BS: Time to sell the royal residences

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 07:06 AM

What do you propose instead of the monarchy? Let's see what kind of a fiasco you can dream up!!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: theleveller
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:50 AM

"Same old same old Leveller.

Got no genuine answer, attack the poster."


No, just attacking your profound and perennial ignorance and inclination to try to put across your opinions as facts. Easy target!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Jun 10 - 06:19 AM

The usual suspects I see - who should now be preparing their spreadsheets to recalculate their Child Tax credits!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 10:41 PM

Apparently the treasury gets all the surplus income from the Crown Estate - £1.8 billion in the last ten years. They appear to give back more than they take, and that's without taking into account all the employment they provide or the huge tax bills they pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:24 PM

I suggest that instead of watching Big Brother, you try watching a documentary or two. You know, the ones where you learn something.

There have been several made by the BBC on the subject of the queen's daily schedule, and given the BBC's heavy leftward slant, I wouldn't think they were going out of there way to favour her.

There were a number of comments from the production team about being knackered trying to keep up with her.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to believe any of that, after all, anyone who doesn't spend the day up to his elbows in dirt, and earns more than a dustman's wge is a lazy toff, isn't he?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 08:16 PM

Same old same old Leveller.

Got no genuine answer, attack the poster.

Heard it all before.

Have fun
Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:58 PM

I seem to remember the question was actually, "What do you know about crabs?"

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:39 PM

Someone's deleted the harmless anonymous guest post I replied to. For reference purposes, my reply was to the question, "When Adam delved and Eve span, who was wrong when the tree fell in the forest?"

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 07:00 PM

Rather as if the posts in this thread were analysed, and used as evidence that an overwhelming majority of people in the UK were in favour of scrapping the monarchy.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Smokey.
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 02:05 PM

It's given the originators a bit of free advertising. I don't think it was ever meant to be taken too seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: MMario
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:28 PM

Wow - 54% of 500 people...great national survey

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 17 Jun 10 - 01:18 PM

Adam?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 07:36 PM

I think describing 54% as "most people" has got to be some sort of wind-up..

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:57 PM

Some more details of this great survey from the link given in this thread's opening post:

"FindaProperty.com consulted 500 people for the study earlier this month. It invites people to join debates on this on Twitter and on Facebook..."

I'm not really too impressed by that kind of "study".

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Smokey.
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:25 PM

From the original article:

Royal properties such as Balmoral should be sold to help pay back national debt, a study of British sentiment suggested today.

The survey showed most people – 54% – would back the sale of royal residences to tackle the country's deficit.

It found such a sell-off could generate more than £2.2billion. Experts said Buckingham Palace, was the Queen's most valuable property. Estimates suggested it could raise £1.5billion, if it was sold off.

Balmoral on Royal Deeside, a favourite residence of the Royal Family, was valued at £115million. Windsor Castle was valued at £390.9million; Sandringham £125million, and Clarence House at £70million.

Property analyst Nigel Lewis said: "Selling these properties might only be a drop in the ocean in terms of tackling our national debt, but clearly people have taken the view that every little bit helps.

"The Government keeps telling us that we need to make major cuts to reduce the deficit and nothing is sacrosanct, so perhaps it's not implausible that a couple of royal palaces could be sold off to the highest bidder."

He said there would be "no shortage of interest", adding: "Russian oligarchs and Middle Eastern sheiks wouldn't hesitate."


I'd rather see those assets remain within the British economy. Selling them off would be like throwing money down the drain in the long term. However, 54% isn't exactly an overwhelming majority.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 02:08 PM

We beat the French to it by over 150 years. It's a pity we let them back in.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 01:49 PM

Actually Backwoodsman the bulk of the estimated £50 million security bill is NOT the time spent shadowing young royals and driving them home from nightclubs , but the fixed costs of guarding the number of royal residences with armed officers around the clock

In fact, neither of Princess Anne's children get routine cover because their mother considers it a waste of public money.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: MMario
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:18 AM

£13.9m Civil List purse, nearly £10m went on staff salaries

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:15 AM

How much does the USA spend on security for Pres. Obama and his family?
How much has the USA spent on security, years after they left office, for the Bush and Clinton families?
It's not the fault of the Royal Family, nor of elected leaders and their families, if terrorists and criminals wish to do them harm or use them as leverage for their nefarious ends.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Emma B
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 10:05 AM

Last December it looked as though the royals would have to follow MPs in adapting to the new age of open, accountable government. Freedom of Information cases such as looking at MP's expenses had shifted the default position from automatic secrecy for the powerful to the belief that power must be open and accountable to the people.

