AIBU to think the queen should get off her arse and sell Balmoral?

[BlueBirdsNest]

Just a thought

But if we are struggling as a Country, financially, as a Country

Why don't the Royal family contribute and sell their holiday homes and put they money back in the economy?

Well, she can't sell it to Bill Gates and spend the proceeds on WKD. It is property which was inherited from ancestors, we've already done the equivalent of nicking it off the family by making sure it can't be sold by them!

Balmoral isn't in trust for the nation. I thought I'd said that. It's the Queen's personal, private property and is not/not part of the Crown Estate (which is held for the nation).

Even 65p tax per person is 65p too much. When it is going to one of the richest families in the world.

rofl laughing fruitysummer

Surely they should pay for their on upkeep instead of taking/accepting taxpayers money?

They don't really need our money, they are pretty wealthy as it is

MarySA Surely the tens of thousand I have to pay every year to provide housing and education and healthcare for the feckless is too much. But I still pay it.

If you look at the Royal accounts (all published online), you'll see that the taxpayer contribution is less than the cost of official duties, and the Queen has been making up the shortfall from the Reserve.

Perhaps we should just return to the earlier system, and the Crown keeps everything from the revenues of the Crown Estate and relinquishes the civil list?

The Queen is exempt from death duties now inheritance tax on her private properties. That's wrong for a start.

All those people grumbling at the cost of the Queen and family should remember that if we end up with a president they too will cost us, in the same manner as now, aircraft, homes, security, official expenses especially when hosting other heads of states, etc, etc.

In addition, the royal family encourages tourism and therefore helps to bring money into the UK economy. A future president will simply not have that appeal.

What do you think David Cameron does - swim over the atlantic to meet Obama, stay in an unguarded motel and then come home to his own house that he paid for himself?

Tourists could still come, they could see the place where, when we were unenlightened and still thought and acted as serfs, we housed a wealthy old woman in splendour. And when they'd looked round that, they could do something else. Like they do now.

But the point is. An unelected Head of State is undemocratic. And the UK is meant to be a democracy.

I don't care what she does with Balmoral as long as Prince Andrew doesn't get his hands on it.

It would certainly be an interesting job to try to separate everything the Royals own in their own right (including any property, paintings, furniture etc) which have legitimately been passed down to them via inheritance from all the other property that was grabbed by the government and became the property of the nation.

It would make the division of assets after a celebrity divorce (like Maccers) look like a piece of piss! The lawyers would have a field day.

Where do you think her ancestors got the money? Ripping off peasants mostly.

I wouldn't have a president either. It would be better to reform the current elected parliament so it worked properly.

Queen Victoria and Prince Albert bought Balmoral and Osbourne from their income. Edward VII bought Sandringham from the amount saved from his allowance when he was young (and not spending it on wine, women and racehorses). Both incomes were agreed by the Parliaments of the time.

If you dispute her ancestor's right to have owned property then the whole system collapses. What about all the other massive landowners (Dukes etc)? What about all the people who were sold or gifted land by them, and who split it up and sold it on until eventually you get to the land your house is built on? If all ownership is illegitimate it effects everything from the top down - might as well give it all to the government and start again!

I bet QE is really rueing the day she agreed to a 'big jubilee', stirring up all sorts of hornets nests it is

MarySA The UK is a democracy and is governed by parliament. The fact we are a constitutional monarchy does not detract from out democracy. In fact it wonderfully separates us from the republicans.

I would much rather the royal family had Balmoral and let me walk on Lochnagar unhindered, than it be sold to some foreign billionaire. Foreign billionaires, for it is they that purchase Scottish estates, do not have very good records re the erection of fences and golf courses.

Unfortunately, I suspect that the individuals known as the House of Windsor are exempt from the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

In my opinion an unelected Head of State does detract from true democracy. How on earth can an unelected Head of State be in any way democratic.

Just a question ..but if the Coronation was on the 2nd of June 1953 , would the real date of the diamond Jubilee not be 2nd of June 2013?

or I am just getting the maths wrong?

The coronation is a ceremony but really HM became Queen the moment her father's last breathe left his body.

Well thankfully MarySA I don't live in your world where instead of x-factor we'd have Head of State's got talent.

Bluegrass The Duke of Westminster is definitely not a member of the Royal family...you do not have to be royalty to inherit or be bestowed a Dukedom.

Like or loathe the Queen - and I am not a staunch supporter by any means - she did not far off 400 official engagements last year, and has reduced that a bit this year at 86, so Balmoral aside, she certainly doesn't sit on her arse.

I've got an idea, how about Tony Blair goes without the bodyguards & protection that we all pay for!