To To be appalled at all the royal palaces.

[purplehazed]

I've just watched Ant and Dec with Prince Charles. The sheer opulence of those numerous palaces. Just how many do they need? So so wrong imo.
Surely in these times of massive hardship for so many it is time they were scaled right back.

what's the difference? the germanesque heir of a frenchman cum viking or a Saud prince?
Neither are worthy.

I dont understand how removing the palaces from the royals would help those experiencing hardship. People are saying open them up to tourists, let people hire them, turn into hotels, etc. how does any of that help those who are struggling? What am I missing?

Without outing myself I've been to, via invite my husband received for service, one of the palaces for a "thing". All very posh, we all stood around very nervous. The orchestra played God Save Our Queen. Our Queen arrived. The orchestra then played Consider Yourself. We all sighed with relief.

It was a lovely guesture and made me think that when they can the Royals use the palaces for a public good.

Also, in terms of luck of the draw, being born into royalty and being born into hardship isn't a baby's choice.

What really amazes me is the way for example on tonight's programme with Ant and Dec the way people hang on to the princes every word, like he's some kind of super being. The fawning and forelock tugging is so ridiculous. What has he ever done to earn such adulation. I know he has done good work with the princes trust, but really, he has to do something with his time. I just don't understand the fawning to a man who is in his privileged position purely through the accident of birth.

Ninja - I'm confused. I thought from your initial wording that you felt the Royals were doing us a favour, but now I see you are a republican.

I don't expect private individuals to do that from the kindness of their heart but they aren't private in the sense that we contribute a good deal to their finances.

I think there's many reasons to get rid of it. Anyhoo, when I said that about the land, I was thinking of "how the royals can avoid a revolution"! I don't think it's impossible. A pp said about it being rejected in the past - but the world changes all the time. Maybe in future we will have a republic. I hope so but sadly I won't be here to see it.

purple "What has he ever done to earn such adulation. I know he has done good work with the princes trust, but really, he has to do something with his time."

I didn't watch it but I hear you. If you'd been given all that on a plate, you'd want to give something back surely. Shame they don't all just abdicate really!

they made a small profit when Diana was alive but they have made a loss since then

That depends whose figures you believe. A recent study by Brand Finance valued the Royal Family's contribution to the UK economy at over £1.1bn. On the other hand campaign group Republic claim that they cost the UK over £300m per year.

ASAS "It was a lovely guesture"

do you know how much the Royals pour into PR? Not that I blame them, I would too if I didn't want to have my plum life taken away from me.

while we're all trying not to out ourselves, I remember having a similar chat with someone who was also overawed about a note sent to us by Charles' equerry (I actually don't even know if that's the right word). It was handwritten, so fellow volunteer asked if I would keep it. I said no. What is all the fawning about? Magic blood?! and the favour of those who serve them?

what a mad world.

I'd rather the Royals were in these palaces than some Saudi Prince, which is what would happen.

Why? It doesn't happen when the National Trust acquire properties

Exactly lorelei9, they do do good works but why on earth shouldn't they. They know only too well that if they didn't they could so easily fall out of favour with the ones who keep them in the style they're accustomed to.

The National Trust can't acquire the royal palaces though, they can't afford to.

If you remove the link between the palaces and the royal family, then the government will have no choice but to sell them, and there are very few private individuals who have the means to run such a building. So Saudi princes is pretty much where we would be.

I think we should call it a day when the Queen dies

Syne for me the difference is the Saudi royals prop up a regime that just executed 47 people.

I'd rather not have either set of royals but if we must, I'd rather Brenda and Brian. At least they can't behead anyone anymore!

Alibabsandthe40Musketeers

Erm, I think you're forgetting a small organisation called English heritage/historic England... Who will already be overseeing/in charge of day to day and long term maintenance of the buildings

The National Trust can't acquire the royal palaces though, they can't afford to

No, not the NT, but a trust could be formed. KP, for example, is already partly open to the public and could be self-financing very easily.

There you go, so already Historic England is involved with the palaces (as Pale says) and Historic Royal Palaces run Hampton Court, parts of Kensington Palace, the Tower of London and others. So that's two existing bodies of immense expertise.

Collectively they could house a few thousand homeless people?

Run them as expensive hotels, the profits go to help the poor, employ the unemployed?

Turn them into a holiday homes for families who can't afford holidays?

Us taxpayers are all paying for their upkeep now, why should just a few royals get to use them? They could be put to so much good use.

It annoyed me the way Prince Charles pretended he wished he could do much more for people than he already does. If he doesn't see his staggering wealth as one of the reasons why there are others with nothing, then he is a complete idiot.

Her majesty is hard up enough to claim a poverty heating grant.

I'm appalled by your thread.

I think we should call it a day when the Queen dies

It will start to crumble at that point. The informal contract of privilege in return for hard work and frequent public duties isn't popular with the younger royals.

Shitmamma I'm appalled by your post.

I'm appalled by your thread.
Why?

republic.org.uk/what-we-want/royal-finances

I'm just going to leave this here, I know republic are a republican organisation but if you read the report its a much more open, and fairer view of what the Royals cost us. Both organisations have vested interests, I'd back Republic's to be more honest though.

In short, the way the public purse is currently costed the famous "53p " figure per year, is false, it doesn't take into account police protection, maintenence of buildings and whole host of other stuff. They also take into account when doing their figures the money raised from royal lands which belongs to the state and should be calculated and such.

The "Royals bring in tourists" myth is rubbish, even without the Queen there the changing of the guard still happens, it could go on without a Royal family. They may be an "attraction" but they are not the thing that people spend thousands of pounds on to get here. Paris, Berlin, Rome all seem to do well without Royalty, and the Pope waves at the crowds every Wednesday, the Queen does nothing of the sort. The tourists would come anyway and the palaces and their contents could be on show and raise more!

www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/

According to the above link they bring in what they claim to cost, but only in a year when there is a Royal event in London.

Earlier on this year there was a thread started about charging for the museums to keep the "rif raf" out, I'd prefer to get rid of the royals first.

God there are some incredible stupid people on here.