The Independent newspaper had just won a three-year battle for the disclosure of public subsidies paid for the upkeep of royal palaces.

The information commissioner ruled in favour of the Independent, saying:
"Disclosure … would enhance public awareness and understanding of the funding and accommodation arrangements of the royal household and this would be in the public interest." He went on: "The discussions relate to the spending of the Grant in Aid which is specifically in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of the Royal Household. In the commissioner's view, disclosure would not undermine the privacy of, nor the constitutional position of, the royal family

When some of the information was finally released in March 2010 the nature of the correspondence was much like that of MPs' expenses – it showed the only "harm" was embarrassment.
The palace was shown to be lobbying for more money while at the same time providing rent-free accommodation (grace and favour) to a number of minor royals and courtiers

The Independent published some of this information on Wednesday, 31 March 2010

It also acquired information that there was a £40,000 overspend in the refurbishment of the kitchen and coffee room of Windsor Castle.
The kitchen is used to prepare hot drinks for the Queen and her household.
The workmen uncovered voids under the floors which might provide "rat runs".
The refurbishment of York House (St James's Palace) led to an overspend of £99,000.


The total cost to the public of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5m to £41.5m in the 2008/9 financial year.
Of the £13.9m Civil List purse, nearly £10m went on staff salaries.
Housekeeping and furnishings cost £700,000 and ceremonial functions cost £400,000.
A further £1.1m was spent on catering and hospitality - within this, garden parties cost £600,000, while the cost of food and the royal kitchens came to £500,000

The cost of Royal travel, which is also paid by the taxpayer, increased by £300,000 from £6.2m to £6.5m

However, the £41m total does not include security provided by the police and Army or the ceremonial duties performed by the Armed Forces

Last year it was reported that
'A security review is under way over the cost of providing police protection for junior members of the royal family.
Scotland Yard officers have expressed concern over the bill, which experts estimate now costs £50m.'

For example
Princess Eugenie, the younger daughter of Prince Andrew, (described by the Daily Mail as a 'B list Royal') has two specialist officers constantly at her side; estimated to cost £250,000 a year - including salaries, accommodation, living and travel expenses
This will continue if she goes to study in the US as she has said she wishes to.
Her older sister, Beatrice, 21, also enjoys full-time protection. She is living in a four-bedroom apartment in the royal residence of St James's Palace while studying history at Goldsmiths, University of London.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: GUEST,Rotter
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 09:29 AM

By murdering them. Great mentality there mate. Trying to be funny? You need a brain for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Amergin
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:34 AM

The UK can always follow the esteemed traditions of the French....they got rid of their royalty in a very efficient manner.....

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:09 AM

Yea, but that's the French, Gervase. It's why we keen fighting them;-)

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 06:07 AM

Look at the French. Since they got rid of their monarchy they've had no tourist income at all. And just look at their royal palaces, once-magnificent buildings which are now crumbling and off-limits to everyone, not just the peasantry - Versailles, The Tuileries, Fontainbleau, what is now the Louvre; I could go on.
Heaven forbid that Britain ever goes down that road...

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Howard Jones
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 05:34 AM

£14 million sounds like a lot of money (it is a lot of money) but as a proportion of total government spending of £631 billion in 2009 it is a drop in the ocean.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 04:34 AM

If you worked for a company which insisted on paying your expenses at rates which existed in 2004, and as a result you were effectively having to pay nearly half out of your own pocket, I suspect you might be asking for an increase.

Well, the only expense I claim is my car mileage. Which has been the same rate since it was first published by HMRC in 2002. But that aside...

