Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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 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:
toffeeboffin · 28/06/2017 00:44

And it's not just the Queen and immediate family.

There's loads of hangers on who have a fucking great life doing nothing.

Made me fucking furious, the day after Grenfell she was at the polo. The polo. Enjoying herself.

Oh, but that's OK. Cos she's the queen.

Total bullshit.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/06/2017 08:56

The monarchy need to stop taking taxpayer money, and pay for their own lifestyles

Up to a point, perhaps, but while I'd like to get rid of much of the waste I wouldn't personally grudge paying expenses when they're actually on official duties

The problem, of course, is how skilled some are at tacking a small "duty" onto something they want to do anyway, so that their personal jolly can be paid for by the rest of us Hmm

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 09:18

Get rid of the Monarchy.
Have an elected apolitical Head of State who does the ceremonial stuff and acts as the Nation's representative and has to uphold the Constitution should the Government choose to ignore it.
They can live in Buckingham Palace - so we can maintain the ceremonial stuff - Guards, Trooping the Colour and all the Pageantry.

The Crown Estate returns to the people - and income from it goes to the public purse. Yes,that includes the coast line and everything.

Charles,William and Harry become ex Royals and their children can live their lives without this sense of duty and expectation.

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 09:22

I wouldn't personally grudge paying expenses when they're actually on official duties

I suppose it depends on if they are accountable for their expenses and if they are reasonable.

Airmiles Andrew? Charles using the Royal Train instead of a car?

metro.co.uk/2017/06/27/prince-charles-trip-on-royal-train-cost-taxpayers-46000-6737229/

Heir to the throne Charles travelled from Windsor to Lancashire and Yorkshire to undertake engagements in Clitheroe, Settle and Harrogate in March.
The two-day trip cost £46,038, which works out at a costly £95.32 per mile.
The Royal Family made just 14 trips on the Royal Train in 2016-2017 which each cost more than £15,000 each, totalling £288,697

If an MP did that,there'd be an outrage. But when you have ZERO accountability and you are unelected, you clearly don't have to worry about money.

Frillyhorseyknickers · 28/06/2017 09:47

no the crown estates don't belong to them, if the royals were to cease tomorrow the entire estates would revert back to the country.

It doesn't matter how many times you write it down - the fact remains that the Crown Estates belong to the reigning Monarch. If the Royals "ceased" tomorrow the CE would remain under the control of the CE Commissioners, as per the Crown Estate Act.

But let's not all get all "I am William Wallace" FFS.

It's really quite depressing that so many people are aghast at "taxpayer" money being used to fund the Monarchy, when it is in fact by virtue of CE revenues.

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 09:51

But let's not all get all "I am William Wallace" FFS

Perhaps he had a point.

If the Royals "ceased" tomorrow the CE would remain under the control of the CE Commissioners, as per the Crown Estate Act

I strongly suspect that there would be a lot of pressure to have the land returned to the people.

LateDad · 28/06/2017 10:00

Elected head of state. Donald J Trump.

I think that's all need be said on that subject.

OOAOML · 28/06/2017 10:02

Have an elected apolitical Head of State who does the ceremonial stuff and acts as the Nation's representative and has to uphold the Constitution should the Government choose to ignore it.

I'm not totally opposed to having an elected head of state, but if we go down that route I think we can assume that they will not be apolitical. Even if you legislate that candidates cannot be affiliated to political parties the position and the election would be political.

Trump is an elected head of state. I'm not sure that's preferable to the Queen (although there is an impeachment option there, getting rid of a monarch is a bit trickier).

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 10:10

Elected head of state. Donald J Trump

let me help you.

Elected APOLITICAL Head of State - who has NO ROLE in politics.

Many democracies manage to do that.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/06/2017 10:50

Airmiles Andrew? Charles using the Royal Train instead of a car?

Or for that matter, the circumstances around the Cambridge wedding, when so many royals were transported in minibuses. If ever there was an opportunity for Charles to show his much vaunted "green credentials" that was surely it - and yet the pampered twat and his partner had to use a limo

Utter, mindblowing hypocrisy - and this from the next monarch Hmm

OOAOML · 28/06/2017 10:54

Elected APOLITICAL Head of State - who has NO ROLE in politics.

