# On the day we were told we have £369m to do up Buckingham Palace



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

*A&E, cancer and maternity units to close in major NHS overhaul*

As detailed healthcare strategy plans emerge and opposition grows, local hospitals face the loss of thousands of beds
https://www.theguardian.com/society...major-nhs-overhaul?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet










Does any one think doing up Buckingham Palace is a good way to spend tax payers money?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

YES


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

It makes me sick. It's not like the Royals don't have enough personal wealth of their own. The welfare state is on its knees, the poor and the disabled are suffering indignities beyond belief and we're prioritising tarting up a palace.
If I wasn't already of a republican bent this would have done it. Time for Liz to downsize, maybe a nice semi somewhere.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Buckingham Palace is owned bu the state so it's up to the state to look after it.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

In that case let's split it into apartments for the homeless.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Somebody leaked the plans for our local unit to the local rag a while back. We have a superb minor injuries unit which is marked for closure, the reasoning being that it will save money twice over because people who use it (suspect broken bones, minor wounds etc.) won't bother to travel the nearly 30 miles to the nearest A&E. This was in black and white on the leaked document - basically we don't deserve medical care if we don't live in or close to a large hospital.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Are the 2 things actually linked in reality? I very much doubt it, just the Sun's spin on things


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

You do realise that the Crown Estate gives c.a. £250 - £300 million to the treasury every year, from which the Queen is then paid, and then still pays tax on what she is paid?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Outrageous, vulgar and obscene.

Yet there are always those who will forever try to influence and convince you that benefit claimants are the real parasites and scroungers in society.


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

I loathe the Royal family......elitism in the most vulgar form! 

I'm the glad the Queen will have a pretty new palace to enjoy......meanwhile I can't even afford to get some light fittings replaced in my kitchen.....


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Well we should give so much money away to foreign aid, that annoys me more than anything else.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I have no problem supporting the restoration of the fabric of this historic building, after all, it does bring in rather a lot in tourist trade and it would be a shame to let it fall into a ruin. However, I don't see why we should be supporting anything which just makes it more comfy for the royals, eg. plumbing and wiring. That should come out of their own pockets.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

I think its an absolute joke that a tax payer like myself will be helping to fund to pay for the 'new' buckingham palace!! It really is disgusting!!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

labradrk said:


> I loathe the Royal family......elitism in the most vulgar form!
> 
> I'm the glad the Queen will have a pretty new palace to enjoy......meanwhile I can't even afford to get some light fittings replaced in my kitchen.....


Perhaps it's about time the they just replaced the old boiler instead.

The sour look that appears to have settled upon her withering features has obviously been cultivated by a long growing resentment of constantly having to wave at the plebeian bran.

2016 and still Royalty steals from the meagre purses of the peasantry. Shameful.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> I have no problem supporting the restoration of the fabric of this historic building, after all, it does bring in rather a lot in tourist trade and it would be a shame to let it fall into a ruin. However, I don't see why we should be supporting anything which just makes it more comfy for the royals, eg. plumbing and wiring. That should come out of their own pockets.


Ultimately, it does come out of their own pocket


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> Ultimately, it does come out of their own pocket


Yes but our taxes come out of our wages, but we still have to pay for repairs to our own property. They don't pay rent do they, just due taxes?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> Yes but our taxes come out of our wages, but we still have to pay for repairs to our own property. They don't pay rent do they, just due taxes?


Going back to my previous post, that you liked, they pay all the profits from the Crown Estate to the Treasury, who then pay them after that.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Happy Paws said:


> Buckingham Palace is owned bu the state so it's up to the state to look after i


But they do get a grant to keep the palace in order, but they never do anything to it, just expect the tax payer to foot the bill. it's a disgrace that money could be used elsewhere, i.e. the NHS for a start.

There is a petition going round to make the royals pay.which I have signed.
Make Royals Pay for Palace Renovation | Campaigns by You


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

It seems the the MSM have been doing their usual hatchet job. We are not paying for the repairs

http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/onl...the-buckingham-palace-repairs-the-queen-71930


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Honeys mum said:


> But they do get a grant to keep the palace in order, but they never do anything to it, just expect the tax payer to foot the bill. it's a disgrace that money could be used elsewhere, i.e. the NHS for a start.
> 
> There is a petition going round to make the royals pay.which I have signed.
> Make Royals Pay for Palace Renovation | Campaigns by You


They are


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

If my house needed repairs I wouldn't expect the taxpayer to fund it.

Shouldn't be any different for them.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

Britons want Queen to pay for palace repair | world-news | Hindustan Times

Buckingham Palace on benefits - and you're paying! - Scisco Media


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> Going back to my previous post, that you liked, they pay all the profits from the Crown Estate to the Treasury, who then pay them after that.


Because it's true that the crown estate pays into the treasury. However, they also have 12 billion in assets which is mainly property which we do not pay for the maintenance of. Why is the palace any different?
If it means they pay less into the treasury after that, so be it. It's the way other businesses work, why not them?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> Because it's true that the crown estate pays into the treasury. However, they also have 12 billion in assets which is mainly property which we do not pay for the maintenance of. Why is the palace any different?
> If it means they pay less into the treasury after that, so be it. It's the way other businesses work, why not them?


Please read the article I posted


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Honeys mum said:


> Britons want Queen to pay for palace repair | world-news | Hindustan Times
> 
> Buckingham Palace on benefits - and you're paying! - Scisco Media


That is such a skewing of the truth


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> Please read the article I posted


I have and I still think it's arse about face.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> I have and I still think it's arse about face.


I'm sorry it doesn't fit with Enraged Britain, but that's how it works - the treasury is simply getting a bit less from her than usual, until the renovations are done


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> *A&E, cancer and maternity units to close in major NHS overhaul*
> 
> As detailed healthcare strategy plans emerge and opposition grows, local hospitals face the loss of thousands of beds
> https://www.theguardian.com/society...major-nhs-overhaul?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet
> ...


Yesterday I got a call from a lady to say she had called for a friend to take her to church only to discover the police at the door. It seems the carer couldn't gain entrance and called the police who used their big red key to break down the door. The ladies reason for calling me was for me to go and get the cat as the friend was being taken into hospital. She said the cat was contained in the house. I arrived to find two ambulance men, a policeman and the friend. Unfortunately they had contained a stray cat and the ladies cat was out loose. The friend left to go to church. The carer had left earlier and another was due. The ambulance men decided the lady wasn't ill enough for hospital despite her being confused, (she didn't even recognise me and I have known her for years). The joiner made safe the door. The ambulance men left. I asked the policeman how long it would be before the carer arrived and he said he had just rung and got no reply so assumed she was on her way, he then left. I waited a while before ringing the lady's family, they live in the highlands. They gave me the carer's number, I rang to be told she couldn't come as she was on another call, she gave me another to ring. Chap told me a carer would arrive by 1230. (Two and a half hours later). She didn't arrive until 1305. She cared for the lady and decided that she did indeed need to be in hospital and called the ambulance. The ambulance service didn't agree and cancelled the ambulance. The carer rang the lady's family to be told she had in the past had strokes. The family called someone and eventually an ambulance arrived to take the lady to hospital. We then secured the house and left. Unfortunately I still hadn't got the cat. Went over this am but the little devil had gone out. Family are arriving from the highlands today so have left a note for them to contain the cat. Just to make sure they get the right one I have brought the stray to the cattery. So I spent 6 hours looking after a very confused half naked elderly lady in dire need of a shower. Questions will need to be answered.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> I'm sorry it doesn't fit with Enraged Britain, but that's how it works - the treasury is simply getting a bit less from her than usual, until the renovations are done


Yes I agree that that is what's happening. What I don't understand is why it doesn't come out of the crown estates *before *the books are done rather than as a kind of tax relief?


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

Why do people forget that the royals bring in far more than that get back (most of them anyway, Fergie and co. we could do without}. This country would be a lot poorer without then and not only in monetary value.

We are envied the world over for having them


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> Yes I agree that that is what's happening. What I don't understand is why it doesn't come out of the crown estates *before *the books are done rather than as a kind of tax relief?


No idea. I can only hazard a guess that it's to do with transparency, or something like that. Ultimately, it probably makes no difference. At the end of the day, she still pays 85% tax, which is a lot more than any of us pay


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Bisbow said:


> We are envied the world over for having them


Really?! Any non-Brit PFers want to chime in?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

foxiesummer said:


> Yesterday I got a call from a lady to say she had called for a friend to take her to church only to discover the police at the door. It seems the carer couldn't gain entrance and called the police who used their big red key to break down the door. The ladies reason for calling me was for me to go and get the cat as the friend was being taken into hospital. She said the cat was contained in the house. I arrived to find two ambulance men, a policeman and the friend. Unfortunately they had contained a stray cat and the ladies cat was out loose. The friend left to go to church. The carer had left earlier and another was due. The ambulance men decided the lady wasn't ill enough for hospital despite her being confused, (she didn't even recognise me and I have known her for years). The joiner made safe the door. The ambulance men left. I asked the policeman how long it would be before the carer arrived and he said he had just rung and got no reply so assumed she was on her way, he then left. I waited a while before ringing the lady's family, they live in the highlands. They gave me the carer's number, I rang to be told she couldn't come as she was on another call, she gave me another to ring. Chap told me a carer would arrive by 1230. (Two and a half hours later). She didn't arrive until 1305. She cared for the lady and decided that she did indeed need to be in hospital and called the ambulance. The ambulance service didn't agree and cancelled the ambulance. The carer rang the lady's family to be told she had in the past had strokes. The family called someone and eventually an ambulance arrived to take the lady to hospital. We then secured the house and left. Unfortunately I still hadn't got the cat. Went over this am but the little devil had gone out. Family are arriving from the highlands today so have left a note for them to contain the cat. Just to make sure they get the right one I have brought the stray to the cattery. So I spent 6 hours looking after a very confused half naked elderly lady in dire need of a shower. Questions will need to be answered.


