| The Royal family are so irrelevant 19:16 - Apr 10 with 8528 views | Bluefish |
Moving matches for that is so ridiculous
The contest to grieve the loudest continues
RIP old man but there is no tragedy |  |
| |  |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:30 - Apr 12 with 656 views | Ryorry |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:07 - Apr 12 by HARRY10 |
really ?
so what happened with the GB World Cup bid ?
and the idea that successful multi nationals make decisions based on archaic fancy dress parades and feudal customs is absurd
but it does highlight the level of self-delusion monarchists are obliged to resort to in defence of this buffoonery |
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-10-11/debates/A35B4CBD-3DFE-4BB7-B9C4
"In her later years–between 1991 and 1995–she is estimated to have brought £3 billion of commercial trade deals to our country. In 1993, on one trip to India alone, £1.3 billion of trade deals were signed. It is acknowledged that those deals would have been signed in any event, but the presence of Britannia sped up the negotiations from years to days. To put that into the context of the renewal and running of a royal yacht, the deal signed on that one trip would have paid for a royal yacht in its entirety and its annual running costs for 100 years."
https://brandfinance.com/wp-content/uploads/1/brand_finance_monarchy_press_relea |  |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:42 - Apr 12 with 646 views | brazil1982 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:07 - Apr 12 by Bluefish |
Does the head of state usually get funded and take an enormous private income off state land? Do they do both of these and expect extra payments for repairs for their private residences?
The Royal family is disgusting. Abolish them and level the country up |
Does the HoS usually get funded? - I would think all Heads of States are funded by governments, yes.
Take enormous private income? - The Monarch owns the Duchy of Lancaster, it isn't "state" land.
I don't know what you mean by "State" Land. The Duchy of Lancaster portfolio is owned by the Monarch, it's not state land -it is a very old inheritance to the Monarchy who cannot benefit from any sale of the portfolio.
The Crown Estate is vast and includes the coast line and sea beds. The surplus of profits from the Crown Estate is given to the Treasury who agree a funding to cover the costs of the Monarch.
The Queen funds her private residences (most likely through the Duchy income).
I respect people don't approve of the Monarchy (I personally do, but so what?) - but they have to be funded. If, suddenly, the Royal Family were wiped out and the UK was no longer a Constitutional Monarchy, we would have to fund a HoS and maintain the Royal buildings. How would we pay for that? Most likely similar to how we do now. |  | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:44 - Apr 12 with 645 views | HARRY10 |
"It is acknowledged that those deals would have been signed in any event" | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:50 - Apr 12 with 621 views | chicoazul |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:07 - Apr 12 by Bluefish |
Does the head of state usually get funded and take an enormous private income off state land? Do they do both of these and expect extra payments for repairs for their private residences?
The Royal family is disgusting. Abolish them and level the country up |
All attempts at levelling up in this country fail every single time for the last hundred and fifty years with a brief exception post-war, and if you think we have politicians now possessing the qualities of politicians then, then I have some bad news blubbers. |  |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:50 - Apr 12 with 615 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:07 - Apr 12 by Bluefish |
Does the head of state usually get funded and take an enormous private income off state land? Do they do both of these and expect extra payments for repairs for their private residences?
The Royal family is disgusting. Abolish them and level the country up |
Not sure you need "up" at the end. |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:53 - Apr 12 with 610 views | Bluefish |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:50 - Apr 12 by chicoazul |
All attempts at levelling up in this country fail every single time for the last hundred and fifty years with a brief exception post-war, and if you think we have politicians now possessing the qualities of politicians then, then I have some bad news blubbers. |
Dump the queen at Sandringham and the others where they are. Turn buck House, Windsor, Balmoral etc. Into full blown tourist attractions and really see the economy grow. The Queen is disgusting to sit on her wealth and continue to sponge | |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:54 - Apr 12 with 606 views | Ryorry |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:44 - Apr 12 by HARRY10 |
"It is acknowledged that those deals would have been signed in any event" |
"... but the presence of Britannia sped up the negotiations from years to days."
to finish that sentence.
Wonder how much in expenses the govt. would have racked up in those years, not to mention the net profit from the extra years gained by the deals being done extraordinarily quickly. | |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:56 - Apr 12 with 600 views | HARRY10 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:42 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
Does the HoS usually get funded? - I would think all Heads of States are funded by governments, yes.
Take enormous private income? - The Monarch owns the Duchy of Lancaster, it isn't "state" land.
I don't know what you mean by "State" Land. The Duchy of Lancaster portfolio is owned by the Monarch, it's not state land -it is a very old inheritance to the Monarchy who cannot benefit from any sale of the portfolio.