If my pocket contained five quid I probably would. If it contained several million and was constantly topped up by interest on monies inherited from an ignominious past I would think twice about making it public.


DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: theleveller
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:57 AM

Oh dear, Don, you've really fallen for the Windsor PR machine crap hook, line and sinker.

"selling off the tourist attractions which keep it alive"

Rubbish! York, the country's second most popular tourist city, has no 'royal' attractions . Come here any day throughout the year and you can hardly move for foreign tourists. Then there's Bath, Stonehenge, Trafalgar Square, the beautiful British countryside.... the list goes on an on. 'Visit Britain' hasn't even collated statistics on the monarchy as an attraction, which shows that it is not a key factor the the promotion of UK tourism. Suppose, for example, that Buckingham Palace was fully open to the public all year round, instead of just standing around outside - that would be far more of an attraction.

"I suspect that most of the people here who are constantly whingeing about the Monarchy would run a mile, if asked to work the hours that the queen does."

"she works a fourteen hours a day schedule"


What complete and utter drivel. Your evidence, please! To compare the royal lifestyle with that of police officers, nurses, doctors and many, many other hardworking people is totally absurd. The Windsors have no contracts of employment, no supervision, no appraisals. Quote from Mark Bolland, former press officer for Charlie: "the Windsors are very good at working 3 days a week, five months of a year and making it look as though they work hard."

If you're going to spout such crap, Don, perhaps you'd like to back it up with facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 03:23 AM

Lot of trimming in this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: GUEST,Rotter
Date: 16 Jun 10 - 01:25 AM

I love the smell of adolescent Republican bile in the morning - trying to turn us into an adolescent republican load of crap like America. Go Lizzie!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 09:06 PM

It would be interesting to know how much of their annual grant is providing jobs.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 08:49 PM

In June last year it was reported that

"Palace officials have told the Treasury they need the dramatic rise to the £7.9m grant because they are exhausting their cash reserves and cannot make further cuts in spending
Richard Bacon, a Conservative MP and member of the public accounts committee, said: "If there is to be a quid pro quo, there must be far greater access to Buckingham Palace.
The White House also has a head of state and security concerns, but is open most of the year round."

The £7.9m annual grant covers the cost of the official royal household, from banquets and furnishings to housemaids and footmen.
Accounts to be published tomorrow reveal the monarchy costs more than £40m a year in public funds, excluding security costs, which are thought to be about £50m per year.
Apart from the civil list, the palace receives government "grants-in-aid" for maintenance of the palaces and travel.

The Queen also draws on personal income from the Duchy of Lancaster.
The Crown Estate last year made a profit of £211m.

About 70% of the civil list money goes towards salaries and pensions for staff. It also pays for official functions such as garden parties, receptions and official entertainments.

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat MP, said: "It's hardly sensitive for one of the richest families in the country to be demanding millions of more pounds from the taxpayer when most people are struggling with household bills. I'm not convinced they have been prudent enough.
"If the royal family are convinced they are offering value for money, they should subject themselves to the freedom of information act like every other part of the public sector.
"Until there is that level of transparency, any rise should be resisted."

The palace has already appealed for an extra £4m a year from the culture, media and sport department to help pay for the maintenance of the occupied palaces, including Buckingham Palace and Windsor. They say there is £32m maintenance backlog.

The public accounts committee published a report last April which said that the royal palaces provided accommodation for 171 staff and pensioners.
An accountant to the privy purse, a press secretary and a Queen's page were among staff who enjoyed grace and favour homes on the royal estate when they retired."

Telegraph report


I think it is, at least, very disingenuous to conflate the likes of Windsor Palace, Clarence House etc with very limited opportunities for not inexpensive public visits, with the likes of Hampton Court or the Tower of London etc which are cared for by independent charities which receive NO funding from the Government or the Crown and pay their way as historical tourist attractions.

NOBODY has suggested these should be 'sold off' whatever some posters would have you believe!

To return to the origins of this thread not some predictable out of the pram hyperbole

"The suggestion that the Queen should do her bit by selling off some of her properties, valued at £2.2billion, reared its head in a survey, which revealed that 54% of people supported the sale of royal RESIDENCES to reduce the deficit.