Aw poor lady, that is so sad. Things like this shouldn't be happening in this day & age. Bless you for staying with her & for trying to take care of her cat x Really hope she gets better & her cat turns up.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> No idea. I can only hazard a guess that it's to do with transparency, or something like that. Ultimately, it probably makes no difference. At the end of the day, she still pays 85% tax, which is a lot more than any of us pay


I would have thought it would be more transparent if it went though the books. It would certainly stop the misinterpretation and press headlines


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

rona said:


> I would have thought it would be more transparent if it went though the books. It would certainly stop the misinterpretation and press headlines


I suspect the press will print what they want anyway, as they are doing now. The Sovereign Grant has been around since 1760 and is well known enough. The face that fact checking (and the truth) goes out of the window in favour of a good headline isn't really a shock


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

picaresque said:


> Really?! Any non-Brit PFers want to chime in?


I know I am in a minority on hear but I am a royalist and firmly believe we would be a 3rd world country without them. Who would bother to visit this country without a small chance of seeing royalty


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Bisbow said:


> I know I am in a minority on hear but I am a royalist and firmly believe we would be a 3rd world country without them. Who would bother to visit this country without a small chance of seeing royalty


The millions of tourists who come for other reasons?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Fresh calls for monarchy to be dissolved after taxpayer funding increased by 66% - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-funding-rise-buckingham-palace-a7425446.html

I live in hope.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Bisbow said:


> I know I am in a minority on hear but I am a royalist and firmly believe we would be a 3rd world country without them. Who would bother to visit this country without a small chance of seeing royalty


Doubt we'd be third world, but it seems that back in 2010 it was estimated that the Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British Tourism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/tourism/8587231/UK-Tourism-facts-and-figures.html


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Fresh calls for monarchy to be dissolved after taxpayer funding increased by 66% - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-funding-rise-buckingham-palace-a7425446.html
> 
> I live in hope.


And once again, the taxpayer pays nothing.

The Independent is a nasty, leftie rag that has been banging on about dissolving the Monarchy for a long, long time


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Bisbow said:


> I know I am in a minority on hear but I am a royalist and firmly believe we would be a 3rd world country without them. Who would bother to visit this country without a small chance of seeing royalty


Is our history, culture, architecture not enough? Granted not the weather  The Royals do provide a bit of pomp and pageantry that tourists like but we don't need to keep them ensconced in privilege to have that. 
We won't become a third world nation without them. Honestly. I hope when the Queen goes that'll be the end of it. Nobody wants Charles as King anyway.Let them bog off with their private wealth and become ordinary (filthy rich) citizens. The tourists can still see the palaces.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

picaresque said:


> Is our history, culture, architecture not enough? Granted not the weather  The Royals do provide a bit of pomp and pageantry that tourists like but we don't need to keep them ensconced in privilege to have that.
> We won't become a third world nation without them. Honestly. I hope when the Queen goes that'll be the end of it. Nobody wants Charles as King anyway.Let them bog off with their private wealth and become ordinary (filthy rich) citizens. The tourists can still see the palaces.


Except you want to turn Buckingham Palace into apartments. Doubt there will be much interest in seeing that


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Bisbow said:


> I know I am in a minority on hear but I am a royalist and firmly believe we would be a 3rd world country without them. Who would bother to visit this country without a small chance of seeing royalty


OK, yes they're popular with many and with tourists.

Perhaps privatisation of the monarchy would keep everyone happy, no longer funded by the public purse and sponsored by multinational companies?

They of course would have to wear clothing bearing the name of the sponsor like football players have to but perhaps would be the best solution?


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> Except you want to turn Buckingham Palace into apartments. Doubt there will be much interest in seeing that


That'll never happen though, will it. I was just being a bit idealistic.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

KittenKong said:


> OK, yes they're popular with many and with tourists.
> 
> Perhaps privatisation of the monarchy would keep everyone happy, no longer funded by the public purse and sponsored by multinational companies?
> 
> They of course would have to wear clothing bearing the name of the sponsor like football players have to but perhaps would be the best solution?


They're not funded by the public purse


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> Except you want to turn Buckingham Palace into apartments. Doubt there will be much interest in seeing that


The residents wouldn't be too happy either


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

http://www.britpolitics.co.uk/how-the-monarchy-is-funded

https://www.royal.uk/media-packs


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

France seems to still be a popular tourist destination for many, & look what happened to their monarchy......


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> France seems to still be a popular tourist destination for many, & look what happened to their monarchy......


Haha that's a very good point


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> France seems to still be a popular tourist destination for many, & look what happened to their monarchy......


Wine, cheese, beaches, weather. Unless grey and drizzly is your idea of a perfect holiday, I'd go to France


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I must say that I do hold a fair amount of respect for the Queen as a person but NOT the wider royal family and would happily see the monarchy abolished upon her death. We should spend millions doing up the palaces and then open them up to the public which would generate far more income than the royal family do; after all, it's free to stand outside Buckingham palace peering through the bars...


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> Wine, cheese, beaches, weather. Unless grey and drizzly is your idea of a perfect holiday, I'd go to France


People would still come because of the history, I don't necessarily think the royal family should be turned out into a cold, hard world (although it might teach some of them some valuable life lessons), but I do think it could do with being extensively pruned.


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

W


MiffyMoo said:


> Wine, cheese, beaches, weather. Unless grey and drizzly is your idea of a perfect holiday, I'd go to France


Was about to say the same, you beat me to it

What about the 1000 s who come to see the trooping of the colour then go elsewhere, to see the State opening of Parliament etc then go on to see other things

Would they come, I don't think so. I would not go to the USA to see the White House, Royalty brings them in, no royaltyand tourist numbers would drop like a stone


MiffyMoo said:


> Wine, cheese, beaches, weather. Unless grey and drizzly is your idea of a perfect holiday, I'd go to France


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

bearcub said:


> I must say that I do hold a fair amount of respect for the Queen as a person but NOT the wider royal family and would happily see the monarchy abolished upon her death. We should spend millions doing up the palaces and then *open them up to the public *which would generate far more income than the royal family do; after all, it's free to stand outside Buckingham palace peering through the bars...


https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/visit/the-state-rooms-buckingham-palace


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> https://www.royalcollection.org.uk/visit/the-state-rooms-buckingham-palace


Yeah; that's not good enough, I'm suggesting having all of Buckingham Palace, Windsor and Sandringham open to the public and all year round. Just like the Tower of London is.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

bearcub said:


> Yeah; that's not good enough, I'm suggesting having all of Buckingham Palace, Windsor and Sandringham open to the public and all year round. Just like the Tower of London is.


Do you really believe that opening a few more rooms is going to generate much more income?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Anyone else think this is a great idea?

Why not crowdsource £369m for *Buckingham Palace*?

Those in favour of The Monarchy can then pay for it

. £369m can then feed the poor.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> Do you really believe that opening a few more rooms is going to generate much more income?


Yes.

The Tower of London generated £1 billion in tourist revenue last year. The palaces (all of them combined) generated £55 million. If they were opened up for the public to visit (without a guide) they would generate far,far more than what they currently do.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> Anyone else think this is a great idea?
> 
> Why not crowdsource £369m for *Buckingham Palace*?
> 
> ...


What a great idea, rep for you if we still had it!


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> it seems that back in 2010 it was *estimated* that the Royal family generate close to £500 million every year for British Tourism


And the actual figure? I'm not anti royal but neither do I think an estimate of tourist income is a decent argument for keeping them. Either we want them because they are a relevant institution in modern Britain or we don't because they aren't.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

simplysardonic said:


> What a great idea, rep for you if we still had it!


Thank you SS. Though I have to confess I stole the idea from someone else lol


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Anyone else think this is a great idea?
> 
> Why not crowdsource £369m for *Buckingham Palace*?
> 
> ...


So you're suggesting that members of the public pay for it, rather than the Monarchy pay for it, which is what is currently happening? Fair enough, crack on then


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> So you're suggesting that members of the public pay for it, rather than the Monarchy pay for it, which is what is currently happening? Fair enough, crack on then


As long as we get to outsource plenty of other things to crowdsource too like the foreign aid budget, I know lets crowdfund for everything and do away with governments altogether.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

bearcub said:


> Yes.
> 
> The Tower of London generated £1 billion in tourist revenue last year. The palaces (all of them combined) generated £55 million. If they were opened up for the public to visit (without a guide) they would generate far,far more than what they currently do.


Can you show me where you got £1bn from? Looking at the 2015 annual report for the Royal Historic Palaces, which includes the Tower of London, they only made a profit of £42m


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

havoc said:


> And the actual figure? I'm not anti royal but neither do I think an estimate of tourist income is a decent argument for keeping them. Either we want them because they are a relevant institution in modern Britain or we don't because they aren't.


It is part of the argument for keeping them, as the anti-Royalists are intent on portraying them as scroungers.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> So you're suggesting that members of the public pay for it, rather than the Monarchy pay for it, which is what is currently happening? Fair enough, crack on then


The monarchy are some of the biggest benefit scroungers in this country - so yes they should pay for it out of their millions. I want my taxes to to fund our NHS, schools, poor people & public services not multi millionaires.

Heres what the Queen receives in farming subsidies alone! - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/p...pay-our-richest-landowners-millions-subsidies

Its obscene while the poorest, our public services are bearing the brunt of this 'austerity', the monarchy has never had it so good. Is there any wonder people are angry?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> The monarchy are some of the biggest benefit scroungers in this country - so yes they should pay for it out of their millions. I want my taxes to to fund our NHS, schools, poor people & public services not multi millionaires.
> 
> Heres what the Queen receives in farming subsidies alone! - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/p...pay-our-richest-landowners-millions-subsidies
> 
> Its obscene while the poorest, our public services are bearing the brunt of this 'austerity', the monarchy has never had it so good. Is there any wonder people are angry?


