using caps to emphasise a point…
Your argument above about losing tourist revenue if we abolished them is simply not true. Versailles is the most popular tourist attraction in France by a long way because you can get in and see it all now. I’ d wager that more tourists would visit if they could traipse around inside & outside ALL the royal properties/estates.
I also reckon an awful lot of people visit Egypt to see the pyramids/Valley of the Kings etc but it won’t be the only reason, the same way that the vast majority of tourists do not visit the UK just to see the royals.
I’ll try to source the fact about the security costs when I’m back from hols; I think I got it from the Republic site.
Actually it’s ALL the extra security costs involved as their personal protection is funded from central govt.
As I said, I really don’t care about the royals. What irks me is when opinions get slung about as facts
For someone who doesnt care you always seem to get enthusiastic about the subject.
Its also rather odd how you only seem irked by those who dare question the royals and not those who sling opinions as facts the other way.
Personally I find the cost vs. tourist income debates rather tiresome and rather missing the point. I've spent the bulk of my adult life working with kids - trying to persuade them that ability and hard work trump all when it comes to what you can hope to achieve in your adult life. Now obviously this is barely a half truth in a world of nepotism and class divide; but when one of the biggest ticket, highest profile jobs in the country is so manifestly not appointed with any sort of ability metric it does rather shine a very bright light on the bollox of the whole thing.
However, I appear to be in the minority - my fellow citizens seem to like this shit. I find it utterly baffling, but there you go. IMO we're stuck with it until we either have an heir to the throne who has either done something so monstrous or (and this will sound like very poor taste) was born with an impediment so significant that they simply can't take on the job that the general public will be given pause for thought about where we go next.
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?
Egypt is an interesting example because tourists there:
1) visit the Pyramids and Egyptian Museum in Cairo, and the Valley of the Kings and Luxor, where the fact that the royals that created the stuff are all long dead evidently doesn't matter.
2) go for scorching desert sun and norovirus-ridden buffets at Sharm, where they couldn't give a shit if Egypt was a republic or a monarchy or an anarcho-syndicalist worker's state so long ad they get unlimited chips.
I'm willing to pay Charles a generous commission for every tourist he can be proven to have brought to the UK or personally welcomed to the UK. It's only fair.
How did I miss this when I replied previously…
“Do YOU know?”
Oh, the ironing! Hypocrite much @cougar?
Could we not just get rid and replace with AI news footage and jobbing actors? Who would even know. Just make sure the plebs don’t get too close. Most die hard royalists are old so will probably have really poor eyesight too.
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?
Bad example imo. Look how many tourists Egypt gets compared to Algeria, which is way nearer, and pretty similar in other non-pyramidy ways. I would go either way (but I've been to Syria and Saudi on holidays), loads of others wouldn't
Having moved to France I love that it’s a republic.
The Marseillaise might be a bit gory but it’s about protecting ourselves, the citizens. Not praying for some bloke to continue ruling over us.
There are things wrong with France but being a republic is a strength and a means for reinvention. We’re on the fifth now…
I don’t think they will upsticks and head off to another country.
TBF, between Edward 8 and Prince Harry, it seems like they would FTFO if there were more luscious pastures overseas. We keep hearing how much goodwill there is for them in the Commonwealth, maybe they'd like to try their luck there.
I don’t think they will upsticks and head off to another country.
TBF, between Edward 8 and Prince Harry, it seems like they would FTFO if there were more luscious pastures overseas. We keep hearing how much goodwill there is for them in the Commonwealth, maybe they’d like to try their luck there.
We could be lucky but I doubt it. Not all countries are total suckers.
Is anyone really that surprised?
@ratt1er - all whilst flying around in a private jet, helicopters, a fleet of Range Rovers....i bet his thermostat isn't set at 19 in his various estates and palaces either. Not bad for someone concerned about 'climate change' right?
Goodness me Cougar, you really do come across as a right a**e sometimes.
Well, I am sometimes. Most people are.
Your argument above about losing tourist revenue if we abolished them is simply not true
Yes it is.
(It might not be, but I've presented precisely as much evidence as you have.)
---
For someone who doesnt care you always seem to get enthusiastic about the subject.
Its also rather odd how you only seem irked by those who dare question the royals and not those who sling opinions as facts the other way.
I'm far from enthusiastic. A rich bloke lives in a big house somewhere South of Birmingham, usually. Some folk seem to hate him. Anecdotally at least, plenty more seem to love him. Either way it affects my day-to-day life not one jot.
But I've already explained why I chip in, people get all shouty with knee-jerk reactions but no actual substance. People want to get rid of the royals for little other coherent argument than because they don't like the idea of them. We saw this same phenomenon in 2016, remind me how well that's working out for us?
We have an inequality of wealth in this country, film at 11. Is abolishing the monarchy the best way to address that? I have no idea, though plenty of people seem really certain yet oddly unable to explain why. "ZOMG he works three days a month and has a helicopter" isn't a deep-dive economic analysis, it's jealousy. Based on that score I think I'd rather abolish Elon Musk.
If I've missed other 'opinions as facts' then I can only apologise. Feel free to highlight them and I'll call them out also.
Oh, the ironing! Hypocrite much @cougar?
No, that was intentional, I generally use italics for emphasis. I'm not that daft, I thought it was amusing was all.
And again in case you missed it,
I have no love for the royals. The Queen seemed nice though like many people we only know from TV could have been an arse, and running that blonde lass into a bridge was sad. I'm quite looking forward to new coin designs.
But if you're going to deconstruct a national institution, regardless of how right or wrong either it or you may be, then it may be prudent to put some work into backing up assertions or you'll just sound like Wolfie Smith or some singer from the 1970s who's now making a living hawking butter.
Otherwise we end up with shit like this, which the forum denizens were quick to call out at the time when it clashed with their views:
Abolish the monarchy. Sure, I'm listening. Why? Prove it. Show your working. "He's got a gold hat" isn't compelling, so does Flavor Flav.
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.
Utter nonsense. they routinely kill raptors on the royal estates and forbid the police from investigating. ~they muirburn. He flies a lot.
We have an inequality of wealth in this country, film at 11. Is abolishing the monarchy the best way to address that? I have no idea, though plenty of people seem really certain yet oddly unable to explain why.
Very much my view. The monarchy has reformed massively in my lifetime, but theres plenty of scope for more.
Some people want to abolish them outright for a variety of reasons, which is fine, but no one seems to have proper costed evidence of the economic argument for doing so, which is the basis of this thread.
Its kind of like Brexit - lots of people instinctively thought it was a good idea, but there was a lot of confusion about what the alternative would involve, and some people discovered that there were unexpected consequences to their preferred option.
I'm loathe to abolish the monarchy until I know that they won't be replaced by some even worse money grabbing power crazed idiots, and that someone has some independent costings for the project.
Why does it need to be replaced by anything?
OK, i'll have a bit of a go at it.
It's more about replacing the monarchy, aristocracy and hierarchy with a devolved, flatter (in power terms) republic.
So instead of a royal family as head of state, there is an elected president.
Redistribution of land - not sure how this would work, but some mechanism for encouraging better quality food production and less speculation.
Proper written constitution
House of Lords fully elected.
Taxation completely overhauled. A single tax for any increases in wealth (so no different income tax, NIC etc), punitive taxation on negative effectors (e.g. pollution) and tax for offshoring wealth.
Devolution of power to local councils.
That's all I can think of right now.
there is an elected president.
Why? I have never seen the need
Well, yes that is a debatable point. You could just have a large council, with majority rules.
You don't need anything to replace the monarchy. Get rid of the HOL as well. Why do we need these remnants of fuedalism
Nothing new here really. The money is always there for things 'they' want.
Why does it need to be replaced by anything?
Arguably doesn’t need to be. But that needs to be sorted out before the abolition is started.
If you voted to abolish the moarchy and then found Boris was being made president/head of state.....
I don't see it as arguable even. I see precisely zero need for a "head of state" in this way. Many countries don't have one in a similar ceremonial role.
Some people want to abolish them outright for a variety of reasons, which is fine, but no one seems to have proper costed evidence of the economic argument for doing so
No. The point of the thread was pointing out they had received a bunch more cash whilst the country is in crisis.
We cant have a proper costed evidence since despite cougars confidence a lot of the figures are hidden.
So sure lets have a proper discussion but that would need, for example, the exemption from FOI removing so we can actually see what they are up to.
It will also need their trips, including security, fully costing.
That the royals arent keen on this is rather telling though.
Oh and knock it off with the comparisons to brexit. Whilst I dont think there is a definitive survey (as demanded by cougar when it suits them) I would put money on the venn diagram between royalists and brexiteers being rather stronger than that between republicans and brexiteers.
Revolution live on Tiktok. Then a further pay per view event when it is axe time.
Maybe do the axe thing in stages to ensure the best world-wide audience. Perhaps with a phone vote as to the one royal that is spared and sent to exile in The Crown meets Truman Show (brought to you in association with Nando's).
Proceeds go into crumbling hospitals and schools.
🪓🤴
💰💰💰💰
But that's the point of a republic. The ownership is with the majority, not the minority.
Look at UK elections, only 80% turnout and only 30% of them vote for the winner, which is then replicated 650 times. Where laws can be overturned by unelected Lords. That's not democracy.
House of Lords fully elected.
Because election works so well in the House of Commons, right? Another house of party stooges chasing votes would probably be even worse than what we have now. A better solution is needed.
Get rid of the HOL as well. Why do we need these remnants of fuedalism
It's a remnant of feudalism only in name, and the fact there are hereditary peers. We need a functioning second chamber to rein in the ****s in the House of Commons.
The point of the thread was pointing out they had received a bunch more cash whilst the country is in crisis.
So have lots of people.
No- what we need is a democratic HoC and no house of lords - and of course its remnants of feudalism.
Better. I'll squeeze an actual considered debate out of you lot yet. 😁
We cant have a proper costed evidence since despite cougars confidence a lot of the figures are hidden.
Despite Cougar's question.
Oh and knock it off with the comparisons to brexit.
Why?
The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism. Everything that's wrong in your life is caused by someone else, those [better|worse|different] than you. You have no money, it's those rich folk in London. You have no money, it's those poor people coming over here simultaneously working and not working, all two dozen of them in a small boat. You have no money, it's literally anyone else's fault bar your own.
Which, at the risk of repeating myself, may actually be true but you cannot just state that it is and then stride off into the sunset without expecting any further questions.
We're in the middle of an international-scale systematic dismemberment of our country by the very people we "democratically" voted to look after us, yet seemingly some rich septuagenarian having aircon is a bigger issue. **** my old boots, seriously?
Why - because the parallels with brexit only exist in your mind. 🙂