We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
benefit shakeup for the royals
Comments
-
firstinflight wrote: »Total royal expenditure paid for by the taxpayer in 2010 was £38m, of which £7.9m was the civil list. Most of the rest is maintenance on the palaces, which to be honest, we'd be paying for regardless of whether the royals lived there or not.
but if the royal palaces were in public hands they could be put to other (potentially more income generating) use. the costs would also be different. i don't know what counts as palace upkeep but i'm guessing a lot of servant expenditure and stuff that is relevant to keeping a royal household in them rather than just costs of keeping the windows free of woodworm.
hiring them out, opening them to the public or other uses could earn money that could pay for the upkeep.
do people really think we should be grateful to the royals for handing over the crown estate? the foreshore for example? what made it all theirs in the first place?Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
President Tony Blair.
Surely that's enough to defeat this little argument?0 -
Yeah, heaven forbid we ever get an elected head of state.
Shifting to a republic from a constitutional monarchy isn't necessarily going to improve life in the UK at all.
Parliamentary monarchy exists in such places as Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Norway, and the Netherlands - they seem to do alright.0 -
President Tony Blair.
Surely that's enough to defeat this little argument?
eh? don't quite get the logic of that. firstly tony blair would have to stand and be elected and secondly how would the monarch influence policy anyway.
as for the moderating influence of monarchy wasn't it the queen's grand daddy that was plotting with hitler to make the uk a nazi state?Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
eh? don't quite get the logic of that. firstly tony blair would have to stand and be elected and secondly how would the monarch influence policy anyway.
I was being fatuous to make a point
as for the moderating influence of monarchy wasn't it the queen's grand daddy that was plotting with hitler to make the uk a nazi state?
Not so much - he had sympathies with them but wasn't actively plotting.
Is that Godwin's law btw?0 -
but if the royal palaces were in public hands they could be put to other (potentially more income generating) use. the costs would also be different. i don't know what counts as palace upkeep but i'm guessing a lot of servant expenditure and stuff that is relevant to keeping a royal household in them rather than just costs of keeping the windows free of woodworm.
No need to guess when they publish accounts every year. The vast majority of the maintenance cost goes on things exactly like keeping the windows free of woodworm.do people really think we should be grateful to the royals for handing over the crown estate? the foreshore for example? what made it all theirs in the first place?
If we go down that route, then really, what makes anyone's property "theirs"?0 -
I was being fatuous to make a point
Not so much - he had sympathies with them but wasn't actively plotting.
Is that Godwin's law btw?
oh that's alright then. actually he was her uncle wasn't he? mind you her husband also had strong ties and was trained in the hitler youth curriculum (aryan myths and eugenics).
godwin's law? hard to avoid it when discussing the house of windsor.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
oh that's alright then. actually he was her uncle wasn't he? mind you her husband also had strong ties and was trained in the hitler youth curriculum (aryan myths and eugenics).
Although fighting in the Royal Navy for pretty much the entire war (he was comissioned in January 1940) kinda makes that irrelevant, if its even true, which I doubt it.godwin's law? hard to avoid it when discussing the house of windsor.
Are you implying they could have stopped Buckingham Palace having bombs dropped on it by making an international call to Berlin?0 -
Although fighting in the Royal Navy for pretty much the entire war (he was comissioned in January 1940) kinda makes that irrelevant, if its even true, which I doubt it.
Are you implying they could have stopped Buckingham Palace having bombs dropped on it by making an international call to Berlin?
i hardly count one bomb that shattered the windows as "bombing"....given the size of the target far more damage could have been done if it was actually a target.
i believe philip spent some of ww2 in the pacific but what exactly did he do to fight the germans?Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards