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

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think there are higher priorities than Buckingham Palace.

240 replies

lazylab · 27/06/2017 18:53

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-elizabeth-pay-rise-royal-public-funds-buckingham-palace-sovereign-grant-royal-family-crown-a7809716.html

Whether or not we agree with the monachy i don't think now is the time to throw millions of taxpayers money at one huge old palace. There are far far more important things that need our money. Anyone agree?

OP posts:
peachgreen · 27/06/2017 20:44

I'm nowhere near clever enough to do the maths (nor is anyone, really, which is why there's no definitive answer to the question) but bear in mind that we receive a phenomenal amount of free global PR - essential adverts aimed at potential tourists - from coverage of Royal visits etc. They're very powerful brand advocates, especially the younger generation. There are also other economic boosts generated by them as individuals - there's a reason that Kate wears British designers, for example.

I don't think we'll ever really know if they cost us more than they make, but it's probably not as simple as how much money the palaces earn, etc etc.

DonaldStott · 27/06/2017 20:47

No - it can't. The Monarchy is not allowed to be debated in the Commons

Yes, they're basically unaccountable.

How modern and democratic.

What a lovely, equal, fair, unantiquated concept the monarchy is.

Hmm
peachgreen · 27/06/2017 20:47

That said I don't disagree that there is rampant overspending - Charles is particularly guilty of this.

Janeismymiddlename · 27/06/2017 21:14

Proof please, until then i'll carry on knowing that is not true

Have you lived abroad at all? I have lived in 3 different continents at various points. Without exception, the English way of life (perceived) - afternoon tea, china teapots, cucumber sandwiches, the Queen, palaces, tiaras, years and years of tradition, being 'proper', floral tea dresses, Laura Ashley...you get the idea - is beloved of foreigners. Can I statistically prove that the Queen brings in tourists? No. Not my field of expertise. But I can tell you I have disappointed (to the point of tears in one case) many that we don't all stop and drink tea out of delicate, floral cups at 4pm and that we aren't all personal friends of Prince Willian (what with it being a small country).

Like it or not, the monarchy is beloved of many and there are people out there who's idea of a trip of a lifetime is to stand in the rain in front of Buckingham Palace before popping off for a cup of tea with milk in it.

Tapandgo · 27/06/2017 21:18

Buck Palace would attract visitors even if there was no royal family and could be open longer, generating more income.
The palaces of France and Russia attract millions of tourists - not a royal in site.
Unbelievable we have to stump up ridiculous amounts of cash for this seemingly endless family, most of whom are completely work shy, while enjoying lavish lifestyles and privilege.

Janeismymiddlename · 27/06/2017 21:30

most of whom are completely work shy

Who? Have you seen how many engagements the Queen does in a year? She's been a bloody pensioner for years and years.

I am not particularly Royalist and see the 'against' arguments but my goodness, it really isn't black and white.

chilipepper20 · 27/06/2017 21:36

I agree, we are short of money so why spend it on this project.

Buckingham palace is a national treasure. We should pay for it.

The monarch and her family though? I don't want to send a pence there way. And the crown estates are simply not hers to give us. We simply willingly give this wealthy family more money.

No - it can't. The Monarchy is not allowed to be debated in the Commons

is that true? That's appalling.

Have you lived abroad at all?

I am American, and now living in Britain. I have also lived in Canada and I can tell you that at least in those countries the monarchy is not universally liked. They are openly mocked in much of America and Canada. Canada also has its share of monarch sycophants, but as far as I am aware, the majority favour republicanism (thank god for Quebec!).

Of course, also, all those foreigners don't have to pay for them.

lazylab · 27/06/2017 21:36

Like it or not, the monarchy is beloved of many and there are people out there who's idea of a trip of a lifetime is to stand in the rain in front of Buckingham Palace before popping off for a cup of tea with milk in it
Meanwhile not a few streets away there are people who, because of government policies (the ones that affect the poor) there are people of all ages sleeping rough in shop doorways. But i suppose the people whose idea of a trip of a lifetime is to stand in the pouring rain hoping to catch a glimpse of an elite unelected family of obscene wealth will try not to ponder on their plight. Let's just throw more money at a family who have no need of it. They get to live in the palace, they should spend their own money on it.