The Crown Estate is vast and includes the coast line and sea beds. The surplus of profits from the Crown Estate is given to the Treasury who agree a funding to cover the costs of the Monarch.
The Queen funds her private residences (most likely through the Duchy income).
I respect people don't approve of the Monarchy (I personally do, but so what?) - but they have to be funded. If, suddenly, the Royal Family were wiped out and the UK was no longer a Constitutional Monarchy, we would have to fund a HoS and maintain the Royal buildings. How would we pay for that? Most likely similar to how we do now. |
err, no
they could be sold off, just as has been happening with hospital grounds, school playing fields and much else that was once deemed a public asset
most other countries survive and thrive without maintaining a belief in privilege over merit
and for all the monarchists bleating I doubt one single one of them would wish surgery performed on them by a surgeon whose sole qualification for the job was that his father was a surgeon | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 18:05 - Apr 12 with 580 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 14:59 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
I do think they influence some of the tourist income, yes. Influence in business is also considerable. |
I bet the influence on tourism income is minimal. People come to see the buildings as much as anything. When I lived in Windsor the stream of tourists was just as long when the Queen wasn't in residence. They rarely get to actually see the Royals after all.
I'd just like her to be more useful and more of a check and balance on the basest efforts of politicians. For example, there was all that business with Johnson giving a peerage to Peter Cruddas, where BJ ignored official advice to not do so because of Cruddas' role in the cash for access scandal. (Not to mention the other cronie and nepotistic appointments). Yet the Queen just waved it through when there was a need for a final morality check. There's no point having a Head of State if it's an impotent role constitutionally; we just don't need it. |  |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 18:07 - Apr 12 with 576 views | chicoazul |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:56 - Apr 12 by HARRY10 |
err, no
they could be sold off, just as has been happening with hospital grounds, school playing fields and much else that was once deemed a public asset
most other countries survive and thrive without maintaining a belief in privilege over merit
and for all the monarchists bleating I doubt one single one of them would wish surgery performed on them by a surgeon whose sole qualification for the job was that his father was a surgeon |
Presenting plaques and asking “have you come far?” is exactly the same as performing brain surgery, yes. | |
| |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 18:16 - Apr 12 with 566 views | HARRY10 |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 18:07 - Apr 12 by chicoazul |
Presenting plaques and asking “have you come far?” is exactly the same as performing brain surgery, yes. |
“have you come far?”
yes, from the cardiac ward, just down the corridor
mind you it would be a bit of a surprise when the curtains were pulled back as you lay in the hospital bed, and it was jug ears thinking he was unveiling something | | | |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 22:39 - Apr 12 with 504 views | Radlett_blue |
| The Royal family are so irrelevant on 17:42 - Apr 12 by brazil1982 |
Does the HoS usually get funded? - I would think all Heads of States are funded by governments, yes.
Take enormous private income? - The Monarch owns the Duchy of Lancaster, it isn't "state" land.
I don't know what you mean by "State" Land. The Duchy of Lancaster portfolio is owned by the Monarch, it's not state land -it is a very old inheritance to the Monarchy who cannot benefit from any sale of the portfolio.
The Crown Estate is vast and includes the coast line and sea beds. The surplus of profits from the Crown Estate is given to the Treasury who agree a funding to cover the costs of the Monarch.
The Queen funds her private residences (most likely through the Duchy income).
I respect people don't approve of the Monarchy (I personally do, but so what?) - but they have to be funded. If, suddenly, the Royal Family were wiped out and the UK was no longer a Constitutional Monarchy, we would have to fund a HoS and maintain the Royal buildings. How would we pay for that? Most likely similar to how we do now. |
The Duchy of Lancaster isn't as "private" as you think. Established by Henry IV in 1399 to supply a private nest-egg in case the king were deposed, the Duchy today comprises 45,700 acres of rural land, mainly in the north of England, plus some prime office space on London’s Strand (including the land for the hotel Savoy London) whose rental revenue provides a private income for the Queen. Annual profits are £30 million. The Queen uses the bulk of the money to pay her personal overheads–including the costly Balmoral estate and her horse racing ventures, but some of the cash (maybe as much as several million) is earmarked to bankroll half a dozen of her close family (Princess Anne, Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent, etc.) who are “working royals” but do not receive public funds.
The big question frequently posed about the Duchy is whether it is actually private or not. This matters because if it is fully private, then like any other personal property, it should escape scrutiny from Parliament. But if it is fully public, then as state property it should escape any taxes legislated by Parliament. Of course, the monarchy benefits from the best of both worlds. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