You know that only adds up to £858,496.00? Granted, they shouldn't get it, but then you should be happy that we will be leaving the EU and can reform that law


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> The monarchy are some of the biggest benefit scroungers in this country - so yes they should pay for it out of their millions. I want my taxes to to fund our NHS, schools, poor people & public services not multi millionaires.
> 
> Heres what the Queen receives in farming subsidies alone! - http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/p...pay-our-richest-landowners-millions-subsidies
> 
> Its obscene while the poorest, our public services are bearing the brunt of this 'austerity', the monarchy has never had it so good. Is there any wonder people are angry?


Please can you show how they are the biggest scroungers? The way I see it, they put back a hell of a lot more than they take out


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Ooh There's a Monarchy Myth buster here  -

https://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism

*It's good for tourism*
This claim is untrue and irrelevant. Even VisitBritain, our national tourist agency, can't find any evidence for it.

Chester Zoo, Stonehenge and the Roman Baths are all more successful tourist attractions than Windsor Castle, which is the only occupied royal residence to attract visitors in large numbers. If Windsor Castle was included in the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions (ALVA) list of top attractions it would come in at number 24.

Research shows that tourists come here for our world class museums, beautiful scenery, fantastic shopping and captivating history - not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew. In a republic, royal properties such as Buckingham Palace would be open all year round, so visitors that do want to explore our royal heritage would have even more opportunity to do so.

But, even if the claim were true, do we really want the whims of visiting tourists to determine what kind of political system we have?

Royal residence admission numbers can be found in the Royal Collection Trust's annual reports


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Its obscene while the poorest, our public services are bearing the brunt of this 'austerity', the monarchy has never had it so good. Is there any wonder people are angry?


I am NOT angry, only with people like you who refuse to see the good they do (By the way, is there anything you like about this country, you don't like royalty, you don't like the government, any party}

Prince Charles puts all his earnings from Cornwall into the treasury, they bring revenue into this country and do not cheat on expenses like MPs, they bring in tourists who otherwise would not visit a cold wet country (like it is at the moment)(


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Ooh There's a Monarchy Myth buster here  -
> 
> https://republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism
> 
> ...


http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/...al-family-boost-the-uk-economy-11364067030820


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Bisbow said:


> I am NOT angry, only with people like you who refuse to see *the good they do* (By the way, is there anything you like about this country, you don't like royalty, you don't like the government, any party}
> 
> Prince Charles puts all his earnings from Cornwall into the treasury, they bring revenue into this country and do not cheat on expenses like MPs, they bring in tourists who otherwise would not visit a cold wet country (like it is at the moment)(


_Who_ do they do good for though?

I've not personally met anyone who they've done any good for- the most vulnerable in our society are being increasingly squeezed, the starving in developing countries are still starving, so whose lives are they making better?


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> _Who_ do they do good for though?
> 
> I've not personally met anyone who they've done any good for- the most vulnerable in our society are being increasingly squeezed, the starving in developing countries are still starving, so whose lives are they making better?


Get rid of them and you would soon find out


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

simplysardonic said:


> _Who_ do they do good for though?
> 
> I've not personally met anyone who they've done any good for- the most vulnerable in our society are being increasingly squeezed, the starving in developing countries are still starving, so whose lives are they making better?


What have our Monarchy got to do with the starving people in developing countries?

I think you will find that the fact that the vulnerable in our country being squeezed is down to the Government, and given the Monarchy haven't had any constitutional power since the early 1800s, blaming them really is a bit of a stretch.

Currently, over 3,000 organisations list a member of the Royal Family as their patron or president. Also, don't forget the Duke of Edinburgh award and the Prince's Trust


----------



## labradrk (Dec 10, 2012)

Bisbow said:


> I know I am in a minority on hear but I am a royalist and firmly believe we would be a 3rd world country without them. Who would bother to visit this country without a small chance of seeing royalty


Third world country, LOL. If you believe this country would be third world (developing world now for the politically correct among us....) without the monarchy then I would be fascinated to know why.....

I imagine the Royal family play little or no influence on the majority of people's decisions to come to this country. My Canadian cousins visited for the first time a couple of months back and expressed no interest in anything Royal - they did some of the Kent/Sussex castles, Canterbury Cathedral, some London tourist stuff (St Pauls, Westminster Abbey etc) and "Harry Potter things" (which I know nothing about lol), then flew to Edinburgh......

We have some stunning beaches, National Parks, many architecturally beautiful cities/towns with history that you will not find anywhere else in the world....frankly it's a little insulting (and entirely false) to suggest that no one would bother to visit without the Royal family. This country has LOADS to offer.


----------



## Blackadder (Aug 25, 2014)

I'm no royalist, I have no interest in any of them! I don't know if they "do good" or do I care...to me they are an irrelevance. Kings & Queens come & go but Buckingham Palace is part of our history.
It's over 300 years old (older than the USA), it's an iconic building & something that is well worth keeping.
£300 or so million is small change to save it IMO, especially when compared to something like renewing Trident at anything between £160-200 Billion!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bisbow said:


> I am NOT angry, only with people like you who refuse to see the good they do (By the way, is there anything you like about this country, you don't like royalty, you don't like the government, any party}
> 
> Prince Charles puts all his earnings from Cornwall into the treasury, they bring revenue into this country and do not cheat on expenses like MPs, they bring in tourists who otherwise would not visit a cold wet country (like it is at the moment)(


And that's your prerogative Bisbow. Everybody has different values. I think of my own Nan & Grandad who had to graft for their poverty but would give away their last ha'penny to help someone in need & I compare them to our monarchy who keep accumulating more & more wealth as their homeless subjects fill up the streets below them. How on earth can they turn a blind eye to all this misery & suffering? The only explanation I can think is they must be sociopaths. They're not my kind of people at all.

I like lots of things but I don't like people or govts who inflict cruelty on vulnerable people and/or defenceless animals - so that does rule out this govt & most of the royals lol. I love the Green party! lol.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> ...not because they might catch a glimpse of Prince Andrew.


If anything that would put tourists off...

@Bisbow, what exactly do you fear would happen if we no longer had a monarchy?


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

labradrk said:


> Third world country, LOL. If you believe this country would be third world (developing world now for the politically correct among us....) without the monarchy then I would be fascinated to know why.....
> 
> I imagine the Royal family play little or no influence on the majority of people's decisions to come to this country. My Canadian cousins visited for the first time a couple of months back and expressed no interest in anything Royal - they did some of the Kent/Sussex castles, Canterbury Cathedral, some London tourist stuff (St Pauls, Westminster Abbey etc) and "Harry Potter things" (which I know nothing about lol), then flew to Edinburgh......
> 
> We have some stunning beaches, National Parks, many architecturally beautiful cities/towns with history that you will not find anywhere else in the world....frankly it's a little insulting (and entirely false) to suggest that no one would bother to visit without the Royal family. This country has LOADS to offer.


Yes, I did go over the top, didn't I , Sorry but I get a bit uptight when some people compare our royals to vermin

I still think we would be a lot poorer without them


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

picaresque said:


> If anything that would put tourists off...
> 
> ?


Not half:Hilarious


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

picaresque said:


> If anything that would put tourists off...
> 
> @Bisbow, what exactly do you fear would happen if we no longer had a monarchy?


We would end up with a president who would want Buck House as a London home. a country home, a private jet, The "royal yacht " would be recommissioned, and a fleet of cars
That would cost much more than thr Queen


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

At least they'd be elected.

Let's not mention Donald Trump.


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

picaresque said:


> At least they'd be elected.
> 
> Let's not mention Donald Trump.


Do you fancy Blair or a trump lookalike as president ? I don't


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

picaresque said:


> At least they'd be elected.
> 
> Let's not mention Donald Trump.


But as they don't have any bearing on politics and they don't cost us anything, what is your objection, other than "they're rich, it's not fair"?


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

We could have done without Blair full stop. I'm still convinced Trump is a bad dream.
Frankly I'm a bit worried about King Charles (or whatever he goes for) given his history of meddling in government affairs.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> But as they don't have any bearing on politics and they don't cost us anything, what is your objection, other than "they're rich, it's not fair"?


Their position of power and influence which they've done nothing to earn? As I said they have their private wealth, let them keep it and bugger off to Monaco.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

picaresque said:


> Their position of power and influence which they've done nothing to earn? As I said they have their private wealth, let them keep it and bugger off to Monaco.


What power and influence?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

simplysardonic said:


> _Who_ do they do good for though?
> 
> I've not personally met anyone who they've done any good for- the most vulnerable in our society are being increasingly squeezed, the starving in developing countries are still starving, so whose lives are they making better?


Prince Harry for instance does a lot of work with injured members of our armed forces such as Help for Heroes, Walking with the Wounded and the Invictus Games not to mention his work with Sentebale helping orphans and vulnerable youngsters in Lesotho.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> What power and influence?


What about the royal prerogative? Or the black spider letters?, which proved royals lobby government.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> What about the royal prerogative? Or the black spider letters?, which proved royals lobby government.


The exercise of the prerogative is in the hands of the Prime Minister.

Re the Black Spider letters - have you never written to your MP? I know I have.