OP posts:
chilipepper20 · 27/06/2017 21:37

Have you seen how many engagements the Queen does in a year?

engagements does not equal work.

Frillyhorseyknickers · 27/06/2017 21:45

Oh god, really?!

The upkeep is funded by the Sovereign Grant, which is a percentage of the profit from the Crown Estates.

The Crown Estates belong to the reigning Monarch by virtue to their accession to the Throne. It is managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners' and the excess revenues ( to the tune of approx £250m per annum) are paid to the treasury each year towards the nation's finances.

The Monarchy receives 15% of this - 15% of the 100% profit of assets owned by the Crown Estates. She's not taking from your council tax payments or your dole money, FFS.

DarthMaiden · 27/06/2017 21:47

The palace is a place that represents our national architectural history.

As do many stately homes.

So you want to see them all in ruins and replaced with piles of concrete shit?

Same with the Houses of Parliament that is having a major refurbishment. Would you like it and Big Ben torn down?

These buildings are not about the monarchy, they represent our history as a nation, as do many other listed buildings around the country.

YABVVVU

Orlantina · 27/06/2017 21:48

it really isn't black and white.

I believe a Head of State should be apolitical, should be elected and should uphold the Constitution. To act as a check to the Government and to make sure the Government upholds the Constitution and the Laws of the land.

I don't believe the Head of State should be there by birthright,

It is that black and white for me.

Orlantina · 27/06/2017 21:49

The Crown Estates belong to the reigning Monarch by virtue to their accession to the Throne

Stolen from the people by William the Conqueror.

chilipepper20 · 27/06/2017 21:49

The Crown Estates belong to the reigning Monarch by virtue to their accession to the Throne.

the Queen is not the owner of those assets. They belong to the crown. She cannot sell them for personal profit, or dispose of them as she wishes.

Why does the monarch have a right to the crown estates? And I'll assume you aren't saying everyone who opposes the monarchy is on the dole.

Orlantina · 27/06/2017 21:50

She's not taking from your council tax payments or your dole money, FFS

Just imagine the revenue the country could get if the Government elected by the people of this country owned the Crown Estate.

chilipepper20 · 27/06/2017 21:51

The Queen of course has a lot of private land holdings (Balmoral is one I believe). She owns that as a private citizen.

DarthMaiden · 27/06/2017 21:52

Love this thread - so we don't pay.

You really want to see iconic buildings in the UK reduced to ruin?

Really?

And how much money would we get - fuck all in the grand scheme of things and a damn site less revenue re: tourism.

Wins the crap idea thread of the year (so far) from me.

lazylab · 27/06/2017 21:58

I presume it is the engagements that keep the queen able bodied and active, she gets to do things that us ordinary folk would have to pay a lot of money to do, they're hardly a hardship.
A lot of work, time and effort goes into each royal engagement, but obviously none of it done by the royal family.

From the moment they arise from bed, everything is done for them. The hard work has all been done for the "engagements", (that often includes local councils spending thousands of pounds and man hours preparing for), the queen gets to do the hand shaking and say a few appropriate words (already prepared for her) possibly eat some nice food, then whisked off in car back to the palace. I'm sure if it was "hard work" she'd have retired years ago.

OP posts:
Frillyhorseyknickers · 27/06/2017 22:06

the Queen is not the owner of those assets. They belong to the crown. She cannot sell them for personal profit, or dispose of them as she wishes.
No she can't, but they belong to the reigning Monarch under the management of the commissioners.

Why does the monarch have a right to the crown estates? And I'll assume you aren't saying everyone who opposes the monarchy is on the dole.

