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.

So, instead of the Royals being funded by a small proportion of the profit and the rest going to the treasury for the good of the country, the income from the Crown estate would cease, and we'd have to pay for an elected Head of State out of taxes
No the income from the crown estates would not cease at all, it would revert back to us in its entirety.

and I can assure you that day-to-day decisions such as how household bills are paid generally dont get run past the principle householder

I bet they don't get cold calls about their energy supplier

the income from the crown estates would not cease at all, it would revert back to us in its entirety.

Who would manage the Crown Estate if there was no "Crown"?

Who would manage the Crown Estate if there was no "Crown

Sir Humphrey? And the rest of the Civil Service.

So you want to get rid of the crown but keep the crown estate? That is NEVER going to happen. The land would be flogged off and the money spent before you could say "but that's not what I wanted."

Then what? No more income, just as many people needing support - in fact more, given population growth

Sir Humphrey? And the rest of the Civil Service.

With as much efficiency and success as it is now as a private company?

Crown estates would revert back to the state, there is no question about that.

Where do you think they would go NN? They are most definitely not Windsor family money.

www.thecrownestate.co.uk/news-and-media/myth-busting/

Most of the crown estates are already managed by the civil service NN. The bit we're talking about is the sovereign grant.

Crown estates would revert back to the state, there is no question about that.

Oh, I know. What scares me is the idea of the Civil Service/Public Sector managing them, and becoming a pawn in political manoeuvring.

So you want to get rid of the crown but keep the crown estate? That is NEVER going to happen

From that website

"Whilst The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown' and the monarch remains the legal owner"

Legal? Well questions need to be asked if they were acquired legally.

Temp you're not only silly, but sarcastic, condescending and nasty. Some great traits you've got going there.

Most of the crown estates are already managed by the civil service NN. The bit we're talking about is the sovereign grant.

The Crown Estate is an independent Commercial Business - that returns a HUGE profit. What evidence is there that the Civil Service can do the same?

The Crown Estate is an independent Commercial Business - that returns a HUGE profit. What evidence is there that the Civil Service can do the same?
heartskey would send in her overpaid mandarin 'guys' and the whole thing would go down the pan.

Some tricky legal language there, but it belongs to the monarch only 'in right of the crown'. Essentially it belongs to 'the crown'. Which is very different to 'the Windsor family'

NN what I didn't realise until I read that link is that it is managed by an independent company. Now I don't see why that would change. The majority of the profits are already given to the treasury, minus the sovereign grant. I assume this company is independent of both the crown and the state. So no reason why that would be different. The state would simply get all of the profits.

I assume this company is independent of both the crown and the state. So no reason why that would be different. The state would simply get all of the profits.

There would need to fundamental changes in legislation to allow that to happen - and really? Given all the outcry about the privatisation of public services, you think the public would be happy with a fat-cat led Commercial Company managing state land?

Waiting for your link, heartskey. Or do you only have more pathetic insults up those empty sleeves?

Still waiting for that link, heartskey. Surely you don't only have pathetic insults to add to your assumptions? Surely that can't be the case.

Temp you started with the insults long ago, no one else on this thread has been as rude as you. People can have different opinions without having to get insulting. I've never promised any link, but while we're at it can you provide one to give us proof about the the royal family and the tourism connection, and I mean proof not hearsay, all I've heard is you bleating on about tourists.

But you were so sure that you were laughing out loud. Don't say you've not been able to find anything other than references to the queen's aides in respect of that heating story?

I have made my position on the fence plain. There is plenty of data to show the RF are a brand and that people come to see them. I am happy to be convinced that an alternative would do just as well or better. So far nobody has done this for me personally. Ego makes a great argument, even if I don't agree with her. Laurie, apart from one post that i found confusing, is also persuasive.

Your comments, on the other hand, are bitter, nasty and thus far wildly inaccurate without any support whatsoever. Sorry if you find the truth insulting.

The govt was approached by her deputy treasurer to enquire whether a grant might be available to pay towards replacing 4 old heating units.

I would be amazed if he discussed it with the Queen first and even if he had he would most likely have said "I'm looking into whether there are grants available to replace the inefficient heating system we're currently using" "Right-o Jeeves" Is roughly how it would have gone.

Trust me I'm an ex-finance director!

He/she wouldn;t have said - "I going to ask the government to take food out of the mouths of babies and starve the elderly so you can have more money ma'am" "Spiffing idea Jeeves"

No need to sensationalise - there's plenty of arguments for a republic without inventing things or exaggerating them.

"Thank you for your Freedom of Information Request which is repeated at the bottom of this email for reference.

The Crown Estate's property assets are owned by the Sovereign in right of
the Crown, so the ownership passes with the Crown and is not the personal possession of the Monarch or any individual member of the Royal Family.
The Crown Estate's primary role as set out in the Crown Estate Act 1961 is to enhance the value of the estate and the income it generates. The
income surplus generated is paid directly to the Treasury for the benefit
of the UK taxpayer. For more information on the history of the ownership
of The Crown Estate, please visit our website:
[1]www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us...

There are no provisions regarding the ownership of The Crown Estate in the hypothetical situation where the monarchy was to be abolished, so I
cannot provide you with any information in that regard."

In other words (to paraphrase) the Crown estates are owned by the "Sovereign". If there is no "Sovereign" then who the fuck knows.

I suspect there would be a compromise agreement reached with a division of assets between the outgoing monarch and the State with a non-compete clause so they can't set up as Monarch of America within say a 6 month period.

It is quite possible, based on what I know of the way large estates are administered that an application for a "cold weather" payment (or whatever it was) could have been submitted without her knowledge

I agree with this in principle, since it would be unusual for the head of any major concern to be involved in every last thing, but isn't there a case to be made that attitudes and values tend to trickle down from the top?

There's also the point that the RF are quick enough to grab the credit when things are perceived to have gone well, but not always visible if they don't - as with us being invited to admire Charles's supposed charitable impulses, but then expected to believe that the flogging of official gifts was all his valet's idea. A small example perhaps, but just another illustration of what I meant about the mindset

Temp someone up thread even googled it and was appalled by it. I'm not putting any links up for you. Ooh it's so awful isn't it hearing something you don't want to hear.I see though that you can't manage to put one up about tourism that is actual proof. You are the only one on here that insults, you're deluded, sycophantic but above all nasty.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html

Right, here it is., but oh no temp because it wasn't actually the queen who asked personally. So what, it's still the queen.
Saying it's not the queen is like saying to someone who reaches 100 and gets a card off her, but it's not off the queen it's off an aid. It's the queen, that's all that needs to be said.