Jump to content


Recommended Posts

The yanks don't (hope my apostrophe is in the right place, don't want to upset Tony and Sidla) have any heritage, Columbus and his mates only found the place a couple of hundred years ago.

 

That's why they like our heritage, the nearest thing they have to a castle or a stately home, is some colonial slave owners house in the deep south.

 

When they come over and see medieval fortresses and buildings that have been around for 1000 years they go goo goo.

 

They also think they all have ancestors over here and are some how related to the queen, some of which is probably right .

 

Apologies to any yanks reading, but keep coming and keep spending your cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article ont internet

 

Our “splendid” Royal Family is surrounded by expensive pomp that is entirely unnnecessary and anachronistic. Moreover, I believe that such extravagant and ostentatious behaviour is inappropriate when so many in Britain have to tighten their belts to get by. I’ve no problem with being wealthy per se (especially if you’ve worked hard to earn it), but the Head of State should try and set an example to the people.

 

The Queen currently receives income from the following five official sources:

 

the Civil List. This is for official expenses relating to her role as Head of State (and Commonwealth too), currently fixed at £7.9 million per year (although the royals have made some savings, and this surplus will be carried forward to reduce future payments).

The Privy Purse—traditional income for private as well as public use.

The Grants-in-Aid from Parliament for maintenance work on the palaces and travel expenses.

Personal investments and income derived from privately owned estates (Balmoral, Sandringham, West Ilsley Stables, and Sunnninghill Park).

Avoiding inheritance tax on the Queen Mother’s estate (OK, maybe this one isn’t official).

Even if estimates of her private wealth have been exaggerated in the past (through the erroneous inclusion of state owned items), it is clear that the Queen is a very wealthy woman and would continue to be if Britain became a republic. Indeed, it’s rumoured that Liz has hundreds of millions tucked away in trusts and secret share holdings (secret due to a Palace exemption from certain elements of the Companies Act). Some of the art treasures in the Royal Collection belong to her as well, so if she’s ever skint she can pawn those! Oh, and on that subject, do you remember that certain parts of Buckingham Palace have been made open to the public for a tidy little fee? And that income generated from this exercise was solely intented to be made available for restoration work carried out on Windsor Castle following the fire there? Well, once that had all been paid for, the Palace took it upon themselves to divert the extra money in to the Royal Collection Trust - thereby usurping the authority of the Public Accounts Committee and depriving the State of some cash.

 

Savings and Earnings in a Republic

Examples of potential cost cuts and improved income generation under a republic:

 

Much of the Queen’s income is spent on official duties, staff, and maintenance of state-owned properties. Obviously this sort of expenditure would continue under a republic because a President would have official duties as well, would need staff, and listed buildings should be cared for. However, the pomp of official ceremonies would be vastly toned down, less staff would be required (the President would dress him/herself!), and the extensive court that surrounds the monarchy would obviously be redundant.

 

 

An accountable President, whose expenditure would be completely open to public and Parliamentary scrutiny, would be inclined to be more efficiency minded.

 

 

The Civil List contains payments to the Queen and funding for her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, as well. He receives £359,000 per annum (probably spent on guns). This extra payment could be immediately wiped out. Only one person - the Head of State - needs to be supported in their activities by the country's taxes.

 

 

With the former Monarchy forced to live in their private residences, more (and more of the) state owned palaces and properties would be made available for public viewing. It's entirely likely that more people would visit these sites and therefore more income would be generated for the Treasury. Such income could then be spent on the things that really matter to all of us - the NHS, education, etc. I do not accept the argument that less people would visit Britain if we no longer had a monarchy; most current tourists only get to see the public buildings and ceremonies as it is. Other than the jubilee, the site of a royal in public is a rare thing indeed.

 

 

Decreased security costs - if the President fulfils only a ceremonial role (less people to protect).

 

 

Decreased travel expenses - if we have a ceremonial President, there will be fewer in the entourage, less security, better use of existing methods of transportation.

 

 

The phrase “time is money” applies here, too. The time saved by disposing of unnecessary events like the State Opening of Parliament could be better spent by the affected institutions e.g. more time could be spent debating the issues on the Government’s agenda by Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the URL for the above article? (Apart from you breaching copyright, I'd like to see where it came from :wink: )

 

(Please stop using bold for your posts too ... :roll: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by "MISS SIXTY"

 

(Please stop using bold for your posts too ... :roll: )

no

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other savings would include not having to paint or clean things immediately before a royal visit.

 

"Ooh, Philip, why do common people smell of either disinfectant or turps?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by "Mike"

 

people use the arguement because it's a valid one. Ever been to America? One of the most commonly asked questions by Americans to British people is Do you know Charles etc? might be a stpuid question but it shows how important they value our monarchy. Ever spent much time outside Buckingham Palace? Watched the thousands of Japenese tourist photgraphing the place each day?

 

But is it a valid argument? I'd like to see the figures that show how many tourists come to Britain specifically because of the royal family because I can't see that it would be that many - would you visit a country just to stand outside a palace and take a few photos.

 

People keep saying the bring this country lots of money, but where's the facts?

 

No, I wouldn't personally but I know there are people who would. Japanese etc are famous for their love of photography. Its not just tourism though, they do ambassador work. I do agree there are too many hanger on which need scaling down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than getting rid of the monarchy, some major reforms might satisfy some of the doubters. Hholland is a monarchy and they seem to live quite easily with the idea of having a king or queen. Our royals appear to hang onto the idea that they are in some way a cut above the rest, merely by accident of birth. To me this is only one step removed from believing in the divine right of kings a clearly nonsensical state of affairs for the 21st Ccentury. It makes me angry when people like the Earl of Wessex, having made a pig's ear of his production company can choose to concentrate on cermonial duties. Only the Queen and maybe the Prince of Wales should get any support. As for the rest of them , they should take their chances in the real world like the rest of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Jess one hundred percent, nice one. Hal Evans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard the City Council or us the Tax payers are paying £7000 for a red carpet when the Queen comes to Sheffield anyone else heard about this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by "Jon"

 

I heard the City Council or us the Tax payers are paying £7000 for a red carpet when the Queen comes to Sheffield anyone else heard about this?

 

Not heard this amount but it is believable. Where is your source Jon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.