Because they belong to the Monarchy. The Monarchy themselves are a revenue source for the country, and it makes sense that they derive some income from their assets. The Monarchy take 15% of the profit from the Crown Estates so you can't argue it is overly excessive, given they are an asset belonging to the Monarchy.

lazylab · 27/06/2017 22:08

Wins the crap idea thread of the year (so far) from me.
Your post wins "most blinkered, disillusioned and unimaginative" ( i.e. crap)of the year so far by me.
I really don't see how discussing a pay rise ( off the taxpayer)for the royals can ever be seen as a crap idea for a thread. What a strange notion, why would people not want to discuss it, you came on to have a say. Hmm

OP posts:
lazylab · 27/06/2017 22:12

Because they belong to the Monarchy. The Monarchy themselves are a revenue source for the country, and it makes sense that they derive some income from their assets. The Monarchy take 15% of the profit from the Crown Estates so you can't argue it is overly excessive, given they are an asset belonging to the Monarchy
No they don't belong to the monachy, no they aren't a proven revenue source for the country, and no 15% of the profits IS excessive

OP posts:
Itinerary · 27/06/2017 22:13

"Yeah. We should spend it on nuclear weapons and bribing terrorists to vote with the government instead"

"No we should spend it on our crumbling hospitals, nurses, schools, transport, care in the community, the poor and disabled, the police.......the list is endless.

I'm not a fan of the DUP, nor huge sums going to the Royals (couldn't they downsize just a bit?)

However, why shouldn't Northern Ireland receive a boost for a change?

The money asked for by the DUP will go towards things like:

£250m to health including £50m to mental health provision.
£50m to education
£400m for infrastructure
£100m to targeted to deprived communities

etc.

Frillyhorseyknickers · 27/06/2017 22:14

I really don't see how discussing a pay rise ( off the taxpayer)for the royals can ever be seen as a crap idea for a thread

Well from my POV you (personally) make a shit argument because you appear to have absolutely no concept of how the Monarchy or the Palace are funded and therefore can't possibly put forward a particularly reasoned debate.

If the Sovereign Grant is funded solely from the percentage draw of the Crown Estate profits - please explain to me how I, as a taxpayer, am funding this? Other than the fact that the Crown Estate revenue is given from the Commissioners' to the Treasury for the benefit of the Nation. (Which is a completely different concept.)

Tapandgo · 27/06/2017 22:14

Have you seen how many engagements the Queen does in a year?

This is not work - this is the public ribbon cutting, ship launching, banquet attending, hand shaking, royal variety performance watching 'payback' for a life of unbelievable privilege.
Her disfunctional children Andrew and Edward and their wives/ex wives and children would not know a days work if it bit them on the royal butts. Philip would have been sacked if he held any professional job for bringing it into disrepute by his offensive racist and sexist comments.
Now we have William doing some 'part time work', Catherine doing nothing and Harry bleating about his woes as if that was a job in itself.

Most of us hold down full time jobs, try to do the best for our kids, manage our own households and cope with life's stresses and problems yet still have to worry about the cost of mortgages, fear of redundancy, cost of transport, concern about ill health, old age and retirement and have limited choice over where we live and what we can afford to live in.

Forgive me if I have little sympathy for an extended family living at tax payers expense, with no urgency to work, surrounded by sycophantic advisors and with easy reach to the best medical care, best education, chauffeured transport, designer wardrobes, beauticians and endless homes and holidays to choose from.

If they don't like their lot they can opt out of it. They don't and indeed many choose to marry in to it.

Most people have no choice over their circumstances - they have every choice.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 27/06/2017 22:15

You really want to see iconic buildings in the UK reduced to ruin?

Absolutely not; these buildings need to be maintained, and rightly so

They could even continue to be occupied by our Head of State. but it doesn't follow that this would need to be a monarch. The Elysee Palace in Paris is a truly fine building and happens to house a President ... ditto the White House in Washington, Prague's beautiful castle, Vienna's amazing Hofburg Palace and many more

A preference for something other than a monarchy doesn't necessarily imply that the barbarians are at the gates

Swipe left for the next trending thread