To think this is an obscene amount for the queens home.

[heartskey]

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/18/buckingham-palace-to-undergo-370m-refurbishment
Its all right for some isn't it. Sod the rest of us, we're just the mugs paying for it. What a bloody burden this family are.

If "we" abolished the monarchy, it is highly unlikely that ALL the Crown Estate assets would be handed over to state ownership - given that they are "family" property.

The "family" would have a case for retaining the property that their ancestors allowed the state to profit from. There would be strong objections if they were expected to hand it all over.

And if they did hand any of it over, would it be acceptable to society for it to be "run" by a private company? Or would there be calls for it to become State run, with all the inefficiencies that would bring?

Or are we trying to imply that the queen owns the whole damn country. I'm sure some of you think this should be so.

I wonder how often it is occupied by the Queen?

I bet they could get a few quid on Air BnB,

If "we" abolished the monarchy, it is highly unlikely that ALL the Crown Estate assets would be handed over to state ownership - given that they are "family" property

So it's fair that 1 family own the rights to the seabed to 12 miles off the UK?

Or that one family owns the seashore?

This family's ancestors stole land - if you look back far enough. They did not buy it. They stole it.

Nnchange the crown estate assets would immediately revert back to us. They wouldn't be allowed to keep them.

The queen is allocated 15% off the crown estate profits. If it was hers she wouldn't need to be allocated anything.

A quick foray into history exposes your misunderstanding.

The Queens ancestors signed over the income from the Crown Estate to the Treasury on the understanding that they (the Royals) received a proportion of the profit.

The income from Crown Property is only "public money" because the Royal Family deemed it so. Take away the Royal Family ,and the treasury have no claim on that income.

The income from Crown Property is only "public money" because the Royal Family deemed it so. Take away the Royal Family ,and the treasury have no claim on that income

Come the revolution.

Remember Zimbabwe. Probably a bad choice of Head of State but you can see why people got annoyed with unfair land ownership.

Look at how this family aquired the Crown Estate. I don't think they used their family wealth to buy much of it? TBF - you can look at a lot of the elite and the history and see that much of it was given to them by Monarchs.

(Waves to MI5)

the crown estate assets would immediately revert back to us. They wouldn't be allowed to keep them.

Why "us"? Given that the land was privately owned, then William invaded and took ownership of it all, surely it should go back to ancestors of the origional land owners?

Or are we trying to imply that the queen owns the whole damn country.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3953118/The-new-King-Scotland-ultra-secretive-billionaire-traumatic-past-set-Scotland-s-biggest-landowner-bid-time.html
This man is having a good go.

surely it should go back to ancestors of the origional land owner

If you go far back enough and then go forwards,, we are probably all related to those land owners.

I do wonder how other countries who don't have a Monarchy have established land ownership. The idea of 1 family having the rights to a lot of the UK because their ancestor stole it seems a little unfair.

Maybe we could fight them for it?

Oh OP you do a great job of ignoring the posts you can't answer!

Right. Let's say "we" take it back and give everyone in the country a few quid each when it's flogged off to some megarich overseas person. Who promptly does things like stop the public looking at their own history, and the economy suffers from lost tourism and the taxes paid by the employees etc.

You'll be really happy for a couple of years. Until the money runs out. And the "homeless and destitute" will sadly still be that, most likely, because in light of the population of the uk, it really isn't that much money.

So. Then what's your plan?

I love the Queen. She's great.

If you go far back enough and then go forwards,, we are probably all related to those land owners.

I very much doubt that the majority of UK tax payers can be linked back to anglo-saxon ancestors.

George111 surrendered control of all the Royal estates back in the 1700s to relieve him of his personal debts and the responsibility of paying for civil defence and the national debt. It was surrendered to the treasury of the U.K. They can't have it all ways. The legality of acquiring those lands in the first place is probably for a different thread. But it amazes me how people are so accepting of it all.

The crown estates were designated as funds to govern the country. They aren't for private use. And the certainly don't belong to the Windsors.

While the queen 'nominally' gives them over, to refuse to would signal the queen taking over the expense of running the country (parliament, civil service, etc). The Windsors are much to smart to do that.

Come the revolution, they'd revert back to the state.

I love the Queen. She's great

I think she's been looking grumpier over the years. Anyone would think she wasn't enjoying being on show all the time.

The legality of acquiring those lands in the first place is probably for a different thread.

Not if the argument is that it is "legally" ours. The way in which it was acquired is pretty fundamental if we ethically reject an unelected monarchy, but refuse to return land that the Monarchy "stole" in the first place.

hearts you are honestly saying that just because she has servants to cook and clean that it somehow offsets the fact she has worked every day since the age of 26?

Have you ever read for example the Court Circular? It shows the duties - note duties of the Queen and other Royals.

To say she works a long day is not nonsense. Just do a bit of research. You may not be aware, but she does admin (government papers) every single day, as well as entertaining dignitaries from overseas, during the day and into the evening. I'd like to see you do this for even a week, never mind 65 years!

But of course you think all of this would be fun and something commoners would lovingly do without being 'paid'.
FFS.

The way in which it was acquired is pretty fundamental if we ethically reject an unelected monarchy, but refuse to return land that the Monarchy "stole" in the first place

How do you think they were aquired?

Did they look on Right Move

I think she's been looking grumpier over the years She's been grumpy as far as I can remember. I think the so-called revolutionaries such as Corbyn, John McDonell and Martin McGuinness have a grudging respect for her.
Theresa's pencilled in a State visit for Trump in the summer. He'd love to meet the Queen.

I don't support the monarchy but that's for another thread.

As far as the repairs to Buckingham Palace are concerned, I think the either of the following should happen.

Choice A: Buckingham Palace could be declared to be a public building. A small appartment within it would then be reserved for the Windsors to live in, and it would never be open to the public. A larger portion, possibly part of a wing, would be open to the public when not needed for state functions. Most of it would be open to the public all the time for an entrance fee. The state would pick up the tab for maintaining the entire building, offset by income from visitors.

Choice B: Buckingham Palace continues to be largely set aside for the use of the Windsors. When major rennovations are needed (as they clearly are now), it's the responsibility of the Windsors to draw on their very considerable incomes to fund it.

She hasn't worked every day since the age of 26, Polly. That's just silly.

temporary are you confusing me with someone else, I haven't said anything about giving everyone in the country a few quid.

But apart from your little confusion there, sorry but I don't understand your post. But you mention money lost to the country through lost tourism and employees taxes? Well for one we have no proof that they do help with tourism and as for employees taxes? well by that argument why don't the Royal family employ the entire country, just to get the taxes for the treasury in. , do you not think there could be more gainful employment?

What nonsense Polly.

EVERYTHING is done for her. It's not about cooking, cleaning. She's helped with her bathing, dressing, clothes picked out for her, transport arranged, briefed by her team prior to every event, speeches written, admin prepped for her.

Literally all she has to do is show up, shake hands, say a few (prepped) words, read out a speech. She even skips the smiling. I think the vast majority would think that a sweet deal.

I think it's fine tbh. It costs a uk taxpayer about 60pence retirement year to upkeep the arotals. Whilst, due to tourism etc they bring in about £1000 per taxpayer per year. Our country would be much poorer without them. Maybe time to stop reading scaremongering shite in the daily rags.