Prince Andrew BACK in the royal fold

[tatalan]

How do you feel about this development?

By a rough calculation to get to the British Royal Family being the most expensive in Europe, their security and anything else not disclosed would have to cost around US$90 billion a year.

On a per capita basis of course!

@Hippyhippybake

Your self confessed’rough’ calculation is incorrect .
We also don’t know how much the ‘royals’ are costing us for their travel and security .
Their wills are deliberately kept secret - most importantly to keep their vast wealth ( all taken from
the country ) a fudged number

Finally why on earth are you quoting ( nonsense ) in dollars ? Are you not in the UK ?

I’m in the UK but the most recent (and credible) available figures for taxpayers’ contribution to respective European Monarchies are published in US$, thus allowing for them to be compared.

Feel free to give me your “correct” number but you might want to look at the population numbers and relative costs of monarchies in the smaller European principalities / countries first.

Again, I don’t believe that any country publicly discloses the costs for security for the Head of State and their family but very happy to be corrected.

I think security costs to protect individuals in democracies around the world are not disclosed… the reason being I guess exactly what the critics are getting at which is that the response would always be “that’s too expensive, we shouldn’t spend all that on one person while Worthy Cause A, B, and C are happening” and then you have a spate of assassinations… protecting princes, prime ministers, presidents (and yes, their families too) at heightened risk all the same really. The way to save on security is to have fewer people who are targets, the way to have fewer targets is to become less important as a country.

Not entirely clear there’s a link there, counties as diverse as Sweden, Pakistan, Nepal, Lebanon, Libya, Serbia , Japan and the Congo have all had leaders / former leaders assassinated in the last few decades or so.

I agree that security expenses are probably not disclosed on cost grounds but also because it’s almost impossible to calculate. If you take a major state occasion, how do you divide up the security cost between protecting the head of state, other officials and the general public.

I think Japan is a bit of an anomaly though, they do have protection but not against firearms because violent/gun crime is so low in general

Re security :

The royals claim security costs for each of multiple palaces , for their extended family - 18 odd palaces are protected round the clock , empty or otherwise

So even security , which will be a cost for a President , is massively ballooned by the Windsors .
There is simply no argument here - the cost for the ‘royals ‘ is a complete rip off

And we have Epstein photographed on the throne - for a laugh. That’s what we are paying for

Only working royals have taxpayer funded security.

I don’t know what the list of Royal Palaces you are talking about is but by the number it seems to include palaces that are open to the public but not lived in by the Royals. So essentially a public building akin to Versailles or Schonbrunn.

There are very very many royal palaces, estates and properties that are not open to the public.

All around the world, even…

Actually I think almost all the Royal Palaces in the UK ARE open to the public at certain times. Struggling to think of any which aren’t. Obviously their privately held homes are not but Windsor, Sandringham, Balmoral, Holyrood, Buckingham Palace are.

The ‘royals’ present their cost as that of the sovereign grant .
As we have come to expect this is is being ‘economical with the truth’

Their finances are shrouded in secrecy- like their wills - because they know that they are useless shower and are just about getting away with it at the moment.

The wider picture of what they’d keep once they agree to go is no doubt being looked at now .
They do not own the crown estates nor do they own the Dutchies .
They will be esp keen to agree that they don’t own them once the back taxes bill is presented
Billions in unpaid taxes of various kinds is owed by the Windsors to the people
of the UK

https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

We are talking about our Royal Family and our country. And many European Royal Houses have far far less properties/castles/estates than us.

There are 27 properties throughout the UK. I would have to spend too long looking at who owns what with them. All of them of course require upkeep, security and staffing by us. On a round the clock basis I imagine.

Properties like Balmoral and Sandringham are not publicly funded in terms of staff and upkeep.

Don’t think there are any royal palaces which aren’t open to the public in the UK.

All of them of course require upkeep, security and staffing by us. On a round the clock basis I imagine.

Creating jobs. How utterly terrrible of them! 😀

To return to the thread topic -
what on gods green earth were they thinking making this public show of support for Andrew ?

So in the same week Willy can’t be arsed to fulfill his role as president of the FA but he WILL ensure the public see that the ‘royals’ support Andrew and DGAF what the public think .

They are really showing us where their priorities lie .

Two major gaffes in 7 days .
So either they are thicker than was ever thought or they don’t care what the public think - the ‘royals’ are absolutely fine with sex offenders and pedophiles .

Or possibly both .

So while Harry is showcasing Invictus internationally , Willy makes sure he’s photographed with Andrew AGAIN

The ‘royals’ are demonstrating, and a few of their more deluded supporters are echoing ( they’ve got the message and agree)

• Windsors support and value sex offender and friend to pedophiles Andrew but Harry is taboo because he confirmed a few open secrets ( and has kept many more to himself )

Kate is positively inching forward to make sure her smirk is captured in the photograph

And she let it be known she couldn’t even walk in the same bit of road as Meghan as Meghan was so unacceptable to her

I have no words

@Novella4 I agree.
I can't get my head round it at all

I get jt, you hate the Royal Family but why don’t you stick to actual facts? You may be able to persuade people of the Republican cause if you did so.

The hideous Andrew is not a convicted pedophile nor a sex offender - even the civil case didn’t allege either. The photo was taken on a private family trip to a church service as part of a private family holiday. Andrew does not receive any money from taxpayers.

It is almost always the case that families stand by those convicted of murder / rape and other vile crimes. I’ve yet to see any criticism of this as it seems that most people accept that you continue to love your son/father/uncle etc even if they have done awful things. Unless of course you’re Royal and then it seems you should cut them off entirely.

I don't see the big deal.

I do see the big deal but at the same time I think the real villain is Andrew - he has put everyone in an uncomfortable position. Everyone is coping with being piggy in the middle between feeling some duty of care towards a family member and what he’s accused of.

I don't see as anyone is not sticking to facts. He did not have to sit up front and centre with the heir to the throne.
It is sending out a message quite obviously.
The same as the Queen did days after the carcrash interview, going riding with him, and taking him to Church in the same car. Him grinning confidently.

He could've just sat in a back seat of a car. I have said numerous times, he is quite entitled to be with his family and to attend church. However, he does not have to sit next to William in the car knowing that picture would go everywhere. William did not have to allow that. Nor Charles.

Yes, I agree.

I think he is the sort of person to only think of himself. And knowing he is desperate, absolutely desperate, to resume duties, he will do anything to facilitate that whatever impact it has on his family.

I think he is the sort of person to only think of himself

I could not agree more!