Many democracies manage to do that.

Hopefully this won't come across as aggressive in tone, but I'd be really interested to know which examples you're thinking of and how they manage to keep the role apolitical. When even parish/community councils in this country are political, how do you set up a system where people elect someone (and therefore the candidates have to go through some kind of selection process, and have campaign structures/organisations backing them up) without that process being political?

chilipepper20 · 28/06/2017 10:58

how can anyone argue that the Monarchy receiving 15% of revenues from something belonging to them is "tax payer funded"?

because that is the question. If she doesn't have a right to that 15%, why give her any at all? If it is under the control of the government (since they are the one's that give the grant), make it 0.

chilipepper20 · 28/06/2017 11:00

Elected APOLITICAL Head of State - who has NO ROLE in politics.

any elected head of state would by very nature be political as they would have to stand for elections. We can either have an elected political one, or an appointed apolitical one.

Either case would be cheaper and more moral than what we have.

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 11:02

I think Germany and Ireland have Presidents whose role is to uphold the Constitution but have little role in day to day politics.

chilipepper20 · 28/06/2017 11:02

I think that's all need be said on that subject.

donald trump is both head of government and head of state. the fact that he has power will alienate some of the electorate, because he has to make difficult decisions. the queen doesn't, and therefore it's much easier for her to have a bland role.

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 11:12

Maybe we could get rid of sentences like this and act as modern democracy

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Seriously?

Frillyhorseyknickers · 28/06/2017 11:28

I strongly suspect that there would be a lot of pressure to have the land returned to the people.

As someone who works in the profession and has previously managed CE as a land agent, I have more than a strong suspicion that you are wrong.

But this thread serves to be more of an example of "why let the truth get in the way of a good story". Just like the insinuation that the Sov Grant is in any way belonging to the Tax Payer.

araiwa · 28/06/2017 11:29

One persons idea of something being more important than another is something entirely subjective.

I doubt that money for Buckingham house is being taken away from starving people

LaurieMarlow · 28/06/2017 11:34

My god, the ignorance over the Crown Estates is astounding.

The do not belong to the Royal Family, they are for the use of the 'Crown'. If the Windsor family cease to have the function of the Crown, they lose all access to that money.

They are not and never were Windsor family money.

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 11:40

As someone who works in the profession and has previously managed CE as a land agent, I have more than a strong suspicion that you are wrong

What moral right do you think the Royal Family would have to the massive Crown Estates should the Monarchy be dissolved?

Can you morally justify it?

WhollyFather · 28/06/2017 11:44

The Crown Estates. All the land stolen by the Crown a long time ago
Looked at that way, the entire country was 'stolen'. If the Normans took the land by force, they took it from the Saxons and / or Vikings who acquired it the same way a few hundred years earlier. Then there were the Romans, who kicked the original British out.... how far back do you want to go?

And there's a good chance the land your house was built on was taken from the original inhabitants by force or fraud. Planning to give it back anytime?

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 11:45

I think the French and the Russians had the right idea...not that I am suggesting executing them obviously. But just getting rid of them and the return of the Crown Estates to the people of this country.

Orlantina · 28/06/2017 11:47

And there's a good chance the land your house was built on was taken from the original inhabitants by force or fraud

Last time I checked, I paid a mortgage for the rights to this bit of land.

Do you think that the Royal Family should keep the Crown Estates?

LaurieMarlow · 28/06/2017 11:53

As someone who works in the profession and has previously managed CE as a land agent, I have more than a strong suspicion that you are wrong.

Utter horseshit. The purpose of the Crown lands and reason for them being set up was to finance the running of the country NOT simply to fund the monarchy. When George III handed back the responsibility of funding the country back to parliament, he also handed back the revenue from the Crown Estates, in return for the sovereign grant. In the event of a dissolution of the monarchy, there would be absolutely uproar the Crown Estates reverted to anything other than a means of funding the country.

Original poster
lazylab · 28/06/2017 11:54

There's a good chance the queen owns the land our houses stand on.

OP posts: