Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

[theoneandonly]

Many of them will prob do more for the country and it’s people than people like you ever will do - and that includes going into warzones , being part of search and rescue and saving lives.

People like me? Who are people like me?
You think I'm the only person in the country who doesn't care for the royals? I'm sure you post will still garner the likes you crave though .

 

[Blue in Munich]

To think some would get rid of the monarchy for the cost per year of a half a Titleist TruSoft is mind boggling

But it’s not that cheap is it? I I don’t know how much more than £1.29 it is as none of those opposed to keeping them appear to be able to tell us how much they really cost, but it’s definitely more… ?

 

[theoneandonly]

The direct line to the Thrown are all very respectable people,

Charles does his bit for charity and the planet

William did his service for search and rescue

Then let's look at the other options, elected leaders

Mixed bag

Obama, brilliant respectable man
Trump awful human being

Boris awful human being
Truss robot

At least the future kings and queens are brought up respectful and represent the country well rather than brought up to crave power and abuse it.

Doesn't change where the riches came from, but nice words.

 

[theoneandonly]

But it’s not that cheap is it? I I don’t know how much more than £1.29 it is as none of those opposed to keeping them appear to be able to tell us how much they really cost, but it’s definitely more… ?

That's because security costs are not published , as it could well compromise their security, but I'm sure you all know that.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Is being historically hysterical a thing?

 

[WGCRider]

Is the current Monarchy too costly for the UK

The above is the initial question posed.

Sovereign Grant circa £130m.

Return from the Crown Estate, up from £269m to £313m this year.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for the Platinum Jubilee, £80m.
Extra tourist revenue generated in London for William and Kate’s wedding, £35m.

Even Harry & Meghan generated an extra £200,000 in tourist revenue on Anglesey, in 1 week, where they had part of their honeymoon.

Are they too costly?

If the discussion is about a Republic ‘v’ a Monarchy, whatever, there won’t be an agreement between republicans and Royalists.

But are they too costly?

Those are some quality made up numbers!

Maybe all those instagram influencers asking for free stuff for "exposure" really are value for money.

 

[KenL]

Hopefully this thread is about to burn itself out......yawnsville.?

 

[Voyager EMH]

No and you know it.

The King himself is in favour of reducing the size of the the active Royal household.

I am not sure but I doubt if there needs to be a change in Law to reduce the number of the Royal Household. I imagine these things would be considered and recommended by a Parliamentary Committee, probably by the upper house ( Who ironically need a good culling IMO).

Opening of Civic Centres can be carried out by local dignitaries like Mayors or Aldermen who have been involved in the project.

Yes they can. But I doubt anyone involved in the project would pass on the opportunity for royal recognition and they would rail against being told not to seek it.

 

[oxymoron]

You like this gets spouted as some kind of gospel ?

https://forums.golfmonthly.com/thre...chy-too-costly-for-the-uk.113137/post-2549716

If youre happy to be ruled and look up to a bunch of chancers who's fortunes came from such things as slavery then you go for it.

It does make me laugh when the "fortunes from slavery" line is trotted out , i read recently an American chat show host was talking about the RF
paying compensation for their involvement in slavery until another expert\correspondent suggested we begin by looking at the local African chief's of the day who were actively rounding up their
subjects and selling them to european slavers , the conversation was shut down rather quickly .Ok the royals probably did profit but so did many others and this was in an era when we did not know better .
i think their charitable activities are at least going in the right direction .
I would rather my tax money go to the upkeep of the RF who in turn bring something to our table than it go in to the overseas grant pot that always looks like it disappears in to the pockets of local politicians .
Will probably be called racist for this but hey ho .

 

[BiMGuy]

Doesn't change where the riches came from, but nice words.

The lifestyle we all enjoy came from exploiting people from less well off countries. Which is still the case today.

Are you doing anything about it?

 

[Voyager EMH]

The lifestyle we all enjoy came from exploiting people from less well off countries. Which is still the case today.

Are you doing anything about it?

This is undoubtedly true.
But also is true that the lifestyle of many wealthy people mostly came from exploiting less well off people from our own country. And so it continues.

 

[theoneandonly]

The lifestyle we all enjoy came from exploiting people from less well off countries. Which is still the case today.

Are you doing anything about it?

Nothing and I'm also doing exploratory fracking wells in my garden.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Back to the original question.
No great reshuffle of residences apart from the King and possibly William, Kate and children.
The rest are staying put, as far as I know.
The land owned by the Royal family is mainly in the Crown Estate which is used to create an income. All profits go directly to the Treasury. Some is paid back out as The Sovereign Grant and the majority is kept by the Treasury to be used in the same way as tax revenue. The taxes we citizen pay are not needed to fund the monarchy.

I am not ill-at-ease with the way this works. It is all very visible and accountable. I am comfortable with the concept of the Crown Estate and how it operates as a nationalised industry. I would not like to see it, or parts of it, sold off to other wealthy people to make more money for themselves. All proceeds go directly to the Treasury and that is fine with me. I would also be comfortable with more such nationalisation where all profits go directly to the Treasury rather than only a small proportion of tax on those profits.

Now then, the Duke of Westminster's (non-royal duke) vast wealth and property empire with its links to Canada, Bermuda and Panama, and the small proportion of tax this contributes to the Treasury is a far more interesting subject than this thread.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Try reading it

I did. And i's the opposite, you've been spoon fed the whole UK has been lapping up MournHub, folks here saying the same, when all they're seeing is what they've been fed by two weeks of propoganda. Now that we have official viewing figures for the UK for eg, we can see that it wasn;t even the most watched event in British history, that's despite every channel being fixed to the funeral, folks still gave it a swerve. The issue with propoganda is that those falling for it don't realise they've fallen for it

 

[Swango1980]

I did. And i's the opposite, you've been spoon fed the whole UK has been lapping up MournHub, folks here saying the same, when all they're seeing is what they've been fed by two weeks of propoganda. Now that we have official viewing figures for the UK for eg, we can see that it wasn;t even the most watched event in British history, that's despite every channel being fixed to the funeral, folks still gave it a swerve. The issue with propoganda is that those falling for it don't realise they've fallen for it

Don't worry, you'll catch on one day I'm sure

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Indeed. What we have seen is a great show of respect from many for the late Queen - and for King Charles from those physically present and meeting him. Such respect does not necessarily translate into support for the Monarchy, as neither does liking most, if not all, of the immediate RF.

Exactly, one does not equal the other.

 

[chrisd]

The issue with propoganda is that those falling for it don't realise they've fallen for it

That's obviously because we royalists are all idiots, and you are far too clever to fall for it.


Or could it be the other way round ?

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Getting rid of the Monarchy will not eradicate the elitism that its built on.

Eltism will continue to exist without the Monarchy.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

That's obviously because we royalists are all idiots, and you are far too clever to fall for it.


Or could it be the other way round ?

The other way around? Pray tell where the coverage of republican views was this last fortnight eh?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Getting rid of the Monarchy will not eradicate the elitism that its built on.

Eltism will continue to exist without the Monarchy.

It will help greatly, cut off the head of the snake. The UK is far too beholden to people with a "posh voice", they don;t get posher than Mogg, and he's as dim as the victorian streets he's so desperate to bring back