It comes at a time when the cost of providing armed police protection for VIPs, including minor royals, is also being questioned."

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Smokey.
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 08:40 PM

Privatising historic buildings isn't much better in principle than privatising the Gas Board or the railways was. If, in this fantasy revolution, the Royals are to be condemned to the dole queue, then the residences should be administered by the National Trust. Personally, I'd leave the major Royals as they are, and skin down the Civil Service.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 08:00 PM

Look, we don't NEED 'em...which isn't to say that they don't try really hard to do their best...and have so little privacy that I would just hate to be one of 'em....BUT THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY.....and bloody expensive...and a distraction from what is important in politics. ( Good to see you back Lizzie, but you're backing the wrong horse this time xxx)

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 07:13 PM

If there were to be a real change in how the country worked, with a move to a genuinely egalitarian society in which there would be no place for extremes of wealth or poverty, I can't see much room for a hereditary monarchy.

But if it's just to be the same old system, with fat cats ripping us all off, and a privileged minority running the place, whatever the political label, I can't see that getting rid of the monarchy would be anything other than a pretty meaningless bit of stage-dressing, which wouldn't change anything signifiacant.

In fact, if I look around at those (more or less) democratic countries which have retained their hereditary monarchs, and those which have dispensed with them, on the whole I tend to prefer the former.

I see the royals essentially as a variety of lottery winners, and see no reason to feel particularly hostile to them any more than I do to other lottery winners. Lottery of birth, National Lottery - what's the real difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:51 PM

""She has never had to work because if she didn't the mortgage would not get paid, the children would go without clothes or she would starve.""

Absolutely true!

And yet, purely out of a sense of duty she works a fourteen hours a day schedule, which would have seen many a CEO, twenty years her junior, off with a heart attack.

Would you do as much? I doubt it.

The Royals are arguably the greatest facilitators of trade agreement with foreign countries, simply because they can talk to anybody without any political dimension to the discussion.

The queen personally manages all the business of running the Royal estates, and she is notoriously frugal, as anyone in the know will confirm.

If you worked for a company which insisted on paying your expenses at rates which existed in 2004, and as a result you were effectively having to pay nearly half out of your own pocket, I suspect you might be asking for an increase.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:38 PM

""Blackpool Pleasure Beach is the No.1 British tourist attraction.

I reckon they've forgotten there's a difference between an attraction which pulls in large numbers of English Lager Lout day trippers and a real Tourist attraction which draws in US dollars, Japanese Yen, and a multitude of other foreign currencies amounting to many millions of pounds sterling every year.

If you find that difficult to believe, go look at Buck House at eleven am weekdays, Tower Hill, Hampton Court, or Windsor Castle, and count the obvious foreigners.

I simply don't believe that Americans and Japanese come halfway round the world to visit Blackpool, or Alton Towers, when they have far better in the United States and Japan, and with better weather too.

In point of fact, I don't think you would find many in either country who have ever heard of Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:20 PM

Although there are beutiful historical buildings like Hampton Court Palace, a royal palace in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames in south west London; many are no longer occupied

Hampton Court has not been lived in by the British royal family since the 18th century; today, the palace is open to the public, and is a major tourist attraction.

It is cared for by an independent charity, Historic Royal Palaces which receives no funding from the Government or the Crown

However, the palace housed 50 'grace and favour' residences given to esteemed servants and subjects of the crown.
It was an elderly recipient of one such grace and favour apartment who caused a major fire, which spread to the King's Apartments in 1986.

I love this exchange in parliament in February 1968 by William Hamilton MP for Fife, West discussing expenditure on 'grace and favour' residences :)

"The Minister of Public Building and Works, who is the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), has 140 of these houses in his charge: 57 at Hampton Court, 43 at Windsor Castle, 16 at Kensington Palace, eight at Marlborough House Mews, nine at St. James's Palace, three at Buckingham Palace, one at Kew Palace and one at Hyde Park. These residences are entirely at the disposal of Her Majesty the Queen.
They are granted to members of the Royal Family, to persons who have rendered special service to the Crown, and, at Hampton Court, to widows of men who have rendered special service to their country.
I could give some examples.
One was given to Sir Alan Lascelles, the Queen's former private secretary. At that time, he was a director of the Midland Bank.
I do not think that he is now, but I took the trouble to look at the figures and I found that, in 1967, the Midland Bank had 25 directors, with total emoluments of £160,000.
This was a fellow who was living rent free, at the taxpayers' expense.