----------



## CollieSlave (May 5, 2016)

picaresque said:


> Is our history, culture, architecture not enough? Granted not the weather  The Royals do provide a bit of pomp and pageantry that tourists like but we don't need to keep them ensconced in privilege to have that.
> We won't become a third world nation without them.* Honestly. I hope when the Queen goes that'll be the end of it.* Nobody wants Charles as King anyway.Let them bog off with their private wealth and become ordinary (filthy rich) citizens. The tourists can still see the palaces.


_A GREAT IDEA! _Then we can have an Elected President - like Donald Trump! Far superior to the queen or her successors. Just love the idea!!!!


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> The exercise of the prerogative is in the hands of the Prime Minister.
> 
> Re the Black Spider letters - have you never written to your MP? I know I have.


The royals are meant to be politically neutral.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Prince Harry for instance does a lot of work with injured members of our armed forces such as Help for Heroes, Walking with the Wounded and the Invictus Games not to mention his work with Sentebale helping orphans and vulnerable youngsters in Lesotho.


I admire anyone who dedicates themselves to such causes but it is important to remember that this is Prince Harry's salaried job; he is not volunteering.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

picaresque said:


> The royals are meant to be politically neutral.


Does that mean they are not allowed an opinion? I consider myself politically neutral (I loathe them all  j/k! ), but even I have written to, and received replies from, my MP.


----------



## MrRustyRead (Mar 14, 2011)

Last time i heard the Royal family bring £500 million a year into the country through tourism.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

picaresque said:


> The royals are meant to be politically neutral.


Indeed they are. But his letters were about:

1. Affordable housing in rural communities and to offer his congratulations on the recently published Eco Towns Prospectus
2. Sources of funding for his various charities
3. Regeneration of redundant buildings of historic and architectural importance
4. Food waste in hospitals and the possibility of a pilot in England on the integration of complementary and alternative medicine in the NHS
5. Supporting hill farmers, bovine tuberculosis, procuring British produce including British beef and challenges for the dairy sector
6. Invited the then Culture Secretary, Tessa Jowell, to speak at a conference organized by one of his charities
7. Voiced concerns about the demolition of Smithfield market
8. The future of huts built by the British polar explorers Scott and Shackleton
9. Quality food provision in schools
10. Prince of Wales' Summer Schools
11. Plight of the albatross and unregulated fishing
12. Redeveloping a site for housing, hospital and community facilities
13. Herbal medicines
14. Northern Ireland's historic buildings
15. In Kind Direct charity support

These are not the letters of someone looking to run parliament, they show his concern for the British people, the environment, historic buildings and his charities. I'm not hugely sold on his love of herbal remedies, but each to their own.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

Jesthar said:


> Does that mean they are not allowed an opinion? I consider myself politically neutral (I loathe them all  j/k! ), but even I have written to, and received replies from, my MP.


It means they keep their opinions to themselves. The Queen, fair play, is a pro at this. Charles thinks he can dictate to the Lower Orders.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

picaresque said:


> It means they keep their opinions to themselves. The Queen, fair play, is a pro at this. Charles thinks he can dictate to the Lower Orders.


Some opinions or all opinions? It would be a shame if they weren't allowed to speak on behalf of their chosen charities - after all, that is also an opinion.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

bearcub said:


> I admire anyone who dedicates themselves to such causes but it is important to remember that this is Prince Harry's salaried job; he is not volunteering.


Really? I can't find any mention of him drawing a salary from any of his charities


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

picaresque said:


> It means they keep their opinions to themselves. The Queen, fair play, is a pro at this. Charles thinks he can dictate to the Lower Orders.


Was he dictating or voicing his concerns?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

bearcub said:


> I admire anyone who dedicates themselves to such causes but it is important to remember that this is Prince Harry's salaried job; he is not volunteering.


Do you have any links showing the salary he is paid from each of the organisations I mentioned?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Bisbow said:


> Do you fancy Blair or a trump lookalike as president ? I don't





picaresque said:


> We could have done without Blair full stop.


I heard a rumour that Blair is coming back because he thinks Corbin is mad 

Couldn't make it up could you?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-nutter-theresa-may-lightweight-a7427676.html

*SCARY.................................................................*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Anyone want to work it out?

https://www.visitbritain.org/markets/usa

I've looked at Japan, Canada and USA. Two of them sight BP as a draw


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do you have any links showing the salary he is paid from each of the organisations I mentioned?





MiffyMoo said:


> Really? I can't find any mention of him drawing a salary from any of his charities





rottiepointerhouse said:


> Do you have any links showing the salary he is paid from each of the organisations I mentioned?


His job is to work with charities. His job and all of his living expenses are paid for by the state. He clearly isn't paid BY the charities he works with, that is not what I suggested.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> _Who_ do they do good for though?
> 
> I've not personally met anyone who they've done any good for- the most vulnerable in our society are being increasingly squeezed, the starving in developing countries are still starving, so whose lives are they making better?


I don't know anyone personally that has been helped by the Royal family or come to think of it, anybody famous or any politician.
Nobody can rescue the whole world , not even Saint Bob.

But here is a list of charities that prince william and harry support.

https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/prince-william

https://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity/prince-harry

Princess Diana did landmines and Aids ,
I'm sure if you google you can find out more .


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

rona said:


> I heard a rumour that Blair is coming back because he thinks Corbin is mad
> 
> Couldn't make it up could you?
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-nutter-theresa-may-lightweight-a7427676.html
> ...


  ARRRGGGHHH WTF!

He reminds me of films where you think the mad murderer is dead only he's not !!!


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> I don't know anyone personally that has been helped by the Royal family or come to think of it, anybody famous or any politician.
> Nobody can rescue the whole world , not even Saint Bob.
> 
> But here is a list of charities that prince william and harry support.
> ...


But they don't have anything else to do!! This is so infuriating! Sorry not aimed at you but they are not doing anything that anyone else in PAID EMPLOYMENT would be doing!!


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Someone on TV earlier suggested selling Bagshot Park (owned by the Crown and currently rented to Edward and Sophie as their country residence) and using the money from that to fund the repairs at Buckingham Palace.

There is no justification nowadays for the Crown to have so many valuable and expensive to keep properties.

Crown, Government, Parliament and public institution spending should be reduced all round. Too much schmoozing of the rich and privileged with "our" money IMO.


----------



## Honeys mum (Jan 11, 2013)

rona said:


> I heard a rumour that Blair is coming back because he thinks Corbin is mad


Teenager LAYS into Tony Blair amid rumours he is RETURNING to politics | UK | News | Daily Express


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Honeys mum said:


> Teenager LAYS into Tony Blair amid rumours he is RETURNING to politics | UK | News | Daily Express


Well he can't be worse than any of the ones we have now.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

bearcub said:


> His job is to work with charities. His job and all of his living expenses are paid for by the state. He clearly isn't paid BY the charities he works with, that is not what I suggested.


OK sorry I misunderstood you, I thought you were implying that he was being paid by the charities. I do think you are being a bit harsh though, Prince Harry went on two tours of duty to Afghanistan having served in the Armed Forces for 10 years and William now working as an air ambulance pilot gives his salary (after tax and NI) to charity.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

bearcub said:


> But they don't have anything else to do!! This is so infuriating! Sorry not aimed at you but they are not doing anything that anyone else in PAID EMPLOYMENT would be doing!!


Like fighting on the front line in Afghanistan, or flying rescue helicopters, or combating drug traffikers on the high seas, or flying an air ambulance (a position with a full salary which William donates to the Air Ambulance charity)?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Prince Harry went on two tours of duty to Afghanistan.


But Harry was hardly ever likely to be returned to his family in a body bag was he.
Harry was nothing more than the Queen's very own poster boy, an image exploited solely for the purposes of glamourizing war and drumming up new recruits for her army.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> Like fighting on the front line in Afghanistan, or flying rescue helicopters, or combating drug traffikers on the high seas, or flying an air ambulance (a position with a full salary which William donates to the Air Ambulance charity)?


So? Thousands of other people in the miltary have and they are not afforded a luxury lifestyle. The Royal family (with the exception of the queen) have not done anything above what an ordinary person, again, in paid employment hasn't. And Prince William may appear altruistic by donating his salary but he's not sacrificing his lifestyle or his inherited wealth. He would have my respect if he lived off his salary from being a search and rescue pilot alone.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> I don't know anyone personally that has been helped by the Royal family or come to think of it, anybody famous or any politician.
> Nobody can rescue the whole world , not even Saint Bob.
> 
> But here is a list of charities that prince william and harry support.
> ...


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...rol&service=responsive&0p19G=c&service=tablet


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

bearcub said:


> So? Thousands of other people in the miltary have and they are not afforded a luxury lifestyle. The Royal family (with the exception of the queen) have not done anything above what an ordinary person, again, in paid employment hasn't. And Prince William may appear altruistic by donating his salary but he's not sacrificing his lifestyle or his inherited wealth. He would have my respect if he lived off his salary from being a search and rescue pilot alone.


Why should he be expected to donate all his inheritance to charity? Do you have any proof that he doesn't donate more than his salary to charity?


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> But Harry was hardly ever likely to be returned to his family in a body bag was he.
> Harry was nothing more than the Queen's very own poster boy, an image exploited solely for the purposes of glamourizing war and drumming up new recruits for her army.


I can't agree with that, the first time he was there we didn't even know until he was on his way back when the press decided to leak it. Its "our army" not just the Queens, there to protect us. I don't see how he glamourized war at all.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

MiffyMoo said:


> Why should he be expected to donate all his inheritance to charity? Do you have any proof that he doesn't donate more than his salary to charity?


Plenty of ordinary people inherit money or property from their parents and I don't see them all donating it to charity either.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Zaros said:


> But Harry was hardly ever likely to be returned to his family in a body bag was he.
> Harry was nothing more than the Queen's very own poster boy, an image exploited solely for the purposes of glamourizing war and drumming up new recruits for her army.


