Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

646 replies

heartskey · 18/11/2016 22:41

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.

OP posts:
chilipepper20 · 20/11/2016 20:52

We don't finance them

yes we do. Sovereign grant, duchy of cornwall, etc Only one of the people these things support is head of state.

Funny, my employer doesn't support my family.

Original poster
heartskey · 20/11/2016 20:58

Tempory the Royal family sort us over £300 million a year, ten times more than what they'd have us believe. That money would train a LOT of nurses.

OP posts:
Temporaryname137 · 20/11/2016 21:04

link please?

Original poster
heartskey · 20/11/2016 21:24

Can't be bothered, google it. Their finances are shrouded in secrecy, their true wealth can't even be discussed in parliament. The figure I gave is only a conservative estimate.

OP posts:
Temporaryname137 · 20/11/2016 21:28

you can't be bothered to back up enormous sweeping statements - but you expect to be taken seriously in a debate?!

Original poster
heartskey · 20/11/2016 21:53

An enormous sweeping statement? it's not a secret, your making out like I've revealed something unknown to anyone.The biggest sweeping statements on here are the ones that say the royals bring in the tourists, but they are expected to be believed, yet I've not seen one single link to that, nor have I asked for it.

OP posts:
ego147 · 20/11/2016 21:56

you can't be bothered to back up enormous sweeping statements

All that security must cost a fair bit. Guarding the palace. Royal Protection.

I suppose you would need to differentiate the cost of having a Royal Family vs the cost of having an elected Head of State - who would also need protection.

Politically - do you think a country should have a Head of State who is there because of birthright and is unaccountable to the electorate and its representatives or a Head of State who is elected and is accountable?

ego147 · 20/11/2016 21:58

The biggest sweeping statements on here are the ones that say the royals bring in the tourists, but they are expected to be believed

TBF - I am sure that tourists do come here to see the Royal palaces and the pageantry. Changing the Guard, Windsor castle and all that.

I think that not having a RF but retaining the palaces and the pageantry will not have a significant impact on tourism.

PollyPerky · 20/11/2016 22:08

OP you are digging yourself a very deep hole.

You've not actually replied to any points I've made or questions asked you- such as do you really have ANY idea of what the Queen does day to day?

You don't so instead you become - or try to become- insulting.

The majority of people in the UK are not working till they are 91. They don't read boxes of government docs every day and sign them, or attend functions till midnight or travel the world to help create better relationships with other countries.

It's pointless arguing with you because you clearly only want to ignore facts.

Your economic arguments are deluded beyond belief, but never mind, carry on in your fantasy world.

Original poster
heartskey · 20/11/2016 22:10

People will believe what they want to believe. In the case of the "tourists" this is what the royal family want us to believe. I believe the tourists would still come with or without the tourists. The most visited place in Britain is the British Museum. BP doesn't even get in the top 50 of places visited.

OP posts:
PollyPerky · 20/11/2016 22:10

oh and by the way- my posts several pages back linked to a feature showing how much income tourism and the queen brings in- half a billion annually and something around 3.5million people.

But never mind you aren't bothered by facts, they're too difficult to argue with aren't they?

ego147 · 20/11/2016 22:16

my posts several pages back linked to a feature showing how much income tourism and the queen brings in- half a billion annually and something around 3.5million people

Do you think the Queen does that?

Or do you think the history, the palaces and the pageantry do that?

We can't tell - but I would bet a lot of those 3.5 million would still come even if we didn't have the Queen. Or King Charles. They might well come to see Windsor Castle, to look at the palace and to wave at the soldiers.

ego147 · 20/11/2016 22:18

They don't read boxes of government docs every day and sign them, or attend functions till midnight or travel the world to help create better relationships with other countries

An elected Head of State could do that.

The Queen has not been elected. What right (apart from birthright) has she (or any other Royal) got to deal with Goverment papers and the running of our country?

Temporaryname137 · 20/11/2016 22:18

We'd still need all the security, if you expect the buildings to stay nice enough to attract tourists without the royal family inside them. Except that I really don't think as many people would come to see where the former royal family used to live. Some would. Not all.

ego147 · 20/11/2016 22:21

We'd still need all the security, if you expect the buildings to stay nice enough to attract tourists without the royal family inside them

Yes. Just like other democracies do. Those who have an elected Head of State.