There was a piece in the Daily Express at the time: At Hampton Court Palace, the Queen is running a rather superior widows' home, choosing the tenants herself from widows of men who distinguished themselves in some form of service for the country.
It then cites certain examples.
There is a Post Office engineer who managed to get one of these houses by falling in love with and marrying Princess Margaret's maid.

I was so intrigued and excited by this marvellous instrument for awarding rent-free houses to those who had rendered valuable service to the nation that I wrote to Her Majesty on 14th July, 1964.

I raised the matter with my constituency party and, with the permission of the people concerned, I gave to Her Majesty the Queen the names and addresses of two retired miners and their wives in my constituency.
I pointed out that they had been 50 years in the pits.
They had been in much greater danger than a lot of the military men who had got these houses.

Both couples were living on their pension. Each of them seemed to me to have a cast-iron case for retirement with rent-free leisure. I was full of expectation when I received a letter from the Palace, dated 17th July—no delay in replying:

§ "Dear Mr. Hamilton,

§ "I am commanded by The Queen to thank you for your letter of 14th July on the subject of the allocation of Grace and Favour Houses.

§ Yours sincerely,

§ M. E. Adeane."

The Chairman Order. It is not in order to bring a communication from or on behalf of the Monarch into the debate. "

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:18 PM

""the state-owned royal residences should be sold off to raise an estimated £2.2 billion to help towards the national debt.""

Yeah! That really makes sense.

First Brown the Prudent sells off the gold reserves which used to back up the value of the pound, and at the lowest gold price for half a century.

Second the bankers screw up the system and cause all this trouble.

Third, some bright spark wants to destroy the one remaining steady moneyspinner, by selling off the tourist attractions which keep it alive. And, FYI, these residences do not belong to the Windsors, they are the property of the nation (that's us), yet, in addition to the civil list, the queen tops up the maintenance cost out of her own money, and pays millions in taxes.

I suspect that most of the people here who are constantly whingeing about the Monarchy would run a mile, if asked to work the hours that the queen does.

I can't believe that anybody would be stupid enough to want to replace our apolitical head of state with an elected political party hack. The whole point of a constitutional Monarch is that he/she is politically neutral.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Ed T
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:12 PM

Maybe, it's time to sell the Royals....But, didn't "Fergie" try to do that recently?

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Emma B
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 05:55 PM

'Occupied' Royal palaces and residences in the United Kingdom

Bagshot Park · Balmoral Castle · Birkhall · Buckingham Palace · Clarence House · Gatcombe Park · Highgrove House · Hillsborough Castle · Holyrood Palace · St. James's Palace · Kensington Palace · Llwynywermod · Royal Lodge · Sandringham House · Thatched House Lodge · Windsor Castle

Thatched House Lodge sounds terribly quaint and English but is described as -

"A royal residence in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames in London, England.

The main house has six reception rooms, six bedrooms, and stands in four acres (16,000 m²) of grounds.
The gardens include an eighteenth century two-room thatched summer house which gave the main house its name.

Since 1963 Thatched House Lodge has been the residence of Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy.
It was acquired by her late husband, Sir Angus Ogilvy, on a lease from Crown Estate Commissioners following their marriage

The house was used by various members of the Royal Household, including General Sir Edward Bowater, and General Lynedoch Gardiner, respectively Equerry to the Prince Consort and to Queen Victoria. Later Thatched House Lodge became the home of Wing Commander Sir Louis Greig (equerry to King George VI, when he was Duke of York), and then the Duke of Sutherland.
It was the London home of U.S. General during the Second World War"

Well hey! I've heard of Dwight D. Eisenhower! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 03:50 PM

The Crown settled estated did belong to the Crown before the Crown settled them on trustees and now a trust corporation.

Poundbury is an admirable modern mirror to the benevolent estates of the past - Cadbury for example, and while not perfect is vastly better than the inner city estates (and wealthy gated ghettoes) that capitalism have given us.

On the Chelsea Barracks site, the only fault of Bigears is that he did not go far enough. All of the development proposals are vulgar vulgar vulgar. Architects are almost as insensitive to the broader environment as farmers.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 10:27 AM

and you cannot fault her for that.

Yes I can...

No scandal, no retirement,

Not having to abide by the same retirement rules as everyone else is a scandal in itself. But that aside some of the biggest scandals to ever hit the country have been instigated by the monarchy. I am sure I don't need to point them out.

and even now, I'm sure her work schedule is probably far greater than yours has ever been.

I have as much idea of her workload as someone who does not know me has of mine. One thing I am sure about though. She has never had to work because if she didn't the mortgage would not get paid, the children would go without clothes or she would starve. As I would. She has never been told to 'fix that problem or don't bother coming back', as I have. And she could step down whenever she wanted to. I will have to go on until I can afford not to.

Having said all that I have not once suggested that we abolish the monarchy. Far from it. I am just suggesting capitalising what we have by getting in a third party that can manage it far better than we ever could, without it being a drain on the country.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 09:23 AM

I wonder what the financial benefits would be if we abolished the entire monarchical system and sold off all the royal family's assets. Probably a damned sight more than could be acheived by hacking public services to pieces.

I wonder what the physical benefits to the populace would be, once we were able to stand up straight without the entire royal family on our backs.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Will Fly
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 08:46 AM

If we must have a monarchy, as opposed to an elected head of state, then why can't it be modelled, financially and philosophically, on the same basis as - say - the Dutch monarchy. The whole monarchy in that country is far more informal. Apart from the monarch, the monarch's consort and the heir-apparent - who are forbidden by law from having jobs, and whose stipends are index-linked to Civil Service salaries - the rest of the family have to work like anyone else, and no-one is tax exempt.

Monarchy Lite, eh? That's the ticket! Not the bloated sideshow we have in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: theleveller
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 07:10 AM

"The Divnie Right of Kings, is no less than the Divine Right of Folkies, who also assume that God is on their side, giving them the right to lop of the heads of anyone they disapprove off..."

Not true. When did you last see a headless banjo or melodeon player? However, come the folk revolution..........

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 06:21 AM

"A ludicrous generalisation. My younger son is doing a a History & Politics degree. He is certainly 'bovvered' and, at 19, I bet he knows a damn sight more about history than you do - or ever will. For someone who is so anti the educational system, you are pretty quick to arrogantly condemn people as 'fik'. That, I have to say, is an epithet that could just as easily be applied to you."

Nah, levells, you wanna come to Torquay! They don't give a bloody fig for history down here, most of the kids wouldn't know what a royal palace even is...

Just the other day I spoke to two people, on seperate occasions...one was a lovely young lad out on the streets promoting Amnesty International. He was *staggered* that so many people he'd spoken to i this town, particularly the young people, had never heard of Amnesty, nor wanted to know a thing about it.

The woman from Greenpeace said similar things, except that she'd got verbal abuse hurled at her as well.

Trust me, there are 'pockets' of this country where folks truly don't want to know anyfink about anyfink, unless it's yer football, yer drinkin' or yer new chav dog. Down in Torquay Chav Dogs rule, all dressed up in their studded collars to make 'em look even tougher...

Obviously I 'generalise' when I write. I thought you were edukated enuff to understand that.

It's interesting that everyone's now trying to deal with the mega alcohol problem this country has, when for so long you've been telling me that it doesn't even exist...

Hmmmmmmmmm........

Tell that to the Street Pastors down here, who every Saturday night go out onto the streets around the Harbour from midnight to 4am, to pick the kids off the floor, give them some donated warm cardis or jerseys to put on, to keep them warm, as they're almost suffering hypothermia, due to the amount of alcohol in their bodies..They ring their parents up, get them to come and take them home, so they don't get into some awful trouble.