I'm sorry Zaros but I've never heard so much S**t you don't fly a helicoptor in a war zone without risking you life.., and I don't think they gave him one just to play around in.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

bearcub said:


> But they don't have anything else to do!! This is so infuriating! Sorry not aimed at you but *they are not doing anything that anyone else in PAID EMPLOYMENT would be doing*!!





bearcub said:


> So? Thousands of other people in the miltary have and they are not afforded a luxury lifestyle. The Royal family (with the exception of the queen) have *not done anything above what an ordinary person, again, in paid employment hasn't*.


OK, now *I'm* confused - are they not doing _anything _that ordinary people in paid employment are doing, or are they doing the same as an ordinary person in paid employment?


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

bearcub said:


> So? Thousands of other people in the miltary have and they are not afforded a luxury lifestyle. The Royal family (with the exception of the queen) have not done anything above what an ordinary person, again, in paid employment hasn't. And Prince William may appear altruistic by donating his salary but he's not sacrificing his lifestyle or his inherited wealth. He would have my respect if he lived off his salary from being a search and rescue pilot alone.


Maybe both of them would have preferred to not be afforded the luxury of a Royal lifestyle they had no choice, I wouldn't want to live a life under public and media eye.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I can't agree with that, the first time he was there we didn't even know until he was on his way back when the press decided to leak it. Its "our army" not just the Queens, there to protect us. I don't see how he glamourized war at all.


I clearly understood that Her Majesty's Armed Forces were exactly that. Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Just as Her Majesty's Courts are hers and the prison service, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary etc, etc, etc.
But if you prefer to think in terms of 'Our Armed Forces' then 'We, the people, should desist from sending our armed forces into countries far from home, to fight illegal wars with people they had no argument with.

As for, For My Grandmother and her Country Harry, I suppose he will always be that little piece of extra special propaganda. That exceptional little soldier who would never be shot, never be the victim of friendly fire and never be blown to pieces by an IED.
And all the while he remained the only untouchable soldier to Terry Taliban, Harry could slaughter innocent Afghanis by the means of that technological marvel, kill TV.
It's just a shame that all 'Our lad's couldn't fight someone else's war using that very same technology. 
There'd be less grieving mothers on British soil if it was so.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> I'm sorry Zaros but I've never heard so much S**t you don't fly a helicoptor in a war zone without risking you life.., and I don't think they gave him one just to play around in.


I take it you were present HP. Or did you simply glean this ^^^ from one of the dailys?


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> OK, now *I'm* confused - are they not doing _anything _that ordinary people in paid employment are doing, or are they doing the same as an ordinary person in paid employment?


I think that's me getting my wording mixed up in a bid to get my point across :Bag I am saying that the royal family in their various occupations are not doing anything over and above what a normal person in paid employment is doing. In terms of their military service, William and Harry did not do anything over and above what any other service man or woman has done or did do. What they are given as a result is massively disproportionate to the rest of society. This is inequality and I find it very hard to understand why we justify it.

In terms of inherited wealth and status, I have quite probably unpopular views on that but that is for another thread!


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Zaros said:


> I clearly understood that Her Majesty's Armed Forces were exactly that. Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Just as Her Majesty's Courts are hers and the prison service, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary etc, etc, etc.
> But if you prefer to think in terms of 'Our Armed Forces' then 'We, the people, should desist from sending our armed forces into countries far from home, to fight illegal wars with people they had no argument with.
> 
> As for, For My Grandmother and her Country Harry, I suppose he will always be that little piece of extra special propaganda. That exceptional little soldier who would never be shot, never be the victim of friendly fire and never be blown to pieces by an IED.
> ...


So are you now slating any soldier who doesn't happen to be on the ground? Or is your ire saved solely for Harry?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Zaros said:


> I clearly understood that Her Majesty's Armed Forces were exactly that. Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Just as Her Majesty's Courts are hers and the prison service, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary etc, etc, etc.
> But if you prefer to think in terms of 'Our Armed Forces' then 'We, the people, should desist from sending our armed forces into countries far from home, to fight illegal wars with people they had no argument with.
> 
> As for, For My Grandmother and her Country Harry, I suppose he will always be that little piece of extra special propaganda. That exceptional little soldier who would never be shot, never be the victim of friendly fire and never be blown to pieces by an IED.
> ...


No one makes any boy or girl join the Armed Forces they do it out of personal choice, they all know what could happen.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Zaros said:


> I take it you were present HP. *Or did you simply glean this ^^^ from one of the dailys?*


I'm not that stupid, I never beleive anything in them.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

MiffyMoo said:


> So are you now slating any soldier who doesn't happen to be on the ground? Or is your ire saved solely for Harry?


I resent the idea that people are under the impression that the Royal blood would be spilled on the battleground, thereafter to mingle with Jack Sh1t's and John Smith's, because, in truth, it wouldn't and never will be.
There's a reason why there's so many pawns on a chessboard.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> I'm not that stupid, I never beleive anything in them.


Then you must have been present HP.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Zaros said:


> I resent the idea that people are under the impression that the Royal blood would be spilled on the battleground, thereafter to mingle with Jack Sh1t's and John Smith's, because, in truth, it wouldn't and never will be.
> There's a reason why there's so many pawns on a chessboard.


Surely Zaros if you are in a war zone Royal or not you are under a threat of your blood being spilled whether you mix with Jack S or John Smith?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

suewhite said:


> Surely Zaros if you are in a war zone Royal or not you are under a threat of your blood being spilled whether you mix with Jack S or John Smith?


War zones today are not the war zones of yesterday. It's an entirely different set of rules and if the Sh1t did happen to hit the fan, 'His Nibs' would be on the first express to safety without the slightest hesitation.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Zaros said:


> Then you must have been present HP.


No I wasn't, but are you saying you were.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Zaros said:


> War zones today are not the war zones of yesterday. It's an entirely different set of rules and if the Sh1t did happen to hit the fan, 'His Nibs' would be on the first express to safety without the slightest hesitation.


But if the sh1t hit the fan might be to late to get on the first express to safety, think on this one we will have agree to disagree.x


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Zaros said:


> War zones today are not the war zones of yesterday. It's an entirely different set of rules and if the Sh1t did happen to hit the fan, 'His Nibs' would be on the first express to safety without the slightest hesitation.


I think that may have been true of William but not Harry. Much like it wasn't with prince Andrew in the Falklands


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

I think the point in the argument about the Windsor's military service is that it is not representative of your ordinary service man or woman. Harry and William were treated differently during their military service. What would have happened if Prince Harry, once back from his duties, struggled to earn an income due to his war induced injuries? Would he have eventually been made homeless? Why not?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rona said:


> I think that may have been true of William but not Harry. Much like it wasn't with prince Andrew in the Falklands


There's something seriously wrong in the head of a Grandmother who tells her Grandson that he must fulfil his dream of serving in a war zone.
And it goes without saying that there has to be something seriously amiss with a young man whose dream is to serve in a war zone.

Perhaps someone should ask an ex serviceman who served out there what his dreams were before he lost an arm or a leg or was blinded or is now homeless after serving his Queen, his country and his purpose.
I bet you it wasn' t to risk life and limb fighting an invisible enemy.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Are the 2 things actually linked in reality? I very much doubt it, just the Sun's spin on things


Think it were the mirror


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

bearcub said:


> I think the point in the argument about the Windsor's military service is that it is not representative of your ordinary service man or woman. Harry and William were treated differently during their military service. What would have happened if Prince Harry, once back from his duties, struggled to earn an income due to his war induced injuries? Would he have eventually been made homeless? Why not?


Because his family have money, much like 1000s of other families in this country and many wounded servicemen that never lose there homes


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Zaros said:


> There's something seriously wrong in the head of a Grandmother who tells her Grandson that he must fulfil his dream of serving in a war zone.
> And it goes without saying that there has to be something seriously amiss with a young man whose dream is to serve in a war zone.
> 
> Perhaps someone should ask an ex serviceman who served out there what his dreams were before he lost an arm or a leg or was blinded or is now homeless after serving his Queen, his country and his purpose.
> I bet you it wasn' t to risk life and limb fighting an invisible enemy.


They weren't made to join up you know


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

rona said:


> They weren't made to join up you know


They didn't join up to fight someone else's war for profit either.


----------



## FeelTheBern (Jan 13, 2016)

Doing up the palace usung taxpayer money is outrageous! If the royal family want to do it up, they can pay for it themselves.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

Zaros said:


> I clearly understood that Her Majesty's Armed Forces were exactly that. Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Just as Her Majesty's Courts are hers and the prison service, and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary etc, etc, etc.
> But if you prefer to think in terms of 'Our Armed Forces' then 'We, the people, should desist from sending our armed forces into countries far from home, to fight illegal wars with people they had no argument with.
> 
> As for, For My Grandmother and her Country Harry, I suppose he will always be that little piece of extra special propaganda. That exceptional little soldier who would never be shot, never be the victim of friendly fire and never be blown to pieces by an IED.
> ...


Come on Zaros we might call them Her Majesty's this that or the other but they are "ours" and they are there to serve our society. I completely agree we should desist from sending our armed forces into countries far from home and making volatile situations even worse but I don't think we can blame the Royal Family for those decisions, they were taken by our incompetent MP's. As for Harry can you say hand on heart you 100% know he was never at risk because I don't think that is the case. Sure they no doubt took extra care but you can never guarantee his safety for the length of time he was there, perhaps a visiting PM who is in and out in 24 hrs. I don't suppose any young man in the armed forces particularly wants to serve in a war zone but they are loyal to their regiments and to their colleagues and I am proud that Harry wanted to serve with his regiment and not sit safely at home.

