Rule Britannia! The Queen owns the seabed.

[grannieonabike]

Heard this on the news. She'll get all the profits from offshore wind farms, I believe. Made me wonder what else she owns.

March on the Palace anyone?

And loving the queen.

My heart is breaking for them.

See this link

"The Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public relations disaster, documents disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act reveal."

"Aides complained to ministers in 2004 that the Queen's gas and electricity bills, which had increased by 50 per cent that year, stood at more than £1m a year and had become "untenable".

The Royal Household also complained that the £15m government grant to maintain the Queen's palaces was inadequate.

In search of more money-saving schemes, the Queen's deputy treasurer wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask whether the Royal Household would be eligible for a grant to replace four combined heat and power (CHP) units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

He asked: "Community Energy can fund up to 40 per cent of the capital costs of implementing a community heating scheme... Since we are already grant-in-aid funded [the Queen receives £15m a year for the upkeep of her palaces] we would like to know whether the Household [would] be able to benefit from these grants. I look forward to your comments." "

Hilarious.

But why are they being heated when she isn't in residence? It's partly so people can go look around them!

I don't see the problem with asking for a grant any other public attraction would be entitled to? She didn't ask for it for her private residences, did she? At least I don't see Sandringham being mentioned.

The Queen being apolitical is important as it means she doesnt do things just to be popular and her horizon is longer than 4 years.

eg The Crown owns all the London parks, which is critical to maintaining green space in the centre of the capital as it means no government can just sell them off when they need to raise a bit of cash, unlike Gordon with all our gold that he sold at record low prices- thanks for that- or Dave who is going to sell off the forests.

Imagine what could be raised if Hyde Park was sold to developers. No government would be able to resist!

That fund is set aside for schools, hospitals and families on low incomes, not fucking palaces.

The sheer audacity is astounding.

"eg The Crown owns all the London parks, which is critical to maintaining green space in the centre of the capital as it means no government can just sell them off when they need to raise a bit of cash"

The Crown can sell off anything it wants to. It is run as a business and its aim is to maximise income for the Treasury.

It would undoubtedly be a bad (business) idea to sell off London parks, but there is no law stopping them from doing so.

No but it won't - thats the point, because it has no incentive to do so, unlike a government which has every incentive, just so it can finance a few cheap vote winners to ensure that PM and pals have a job pontificating about policy for another 4 years.

The Crown Estate cannot be trusted not to sell anything. It simply weighs up whether or not it will make a profit to sell it. One day it probably will.

I normally steer clear of this kind of debate as I find people who can normal agree to differ become very one-eyed when it comes to the monarchy ... however ...

To those who think that the Queen is costing the country a fortune; I'd like to know exactly how you would have spent the 63p you would have saved in tax last year had we not had a monarchy?

And, to those of you who don't think the Queen works; I wonder how many of us will be doing 12-14 hour days 6 days a week when we're 84.

No, I don't think it's a perfect system and there are areas where it could/should be modified but it is far prefereable to the alternative, IMVHO.

"And, to those of you who don't think the Queen works; I wonder how many of us will be doing 12-14 hour days 6 days a week when we're 84."

Probably just those of us who have been waited on hand and foot since birth.

Oh, and

(BTW, I'd like 'my' 63p spent on benefits please. Because that's how tax works )

LMAO at "12-14 hour days 6 days a week when we're 84"!!

You don't really believe that do you?!

The royal family really do employ an amazingly effective PR team - that's about the only thing I respect them for.

"waited on hand and foot since birth" ??
You don't honestly believe that do you?

And before you scoff at the amount of work, perhaps you should look into it a bit. I think you'll find I'm a darn sight closer than you think

Like I said, I don't think it's a perfect system but it is preferable to the alternative

Oh no, that's right, the royal family don't have any servants...

No, that's not what I said.
In your mind, does she sit on a throne all day with a crown on her head being fed peeled grapes?? back

THE. Let's face it is anyone going to want to wait on you hand and foot? Even now, and I take it you're not in your dotage!

63p for the Queen it's a bloody bargain! As said most people would want to spend 63p on anyone that's not worth it and the Queen is definately worth it!

Must run, to drop Giles of to his nursery, which Harry and William attended. I do love it, one gets the 'right sort' of person there, not oiks.

Anyway ... as I'm not the Queen, I must go and peel some grapes (or prepare what ever else DD wants for lunch )

It still bemuses me why people become so very het-up when it comes to discussions about the monarchy ... but there you go

wait on/upon
1. To serve the needs of; be in attendance on.

Tigers, are you telling me the Queen is not waited on hand and foot? Because I think even the most fervent royalists will agree that she is. I'm not sure where you came up with "sit on a throne all day with a crown on her head being fed peeled grapes??", but it wasn't from me.

Or are you using a different version of her English?

I am so grateful you were 'bemused' enough to post on this thread.

We are not bemused.

Off with her head.

The Queen is mostly admired for her sense of duty. I don't know that many 20-somethings (as she was in '52) that would be comfortable with the idea that the next 50, 60 or 70 years of their life would be all mapped out with no say in the matter for fear of causing a constitutional crisis. The Big Brother candidates go nuts after a few weeks being peered at on TV... I wouldn't have that job for all the tea in China, never mind a few draughty palaces.

Keep the monarchy. Just stop giving them any money. And maybe take some things away from them because they really do have too much. The seabed for example.

They can earn a very good living by working as after dinner speakers or hiring themselves out to special events.

A fairer comparison would be with a 20-something in 1952, Chil... Many of whom had their lives mapped out for them down the mines, in a factory, as a wife and mother or in a number of professions.

Having your future mapped out for you was more common at the time than it is now.

I'm sure most people would face a mapped-out future more readily if they would be generously rewarded. And even royals are more defiant these days.

THE. Do behave........just because your life is not mapped out for you.

I would rather pay 63p for the Queen than 3p for our lovely political elite in Westminster, whom I might add I subsidise in their alcholhol fueled binges at the Westminster bars!

{pours another wine} cheers!