The Street Pastors are a Christian Organisation, you know, those Evil Bastards that so many Mudcatters hate for daring to believe in God and trying to make the lives of others better, with their kindness and compassion..


Poundbury's a lovely place, imo...and Prince Charles knows a helluva lot about architecture and how bad architecture affects those who have to live inside it and around it. He could, of course, just sit on his throne all day long, but instead, he's chosen to try and make a difference in the lives of many...and he's succeeding in that.

The Divnie Right of Kings, is no less than the Divine Right of Folkies, who also assume that God is on their side, giving them the right to lop of the heads of anyone they disapprove off...

Ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Stu
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 04:50 AM

"He got the youngsters to design and create their own building."

As long as it conforms to his own anachronistic and backward architectural viewpoint no doubt. Take a look at Poundbury; a chocolate-box Kinkade-like approximation of an rural idyll that only exists in the minds of those whose family never endured the rigours and hardships (let alone the back-breaking work) that ordinary people had to.

His intervention into the development at Chelsea Barracks was not only ill-judged (the man knows bugger all about architecture it seems) but also demonstrated his lack of accountability and his hatred of the democratic process. By going over the heads of all the public bodies appointed and personally appealing to the Qatari Royal Family, who subsequently pulled the plug because of his intervention it seems Charles has learnt sod all about where his place in society should be - his namesake Charles I suffered from similar delusions and whilst chopping the old scrote's head off is a bit much, he should have the humility and respect to keep his gob shut and let the planning process proceed unhindered.

The Royal Family might bring in the tourist dollars and certainly are a big part of the mucky myth of 'Britishness' that sells so well to foreign visitors but in reality their privileged upbringing has bog all to do with the ordinary working people of this country. Our history is far richer and represents a struggle against in spite of the values shown by Chaz et al.

Leveller has it spot on; The Levellers, The Diggers and people like Lillburne and Winstanley are the measure of the people these Islands can produce not the cosseted, wealthy blue-bloods who sit in their palaces and dabble in the affairs of honest, working people.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: theleveller
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 04:17 AM

"Today we have a population that knows not a great deal of our past, neither are they bovvered"

A ludicrous generalisation. My younger son is doing a a History & Politics degree. He is certainly 'bovvered' and, at 19, I bet he knows a damn sight more about history than you do - or ever will. For someone who is so anti the educational system, you are pretty quick to arrogantly condemn people as 'fik'. That, I have to say, is an epithet that could just as easily be applied to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 03:46 AM

Red and Gold are royal colours,
Peasant colours are Green and Brown
Green is the corn in the Brown earth when it's growing
Red and Gold when the harvest is cut down.

Ralph McTell

Subject: RE: BS: Time to sell the royal residences
From: theleveller
Date: 15 Jun 10 - 03:40 AM

"Oliver Cromwell became far more dangerous to 'the liberty, society and public industry' of his people...."


Far more dangerous than whom? Charles I? I don't think so. I'm afraid your history is a little shaky. John Lilburne suffered under both and he certainly didn't want the return of the monarchy. Had the ideas of The Levellers been adopted instead of those of the Presbyterian landed squire class to which Cromwell belonged, things would have been far more equitable. Read 'The Agreement of the People' and 'England's New Chains Discovered'. And after the Restoration...hmmmmm. Try reading Skinner 'Liberty Before Liberalism' and Hill's 'Liberty Against the Law'...oh, and Cobbett's 'Rural Rides'. That will give you a far better insight into affairs as they really were before, during and after the Commonwealth.


"But if, Leveller, it leads to the American constitution, do you really want to go there?"

It's not the Constitution that's the problem (although, of course, we would need to frame our own), it's the interpretation and application which have allowed the greedy, self-seeking, bigotted and power-crazy to flourish unchecked.

"Your argument about George giving the Crown Estate back is circular."

Neverthless, the fact remains that the Crown Estate and its revenues do not belong to the monarch, as this, taken from the British Monarchy website, shows:

"The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.

The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profits from the Estate is (sic!) paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate's overall business plans and strategies.

The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion,"