The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #164126   Message #3926581
Posted By: GUEST,Observer
23-May-18 - 07:39 AM
Thread Name: Lyr Add: Royal Wedding (McLean)
Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
Of course you disagree with me Mr. McLean - you deal in lies and misrepresentation, I prefer the truth and the real world

From the thread below the line:

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:50 AM

The £30m figure is pure speculation, and includes the private costs which were paid by the Royal Family from their personal funds. The taxpayer paid only for security - the costs have not been published but for William and Kate's wedding were £6.35m BBC News   This is roughly the same as what it costs the Met to police football matches in London (they were able to recover only 5% of the costs) over which no one bats an eye.

The Sovereign Grant is paid for out of the profits of the Crown Estate, which in 2016/17 yielded £328.8m to the Treasury. In the same year the Sovereign Grant was £42.8m. It is due to nearly double, but that is due to the exceptional costs of carrying out essential repair work to Buckingham Palace (which belongs to the state, not to the Queen, and the work would need doing whether it is to house the head of state or turned into a hostel for the homeless). There are additional security costs in addition to the Sovereign Grant of around £100m but the total costs are still less than the overall return from the Crown Estate.

My point is that this costs the ordinary taxpayer nothing, and there is more than enough surplus from the Crown Estate income to cover the occasional exceptional cost of something like a royal wedding. That's without the tourist income the royal family attracts, estimated at around £550m. There may be very good reasons for preferring something different over a monarchy, but the cost should not be one of them.


So Jim your - The facts are simple: a disfunctional wealthy family living off the backs of taxpayers, only there because of history rather than personal endeavour. - Is a total falsehood:

They do not live off the backs of taxpayers (they are taxpayers themselves, who pay a great deal more in tax than you do Jim)

They are there as Head of State by invitation of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom and have been since the accession to the throne by King George I in 1714.

Best not talk about "facts" Jim until you find out what a fact is.