Except that I really don't think as many people would come to see where the former royal family used to live

People go to see the Palace of Versailles.

People go to see the places where the Head of State lives - and carries out official functions.

chilipepper20 · 20/11/2016 22:21

the family costs 334m

That's a (the?) republican website, so my guess is that they will pick a big number if they can.

But Charles voluntarily pays taxes on the duchy of cornwall, and my impression is they aren't audited to see how much of true value they are paying. in any case, why should he get any of the proceeds? Those are our lands.

So, the duchy, the sovereign grant, the security all add up fast.

ego147 · 20/11/2016 22:22

I see that not many people have answered the question on democracy.

Is it right that we have an unelected Head of State?

chilipepper20 · 20/11/2016 22:25

Except that I really don't think as many people would come to see where the former royal family used to live.

why not? It's an extraordinary claim that a good percentage of tourism is because of the RF. for one, how would you measure that? My guess is that there is a tiny portion of visitors who would NOT come if we got rid of the RF, but I don't really know. But neither do they, and this is part of their major justification for being.

ego147 · 20/11/2016 22:25

It is kind of ironic in this new world of anti elitism, democratic, power to the people, regain control, Parliament is sovereign UK -that we still have such support for the most privileged, undemocratic, unaccountable system of Head of State you can think of.

Original poster
heartskey · 20/11/2016 22:28

polly you are trying to be insulting. What sort of question is that..."do you really have any idea what the queen does every day? Do I literally have to spell it out. Not a fucking lot. I don't care how much you bleat on about how much you think she does, you're deluded. She DOES NOT work hard. EVERYTHING is done for her, the "work" she does is prepared for her requires her to read through it and then sign it. If you want to call that hard work then there's no point in arguing.

Again you've ignored what I've said about how most people of 90 can't work because they haven't been pampered all their lives and had their own private physician. They are usually dead after a life times toil.The queens stamina is down to her privileged life style. But again you choose to ignore these facts and bleat on about how hard working she is.

I'm just wondering where you get the strange notion from that she's attending functions till midnight every day and travelling to foreign countries. Her holiday home in Scotland is about as far as she gets these days. You really need to stop believing what the royal PR want you to believe. You see a snap shot of the queen with stacks of papers to sign and you think she's doing that all day till midnight. Oh dear.

OP posts:
Temporaryname137 · 20/11/2016 22:29

If you look at how much interest there is in the RF in overseas press, that shows that they are one of our major exports.

I think the queen has probably done a better job than most of the people we have elected, tbh! Imagine if the choice was Corbyn or May to live there. Just... No. Nobody would want to see that!!

chilipepper20 · 20/11/2016 22:29

Is it right that we have an unelected Head of State?

no, it's not.

Someone linked to the royal finances and there is a lot of travel for on the order of 15 - 20 thousand pounds for some no name member of the royal family (i.e. not one of the famous ones) to go to some event and cut a ribbon.

We should all think about that in a time of tight public finances. We the taxpayer pay for some faceless member of the RF to go to, often private functions, at the cost of half a years teacher's salary (and that's just the travel cost. Who knows what the total cost is). That's more than ridiculous. it's disgusting.

NNChangeAgain · 20/11/2016 22:32

People will believe what they want to believe

In a post-truth age, the future of discussion forums like MN are numbered, I fear.

Debate required reasoned argument. When discussion consists of individuals saying "you're wrong, this is what I believe, I'm not going to say why", there is no place for interaction. Life becomes a series of Social Media statements.

Welcome to the future.

Original poster
heartskey · 20/11/2016 22:32

oh and by the way- my posts several pages back linked to a feature showing how much income tourism and the queen brings in- half a billion annually and something around 3.5million people.

But never mind you aren't bothered by facts, they're too difficult to argue with
Except they aren't facts, so quite easy to argue with.

OP posts:
chilipepper20 · 20/11/2016 22:33

If you look at how much interest there is in the RF in overseas press, that shows that they are one of our major exports.

doesn't sound like a solid economic study to me.

I think the queen has probably done a better job than most of the people we have elected, tbh!

when your job is to wear eccentric hats and wave at crowds, it should be pretty easy to do a good job. On the other hand, Tony Blair visibly aged year to year when in office. You could see the stress on his face.

She has to entertain and not say stupid things. I agree, she has done better than some members of her family might on that measure.