Would you willingly subscription for the Royal family?

[chumsnut]

If people were given the choice to pay a small monthly subscription to royal family to do appearances, promote charities and live or rent out a few properties, would they do it?

Not true either as it turns out. The sovereign grant is higher than the UK population.

I would rather eat one of James Cordens' turds, than pay subs to keep the royal family.

Tax payers don't pay the sovereign grant. It comes from the profits of the crown estate which is owned by the reigning monarch. They get 15-25% and the treasury keep 75-85%.

@OhNoForever
Jerabilis
The Sovereign grant costs each person less than £1 a year. I’m definitely happy to pay a £1 a year to make sure our politicians are knocked down a step. additionally the cost of a head of state (assuming it wouldn’t be the prime minister) plus the associated election costs would be considerably more than £1 p.a.

"What about their security? They won't tell us how much extra that is"

There is also the lost tax. There are corporation tax, capital ganes tax AND inheritance tax exemptions. There is a lot of secrecy over the royals finances.

Bleuŕgh! That didn't even occur to me- until now 😲

While we are at it don't forget that the king is exempt from lots of laws including environmental, health and safety and employment laws.

The Royal Household is exempt from the requirements of the Equalities Act 2010 too. They claim to comply with the legislation but, if that's the case, why get an exception then.

They believe they are above the law which is fair enough because they are above the law.

I don't understand how the Royal family aren't embarrassed about their wealth and status. They must really believe that they are superior to everyone else

Indeed. King Charles fronting a campaign for child poverty and a campaign about people going hungry due to living costs, actually made me feel sick.

Someone with that much wealth involved in a charity for families that cannot afford food, is all kinds of fucked up.

No - fuck - no!

Cancel them all

Is that you, Harry?

Tax payers don't pay the sovereign grant. It comes from the profits of the crown estate which is owned by the reigning monarch.

Thats not strictly correct - or at least, putting it as such is misleading. It's owned by a legal entity called The Crown. It's not owned by the Windsor family and they would have no claim to it if not occupying the position of 'Crown'.

Security costs ARE met direct by the tax payer

Meghan is that you having ideas?

I pay more than I want to already in taxes!

No! Think big!

Catherine and William doing Patreon - exclusive content for a fee , I can imagine something with tiaras instead of tiers and maybe the odd postcard from their regular hols at Top Tiara

Or, stay with me, annual Big Brother style eviction? Keep them on their toes? They have to leave via a side gate at Buck Palace and then be interviewed by Davina.

I wouldn't pay but it's a great idea. Let those who value the RF pay for it.

The Sovereign grant costs each person less than £1 a year.

So what? The sovereign grant is not the bulk of the costs- those are borne by other parts of the public sector and never disclosed.

If those were the only costs I'd be a lot happier but, on principle, would still prefer to vote for my head of state.

I think having a roual family is so infair on them. I feel sad looking st the neeest generation knowing their lives are so planned out and will be so scrutinised.

Just let them be rich aristocrats wirhout all the ceremony.

can I become a salaried RF member if this happens?

Only when hell freezes over.

Security costs ARE met direct by the tax payer

Yes. And for every visit anywhere cash strapped Councils have to shell out for security. And that is funded by the taxpayer

The cost of security for this family is well hidden, but thought to be £100million a year, according to a govt think-tank. So that's hard stretched Councils and police having to provide this security when this family fancy showing their faces somewhere to show they're relevant and important

How much it costs us has been requested under the FOI but we're told we can't know for security reasons. BS. There is no public evidence that this would be useful to an attacker. It's because there would be an outcry if we knew how much we were paying on top of everything else

I think it's more misleading to say tax payers are paying the sovereign grant.

The crown estates are the property of the reigning monarch but not in a private capacity or under their management.

As far as I can tell, no one actually knows what would happen to crown estates if we got rid of monarchy but I imagine the Windsor's would make a claim and it would probably get very messy.

Also I imagine if we got rid of the monarchy the government would still pay for their security (at least in our lifetime).

Is there an option to pay to see less of them?

I guess the gravy train in the USA is running dry, so we need a subscription for H&M so they come back here? Is that what this suggestion is about?

No! I don't think they should cost the tax payer a penny anyway. So, I suppose a subscription could be a good idea, leave it to the flag wavers to pay for them!

No matter what people think of them I presume they spend a lot of time doing what they do now, would they have the time to be everywhere because people pay?

I think it's more misleading to say tax payers are paying the sovereign grant.

Im not sure why it needs to be a question of degree. Both statements are misleading. However security costs are tax payer funded, so I understand where the confusion comes from.

As far as I can tell, no one actually knows what would happen to crown estates if we got rid of monarchy but I imagine the Windsor's would make a claim and it would probably get very messy.

There is no legal precedent, no, but I honestly cannot fathom on what grounds the Windsor's would make a claim as individuals. They never belonged to individuals, but legal entities that would be dissolved if it came to that point. Also given their original purpose, pre George III, they were set up to fund the running of the entire country, not just the monarchy, so how would that be squared? They would revert to public funds in some shape or form.

Don't fall for that old crap peddled about to make them seem less of a tax burden. The crown estate is owned by the tax payers. So it is a business run on behalf of the taxpayer to fund the Royal Family. If we had no Royals it could still be run and fund something else. It's taxpayers money.