God Save The Queen :Singing:Singing


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

FeelTheBern said:


> Doing up the palace usung taxpayer money is outrageous! If the royal family want to do it up, *they can pay for it themselves*.


They are. The money is coming out of the profits of the Crown Estate.

The Crown Estate came about as George III had huge debts, and offered Parliament an arrangement. In exchange for a salary, the lands being maintained by the tax payer and the debts being wiped, Parliament would get the rent from the lands.

If I'm reading things correctly, these days the salary, or Sovereign Grant, is around £40m a year and the income from the Crown Estate received by the Treasury last year was around £300m, which means for every £1 paid in Sovereign Grant we get roughly £7 back. Or to put it another way, if the Crown Estate were regarded as the Royal Income, that's about an 85% income tax rate.

Now, the refurbishment work is being funded through a temporary increase in the Sovereign Grant - yes, the money given to the Monarch which is based on profits of the Crown Estate. Therefore, the Crown and its estates are, in actual fact, funding the renovations. Yes, it goes through the Treasury as an interim step, and it's probably not the way we'd design the system now, but thanks to history, that's the way it works.

Oh, and whilst the Queen is indeed personally quite rich, that wealth does not include the money of the Crown Estate, as that belongs to the Monarchy, not the individual. Nor does the Sovereign Grant cover personal expenses - she buys her daily bread out of her personal money just like the rest of us. The Sovereign Grant only covers the expenses that come as part and parcel of being Monarch, such as State Banquets for foreign dignities. Or having to refurbish a palace that, as part and parcel of the terms of the arrangement, belongs to the Monarchy, not the royal family themselves.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> it could do with being extensively pruned


True...far too many of them, many of whom contribute next to nothing (not talking about the Queen here, Lord, she's 90 and still working)...and Andrew now wanting his two daughters to have bigger/more significant roles. Prune is exactly the word I would have chosen too.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> The exercise of the prerogative is in the hands of the Prime Minister.
> 
> Re the Black Spider letters - have you never written to your MP? I know I have.


The Royal prerogative is archaic & undemocratic, it should be scrapped.

I suspect the Royals have a bit more influence than their subjects & Charles _lobbied_ Blair & other ministers.



MiffyMoo said:


> Indeed they are. But his letters were about:
> 
> 1. Affordable housing in rural communities and to offer his congratulations on the recently published Eco Towns Prospectus
> 2. Sources of funding for his various charities
> ...


Just picking up on one of these issues I know a little about - Bovine tuberculosis, makes Charles intervention sound so innocuous when in reality he was lobbying for a badger cull!

What is it with the Royals & their obsession with killing wildlife??










Dominic Dyer, chief executive of the Badger Trust, said: "I'm not 7. We have known for quite some time that the Prince was sympathetic to the argument of badger culling.

"The letter itself confirms what we already knew. We would be concerned that the Prince of Wales, with no political status, would be influencing the thought process in Government."


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> They are. The money is coming out of the profits of the Crown Estate.
> 
> The Crown Estate came about as George III had huge debts, and offered Parliament an arrangement. In exchange for a salary, the lands being maintained by the tax payer and the debts being wiped, Parliament would get the rent from the lands.
> 
> ...


This is what Republic have to say on the Crown Estate & Sovereign Grant - https://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/queens-funding-grant-needs-be-scrapped-republic

28 June 2016

Campaign group Republic has called on the government to scrap the Sovereign Grant and start again on royal funding.

The call comes after it was revealed the Queen's official funding is set to increase by 6.5% to £45.6m. This is because the grant is pegged to income from the Crown Estate, a publicly owned property portfolio, rather than based on need.

The official grant is a small part of the monarchy's estimated annual cost to taxpayers of £334m.

Graham Smith, CEO of Republic, said today:

"Royal funding is a scandal. The Sovereign Grant is a disgrace. To peg public funding to Crown Estate profits makes no sense and only serves to line the pockets of the royal family."

"The Sovereign Grant has already increased 38% in five years - now it's going up again without any need or justification."

"The monarchy's costs need to be stripped right back, remove all funding to minor royals, put the institution on a proper budgetary footing and allow parliament to approve the budget each year."

"With the country under such immense economic pressure and public spending being squeezed it is disgraceful that the Queen keeps taking more and more of the taxpayers' money."

And on the latest news -
*Queen's funding increase an "absolute disgrace*":

18 November 2016

Anti-monarchy campaigners have called for the Queen's official funding grant to be scrapped and Buckingham palace handed back to the people.

The call comes after it was revealed the Queen's official funding is set to increase to £76.1 million and £369m will be spent on Buckingham Palace refurbishments.

The official grant is a small part of the monarchy's estimated annual cost to taxpayers of £334m.

Republic's CEO Graham Smith said today:

"This is an absolute disgrace. An indictment on the Queen's scandalous mismanagement of royal finances over 6 decades."

"MPs have repeatedly called on the palace to fund repairs by opening up to tourists all year round and they've refused."

"The obvious question is, why have the royals let it get into this state? Why haven't they raised revenue through opening up all year round? If the royals can't look after the buildings and raise their own revenue to fund maintenance it's time to give them up."

"The royals cost the taxpayer over £334m a year and that keeps going up. We need independent inquiry and full disclosure into their spending."

"The monarchy's costs need to be stripped right back, put the institution on a proper budgetary footing and allow parliament to approve the budget each year."

And Scotlands Green MSP Andy Wightman - http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4288


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

bearcub said:


> I think the point in the argument about the Windsor's military service is that it is not representative of your ordinary service man or woman. Harry and William were treated differently during their military service. What would have happened if Prince Harry, once back from his duties, struggled to earn an income due to his war induced injuries? Would he have eventually been made homeless? Why not?


You're cross because he has enough money to not be made homeless if he gets injured in war? That's messed up.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

FeelTheBern said:


> Doing up the palace usung taxpayer money is outrageous! If the royal family want to do it up, they can pay for it themselves.


They are


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> This is what Republic have to say on the Crown Estate & Sovereign Grant - https://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/queens-funding-grant-needs-be-scrapped-republic
> 
> 28 June 2016
> 
> ...


Ugh, I can't even read that leftist cr*p. The grant is reviewed every 5 years, and if it seen to be overpaying, then it will be reduced.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Zaros said:


> They didn't join up to fight someone else's war for profit either.


Wonder if Wills & Harry are aware their Nan profits from the arms trade? http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php...ueen-elizabeth-ii-profits-from-the-arms-trade

*How the world's richest woman Queen Elizabeth II profits from the arms trade*

Written on 15 September 2015. Posted in News & Comment

Britain's Queen Elizabeth II is worth £17 billion. Her investments in the arms trade include firms that produce the uranium used in depleted uranium shells.


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

If you lived in a house owned by someone else would you not expect them to pay for repairs ? I would, and did wen I lived in a rented house

The queen does not own Buckingham Palace, we do, as a country


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Wonder if Wills & Harry are aware their Nan profits from the arms trade? http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php...ueen-elizabeth-ii-profits-from-the-arms-trade
> 
> *How the world's richest woman Queen Elizabeth II profits from the arms trade*
> 
> ...


Uranium's primary use is as a source of energy in nuclear reactors


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> Ugh, I can't even read that leftist cr*p. The grant is reviewed every 5 years, and if it seen to be overpaying, then it will be reduced.


I know, you prefer right wing hate mongering sources lol If more people read leftist [email protected] they'd be better informed about the unfolding horrors of climate change.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bisbow said:


> If you lived in a house owned by someone else would you not expect them to pay for repairs ? I would, and did wen I lived in a rented house
> 
> The queen does not own Buckingham Palace, we do, as a country


Then I want it either opened up to the public or better still made into apartments for the homeless.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> I know, you prefer right wing hate mongering sources lol If more people read leftist [email protected] they'd be better informed about the unfolding horrors of climate change.


I would say that the articles you're posting are pretty good at hate mongering and thin on actual facts


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

What about the time the Queen tried to claim a heating grant meant for the poor? Surely no one will seek to excuse this? lol

(I've used a right wing source lol) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-asked-for-heating-grant-from-Government.html


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> I would say that the articles you're posting are pretty good at hate mongering and thin on actual facts


Then why not disprove them with your own references? That's what I try to do if I think they're wrong anyway.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> What about the time the Queen tried to claim a heating grant meant for the poor? Surely no one will seek to excuse this? lol
> 
> (I've used a right wing source lol) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...-asked-for-heating-grant-from-Government.html


Over-zealous aide, but still pretty sh*tty to try it


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Then why not disprove them with your own references? That's what I try to do if I think they're wrong anyway.


Because I am now extremely bored of posting the same article. It is not our tax money paying etc etc.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MiffyMoo said:


> I would say that the articles you're posting are pretty good at hate mongering and thin on actual facts


As per......................


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> Then why not disprove them with your own references? That's what I try to do if I think they're wrong anyway.


It amazes me that everything bad you read about the Queen is true to you and anything good must be lies, how long to you spend trawling to find bad things to quote, I certainly do not have time


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Zaros said:


> They didn't join up to fight someone else's war for profit either.


How do you know why they joined up?

Many of our soldiers aren't even UK citizens, so that's exactly what they signed up for knowing full well that they may have to go to war. The other reason of course, was to try and gain citizenship to a country thewy see as somewhere rather special to live


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

How on earth has a thread on the doing up of Buckingham palace become about Badger's and climate change ..... again......


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> How on earth has a thread on the doing up of Buckingham palace become about Badger's and climate change ..... again......


:Hilarious


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Lexiedhb said:


> How on earth has a thread on the doing up of Buckingham palace become about Badger's and climate change ..... again......


Perhaps we should include Brexit too.

£350m of that money was promised to fund the NHS!


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

So lets run a poll and see how many people on here have opened up their homes to the homeless - most homes could fit in one or two extra people if they utilised their spare bedrooms or even a camping bed or sofa. How many people on here go out and help at soup kitchens? How many even donate money to help the homeless? Its very easy to throw stones at the royals but you know what they say about people in glass houses


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> I suspect the Royals have a bit more influence than their subjects & Charles _lobbied_ Blair & other ministers.


You mean he exercised a right that, under UK law, every citizen from the least to the greatest has? Shame on him! 

Or are you saying that our universal democratic rights shouldn't apply to him because of a) who his mother is, and b) he's well off?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

*Zaros* you asked me



Zaros said:


> Then you must have been present HP.


I answered



Happy Paws said:


> No I wasn't, *but are you saying you were.*


You didn't answer my question ??


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> How many people on here go out and help at soup kitchens? How many even donate money to help the homeless?


I do. Have given up the annual sleepout now because of age (a luxury I have but the homeless don't) but still donate to a local homeless shelter. Particular interest is in homelessness and mental health - a chicken and egg situation.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Dare I say - I'm also quite fond of our constitutional monarchy


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> So lets run a poll and see how many people on here have opened up their homes to the homeless - most homes could fit in one or two extra people if they utilised their spare bedrooms or even a camping bed or sofa. How many people on here go out and help at soup kitchens? How many even donate money to help the homeless? Its very easy to throw stones at the royals but you know what they say about people in glass houses


My own living situation is pretty poor at the moment, do I get an exemption? I do help in other ways when I can. Maybe what motivates me is that it wouldn't take much for me to be homeless myself.
Truthfully I can't ever see myself opening my home to a stranger. But then I don't live in an enormous _palace, _with several castles on the side.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

havoc said:


> Dare I say - I'm also quite fond of our constitutional monarchy


Oh go on then 



picaresque said:


> My own living situation is pretty poor at the moment, do I get an exemption? I do help in other ways when I can. Maybe what motivates me is that it wouldn't take much for me to be homeless myself.
> Truthfully I can't ever see myself opening my home to a stranger. But then I don't live in an enormous _palace, _with several castles on the side.


I wouldn't open my home to a stranger either, hell I will hardly open it to friends and family as we are far too stuck in our ways and value our privacy and routine above all else. Yes we have more than enough room and we have a second home but I wouldn't let strangers use that either - if I was happy to we would be making a fortune in holiday rental income. I don't see why the Queen should be expected to share her living space with strangers either.


----------



## picaresque (Jun 25, 2009)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I don't see why the Queen should be expected to share her living space with strangers either.


I wouldn't necessarily expect her to, although Buck House has over seven hundred rooms including fifty two royal and guest bedrooms and almost two hundred staff bedrooms (thanks, Google) so hardly a normal situation. She is extremely wealthy, she could live where she likes, she's the bloody Queen.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Bisbow said:


> It amazes me that everything bad you read about the Queen is true to you and anything good must be lies, how long to you spend trawling to find bad things to quote, I certainly do not have time


I read the good & the bad, I believe its the only way to make an informed opinion. Because I actually read 'leftist' sources I was already aware of the Rio Tinto mines, her benefits, her trying to claim a heating grant & Charles lobbying for a badger cull, so didn't need to do any trawling. I also knew before this thread that she entertains the worst despots of the cruellest regimes on this planet (right wing source) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-with-Queen-as-human-rights-storm-rages.html . And its common knowledge the royals enjoy killing animals for 'sport'. Do you think because they are royal it exempts them from scrutiny or criticism?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Jesthar said:


> You mean he exercised a right that, under UK law, every citizen from the least to the greatest has? Shame on him!
> 
> Or are you saying that our universal democratic rights shouldn't apply to him because of a) who his mother is, and b) he's well off?


Yes shame on him indeed for pressuring the government to cull badgers. I don't think people would have a problem if he was using his influence as a force for good (well I wouldn't), but using it to further his own sinister agenda is vile.

Because he is 2nd in line to the throne so EXTREMELY influential.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Lexiedhb said:


> How on earth has a thread on the doing up of Buckingham palace become about Badger's and climate change ..... again......


Someone else brought up bTB, Charles (& Princess Ann!) want to kill badgers - so relevant. And people who dismiss leftie papers outright are far less likely to be informed about climate change. Also its my thread


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

picaresque said:


> She is extremely wealthy, she could live where she likes, she's the bloody Queen.


That's exactly why she can't.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

FeelTheBern said:


> Doing up the palace usung taxpayer money is outrageous! If the royal family want to do it up, they can pay for it themselves.


Shes only just had an income rise in June this year. The royals now cost us 62p per person per year. And that's not to mention the millions she has been paid out of our taxes in farming subsidies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-with-Queen-as-human-rights-storm-rages.html

Its obscene when you think the disabled have had their benefits slashed to the point where the UN investigations concluded the government had violated disabled peoples human rights.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Is this about whether we should pay to refurb Buck House or a personal attack on the royals? I think Buck House is unfit for purpose and probably can't be made fit no matter how much we spend on it so I'm against paying. That's a completely different issue to whether 62p a year is good value to me. I'd be pushed to find such a bargain anywhere else.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

havoc said:


> Is this about whether we should pay to refurb Buck House or a personal attack on the royals? I think Buck House is unfit for purpose and probably can't be made fit no matter how much we spend on it so I'm against paying. That's a completely different issue to whether 62p a year is good value to me. I'd be pushed to find such a bargain anywhere else.


Threads rarely stay on track, this is no different from any other. I think its good people hear all sides - others can make up their own minds then 

Back on track though - heres the BEEBS report. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38025513

Buckingham Palace is to undergo a 10-year refurbishment costing the taxpayer £369m, the Treasury has announced.

The Queen will remain in residence during the work, to begin next April.

Ageing cables, lead pipes, wiring and boilers will be replaced, many for the first time in 60 years, amid fears about potential fire and water damage.

Tony Johnstone-Burt, Master of the Queen's Household, said phased works offered the "best value for money" while keeping the palace running.

Away from the splendour of the state rooms, Buckingham Palace shows its age.

It is striking while walking through the back corridors that the overall look is a little shabby.

The refurbishment is clearly long overdue and it appears the building is now at risk from electrics, plumbing and heating barely updated since the 1950s.

Questions will be asked over why the palace has been allowed to get to such a state and whether the enormous estimated costs could have been reduced if services had been regularly updated.

At a briefing on Friday, palace officials were clearly conscious that in times of austerity such expenditure needs to be justified, and they were at pains to do so.

When asked how they thought the public would react, one said they did not know but hoped "it will appeal to their sense of nationhood".

etc


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

To me it is being made to sound like the Queen lives in the whole of Buckingham Palace I thought she only had an apartment there and Windsor Castle was her main residence? if it needs upgrading then yes it should be done and as the Nation own it yes we should pay, if we didn't have the Royals we would have something far worse and far more expensive in my opinion. There are far worse waste's of our tax money in this Country than maintenance of the Palace HS2 cutting through my County for one taking with it whole villages billions of pounds will be spent. ps sorry for spelling mistakes only on first cup of coffee.xx


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Interestingly this popped up on FB..................... about as reliable as the first source I'm guessing, but does give the other side

http://www.unilad.co.uk/pics/heres-how-much-money-the-queen-has-given-the-government/


----------



## Bisbow (Feb 20, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Interestingly this popped up on FB..................... about as reliable as the first source I'm guessing, but does give the other side
> 
> http://www.unilad.co.uk/pics/heres-how-much-money-the-queen-has-given-the-government/


Very interesting thanks

But the wingers and moaners are not going to believe a word of it. they would rather believe the royals bleed us dry


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Bisbow said:


> Very interesting thanks
> 
> But the wingers and moaners are not going to believe a word of it. they would rather believe the royals bleed us dry


Clearly...... many only believe what they want to


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> Yes shame on him indeed for pressuring the government to cull badgers. I don't think people would have a problem if he was using his influence as a force for good (well I wouldn't), but using it to further his own sinister agenda is vile.
> 
> Because he is 2nd in line to the throne so EXTREMELY influential.


I think you need to differentiate between the action and the content. People aren't always going to lobby their MPs for things that align with your own personal agenda, but that doen't mean they should not have the right to speak or the right to a different opinioin, even one you personally dislike. Additionally, that is only one letter, and many others would be on topics with which you would not consider sisnster, and possibly even support.

As to farming subsidies, the bulk of those come from the EU CAP, so at least the Crown claiming them back recoups some of the money we send the EU, eh?  Until such a time as we leave, of course, and then we there will hardly be any subsidies left. Plus that money goes to the Crown Estate as far as I can tell, not the Queen personally, so that means it also in included in the income money sent to the Treasury.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Yes shame on him indeed for pressuring the government to cull badgers. * I don't think people would have a problem if he was using his influence as a force for good (well I wouldn't), but using it to further his own sinister agenda is vile*.
> 
> Because he is 2nd in line to the throne so EXTREMELY influential.


You seem to have willfully ignored every other letter that he wrote. I can only assume that you think that everything else he wrote about was evil


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

noushka05 said:


> Shes only just had an income rise in June this year. *The royals now cost us 62p per person per year*. And that's not to mention the millions she has been paid out of our taxes in farming subsidies. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...s-with-Queen-as-human-rights-storm-rages.html
> 
> Its obscene when you think the disabled have had their benefits slashed to the point where the UN investigations concluded the government had violated disabled peoples human rights.


No they don't


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

suewhite said:


> TThere are far worse waste's of our tax money in this Country than maintenance of the Palace HS2 cutting through my County for one taking with it whole villages billions of pounds will be spent. ps sorry for spelling mistakes only on first cup of coffee.xx


and the expandtion of Heathrow, when there are lots off under used airports around the country which would cost a lot less to modernize.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

62p per year, seriously is that all they cost? Most people waste 100 times that per year on crap takeaways, **** and booze and endless mobile phone calls.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> and the expandtion of Heathrow, when there are lots off under used airports around the country which would cost a lot less to modernize.


That was probably a business decision. The majority of business men / women who fly into the UK are going straight into London


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> 62p per year, seriously is that all they cost? *Most people waste 100 times that per year on crap takeaways, **** and booze and endless mobile phone calls.*


and most of those say they have no money to feed themselfs.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> That was probably a business decision. The majority of business men / women who fly into the UK are going straight into London


Not everything revolves round Bl**dy London, they do business in other part of the country as well.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> Not everything revolves round Bl**dy London, they do business in other part of the country as well.


They do, but the fact of the matter is that the majority is done in London. When I have clients fly over, they only ever go to London and occasionally Edinburgh


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I'm so, sorry I forgot the world ends at Watford.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> 62p per year, seriously is that all they cost? Most people waste 100 times that per year on crap takeaways, **** and booze and endless mobile phone calls.





Happy Paws said:


> and most of those say they have no money to feed themselfs.


Who are these people you are both referring to?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

bearcub said:


> Who are these people you are both referring to?


Those who are in the pubs all day, smoking like chimbies, have smart phones, large flat screen TVs and say they have no money to feed the family, there are a lot of them round.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> Those who are in the pubs all day, smoking like chimbies, have smart phones, large flat screen TVs and say they have no money to feed the family, there are a lot of them round.


Gosh! I never meet them only on telly programmes like benefit street and the like, which I take with a large pinch of salt.


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> I'm so, sorry I forgot the world ends at Watford.


I'm pointing out a fact, sorry if you don't like it


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

bearcub said:


> Who are these people you are both referring to?


I did a thread on here a couple of years ago I think asking how many takeaways people eat as I'd seen some figures at the time saying it was about 12 per month at an average cost of over £100 per month, many PF members responded saying they ate takeaway at least once a week and many ate more frequently than that. There was a programme on TV last week called beat the restaurant or something, I only caught it by accident - there was a family - parents and 3 children who ate takeaway twice a week every week. They spent £75 on each takeaway (Chinese buffet) so £150 per week or £600 per month, the Royal Family equates to about one prawn cracker I would think . Some people spend over £5 per day on fancy coffee and a bun or sandwich.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

MiffyMoo said:


> I'm pointing out a fact, sorry if you don't like it


I can't believe people still think London is the only important place in the country, it's about time they woke up to the fact that the UK is so much more than London, and big busness is done all over the country.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

suewhite said:


> Gosh! I never meet them only on telly programmes like benefit street and the like, which I take with a large pinch of salt.


You have walked round parts of Birmingham then, I would imagine Manchester and London have these sort of areas as well.


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> I can't believe people still think London is the only important place in the country, it's about time they woke up to the fact that the UK is so much more than London, and big busness is done all over the country.


Its the capital city, logic dictates there would be more focus around it. 

Infrastructure such as airports, are added/expanded when the demand is required. There is no point adding a large airport in the middle of nowhere. Massive waste of money. Other smaller infrastructure projects will be done to enhance the other areas of the country in a bid to encourage development and investment along side local laws encouraging this.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

So Birmingham, Manchester Liverpool the list goes on, are in the middle of nowhere...... Thanks


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> So Birmingham, Manchester Liverpool the list goes on, are in the middle of nowhere...... Thanks


That's not what Stuaz is saying. We're both trying to point out that the majority of business is conducted in London, so yes, the biggest airport must be based there.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> I did a thread on here a couple of years ago I think asking how many takeaways people eat as I'd seen some figures at the time saying it was about 12 per month at an average cost of over £100 per month, many PF members responded saying they ate takeaway at least once a week and many ate more frequently than that. There was a programme on TV last week called beat the restaurant or something, I only caught it by accident - there was a family - parents and 3 children who ate takeaway twice a week every week. They spent £75 on each takeaway (Chinese buffet) so £150 per week or £600 per month, the Royal Family equates to about one prawn cracker I would think . Some people spend over £5 per day on fancy coffee and a bun or sandwich.


That's fair enough and personally I don't understand why people spend so much on takeaways. However, it is their choice and their money and only a 'waste' to them. Some could argue that the royal family is a 'waste' to all of us...


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

London is also the hub for a lot of connecting flights to other countries.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> So Birmingham, Manchester Liverpool the list goes on, are in the middle of nowhere...... Thanks


I would love to leave the south and go back up to Yorkshire; there are massive advantages to living 'in the middle of nowhere'


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

bearcub said:


> That's fair enough and personally I don't understand why people spend so much on takeaways. However, it is their choice and their money and only a 'waste' to them. Some could argue that the royal family is a 'waste' to all of us...


Of course its up to them what they choose to waste their money on except the rest of us don't get to choose not to fund the NHS treatment they are likely to need a few years down the line. As a society someone has to decide what gets paid for from the public purse and the rest of us get no real say in how our individual taxes are spent, there are lots of things I would prefer my money wasn't spent on but 62 p a year for the Royal Family really isn't worth getting ones knickers in a twist over


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> So Birmingham, Manchester Liverpool the list goes on, are in the middle of nowhere...... Thanks


No that is not what I am saying at all and you know that, you are just being silly about it. And I believe they all have airports which will have there own supply/demand attached to them. Heathrow is a major international hub for both passenders and also for cargo. A lot traffic goes via Heathrow as stopovers to other destinations around the world.


----------



## AlexPed2393 (Oct 5, 2016)

Zaros said:


> There's something seriously wrong in the head of a Grandmother who tells her Grandson that he must fulfil his dream of serving in a war zone.
> And it goes without saying that there has to be something seriously amiss with a young man whose dream is to serve in a war zone.
> 
> Perhaps someone should ask an ex serviceman who served out there what his dreams were before he lost an arm or a leg or was blinded or is now homeless after serving his Queen, his country and his purpose.
> I bet you it wasn' t to risk life and limb fighting an invisible enemy.


Just poking in sorry this may be off topic

A lot of people join the armed forces as they have no choice and need to get away from home and the storm that is their family life. That is what my current partner did, she did not dream of 'serving her country' she needed to go, be more independent, get a job, earn money etc. No one at any camp in Afghan wants to be there apart from the select few. And when they get told they are going on tour no one was hollering, laughing or celebrating, they all know what could happen and that now they could be the next person to step on a bomb, get shot at by children or stabbed in the back by a corrupt policeman. Everyone out there is at risk, even he was stuck in Camp Bastian which is near enough impossible to break into he was still at risk.

So to end it, i don't like how you throw around these phrases but they are your opinions and you are entitled to them. I also do not know your past regarding war zones etc


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

stuaz said:


> No that is not what I am saying at all and you know that, you are just being silly about it. And I believe they all have airports which will have there own supply/demand attached to them. Heathrow is a major international hub for both passenders and also for cargo. A lot traffic goes via Heathrow as stopovers to other destinations around the world.


Yes Heathrow is important but only because it gets so much money throw at it. no one else gets a look in.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> Yes Heathrow is important but only because it gets so much money throw at it. no one else gets a look in.


Do you want a new airport in your city?


----------



## MiffyMoo (Sep 15, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> Yes Heathrow is important but only because it gets so much money throw at it. no one else gets a look in.


Or it gets more money thrown at it because of everything that has been explained above


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> Yes Heathrow is important but only because it gets so much money throw at it. no one else gets a look in.


Its because its a international airport. It is also centered around the capital with train links into mainland Europe for both passengers and cargo.

Its has nothing to do with "London bias". Its about what makes sense commercially and logically.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

suewhite said:


> Gosh! I never meet them only on telly programmes like benefit street and the like, which I take with a large pinch of salt.


Unfortunately I have


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

rona said:


> Unfortunately I have


Might be because I don't get out much " Billy no mates" and all that.:Smug


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

bearcub said:


> Do you want a new airport in your city?


m
No thank you, have a good airport here, but if they got the money to improve it I'm sure it would be welcome, not that we have a chance with this government, the only thing they think about is london and It wouldn't cost as much as it will for Hearthrow.



stuaz said:


> Its because its a international airport. It is also centered around the capital with train links into mainland Europe for both passengers and cargo.
> 
> Its has nothing to do with* "London bias".* Its about what makes sense commercially and logically.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> No thank you, have a good airport here, but if they got the money to improve it I'm sure it would be welcome, not that we have a chance with this government, the only thing they think about is london and It wouldn't cost as much as it will for Hearthrow.


 You do know that they aren't just tarting up Heathrow?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

rona said:


> You do know that they aren't just tarting up Heathrow?


what else are they doing???????????????


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Increasing the amount of flights by building a whole new runway. They are knocking down quite a few houses to do so. I really don't think the other parts of the country would really want more planes, more noise, more pollution, more houses, more people and more traffic. 
I think you are lucky not to be in the limelight


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

rona said:


> Increasing the amount of flights by building a whole new runway. They are knocking down quite a few houses to do so. I really don't think the other parts of the country would really want more planes, more noise, more pollution, more houses, more people and more traffic.
> I think you are lucky not to be in the limelight


Even new houses are going the people have only been there a year or so and a complex of newly built sheltered housing, the extra noise will be horrendous.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

I was so relieved they decided to go with Heathrow, I have enough issue with the ruddy planes from Gatwick, wouldn't want any more


----------



## stuaz (Sep 22, 2012)

Happy Paws said:


> m
> No thank you, have a good airport here, but if they got the money to improve it I'm sure it would be welcome, not that we have a chance with this government, the only thing they think about is london and It wouldn't cost as much as it will for Hearthrow.


*sigh*


----------

