Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Do you know that it costs just as much to build and run ONE city academy, as it costs to keep the royal family?

    Tony Blair wants 200 academies, so thats almost 200 royal families.

    Really, the expenses for the royal family are superficial is we take into account all the other rubbish that our money is wasted on...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by markgg)
    I say we should stop paying for them full stop and take all their property. They still have a loada money to live on, if not they can go the departmenty of social security and get some cash. They might find it hard to fill in all those forms though.;
    How about I come and confiscate all your property? How would you feel about that eh?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    How about I come and confiscate all your property? How would you feel about that eh?
    Howard - the point is that most of the property they flit from place to place in, depending on the time of year, does not belong to them - it belongs to the people.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by beekeeper_)
    Jeez, much of the world would kill for a royal family that carries as such prestige as Britains...
    Never mind "would kill for a royal family" - many countries have killed their royal families!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Thatcher went into Europe because it would bring us more money not less...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Howard - the point is that most of the property they flit from place to place in, depending on the time of year, does not belong to them - it belongs to the people.
    How do you figure that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Never mind "would kill for a royal family" - many countries have killed their royal families!
    And then spent the following centuries under oppressive rule from their republican masters. If I recall, Russia wasn't notably more pleasant to live in after they bumped off the Czar. Nor Albania. Nor Spain. Nor France. etc etc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Howard - the point is that most of the property they flit from place to place in, depending on the time of year, does not belong to them - it belongs to the people.
    They are owned by the state (with the exception of Sandringham and Balmoral, and a few others) which I wouldn't exactly call the people...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    They are owned by the state (with the exception of Sandringham and Balmoral, and a few others) which I wouldn't exactly call the people...
    The state is supposed to represent the people - if we are democratic, that is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    The state is supposed to represent the people - if we are democratic, that is.
    Yes. But the realistic link between the State owning something and the people owning it is tenuous at best.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    Yes. But the realistic link between the State owning something and the people owning it is tenuous at best.
    Viva la Republique!

    On another note - it's so bloody hot here at the moment. I feel like I'm living amidst a Tennessee Williams play about a sultry night in the Deep South of the US! Is it hot there Howie?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    The state is supposed to represent the people - if we are democratic, that is.
    Perhaps, although I don't think that Tony Blair and the Labour Party represent me particularly well! However, I think that Howard and markgg's points were originally about land and money, which is a different story. The Prince of Wales has the Duchy of Cornwall as his private property (although the accounts are scrutinised by Parliamentary committees) and doesn't recieve any allowance from the state. He pays income tax on this. The Queen I think recieves revenue from the Duchy of Lancaster, and the money from the government is mostly for the upkeep of royal houses and palaces.
    But the Crown Estates technically belong to the monarch of the day, however he/she surrenders the revenue from it to the Treasury in return for the Civil List. The Crown Estates pay in much more money to the Treasury than goes out through the Civil List, about £450 million compared with £35 million. So therefore, the monarchy brings in a profit to the nation. If we abolished the monarchy, then we would have broken a contract with the Royal Family and they would be entitled to take the Crown Estates back into their own hands with the resulting loss of revenue to the Treasury.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Viva la Republique!

    On another note - it's so bloody hot here at the moment. I feel like I'm living amidst a Tennessee Williams play about a sultry night in the Deep South of the US! Is it hot there Howie?
    Very! And humid as hell. I'd say high eighties and humidy at 85%. Mind you, I am about a catapult shot from the mighty Mississippi river where I'm at so a body of water like that really makes the humidity worse. Dusty as hell too.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lord Waddell)
    Perhaps, although I don't think that Tony Blair and the Labour Party represent me particularly well! However, I think that Howard and markgg's points were originally about land and money, which is a different story. The Prince of Wales has the Duchy of Cornwall as his private property (although the accounts are scrutinised by Parliamentary committees) and doesn't recieve any allowance from the state. He pays income tax on this. The Queen I think recieves revenue from the Duchy of Lancaster, and the money from the government is mostly for the upkeep of royal houses and palaces.
    But the Crown Estates technically belong to the monarch of the day, however he/she surrenders the revenue from it to the Treasury in return for the Civil List. The Crown Estates pay in much more money to the Treasury than goes out through the Civil List, about £450 million compared with £35 million. So therefore, the monarchy brings in a profit to the nation. If we abolished the monarchy, then we would have broken a contract with the Royal Family and they would be entitled to take the Crown Estates back into their own hands with the resulting loss of revenue to the Treasury.
    I have no reason to doubt what you say as I know no better - I could find out but I'm too lethargic due to the sultry night!

    But I would like you to verify something for me - who owns 'Buck House'?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)
    Very! And humid as hell. I'd say high eighties and humidy at 85%. Mind you, I am about a catapult shot from the mighty Mississippi river where I'm at so a body of water like that really makes the humidity worse. Dusty as hell too.
    I found the west coast so much nicer for weather. Can't you move there?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I found the west coast so much nicer for weather. Can't you move there?
    No fear. Too many taxes.

    Unfortunately I need to go where the work is and that tends to be grubby little places.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I have no reason to doubt what you say as I know no better - I could find out but I'm too lethargic due to the sultry night!

    But I would like you to verify something for me - who owns 'Buck House'?
    I'm not sure. I think that there is some sort of hybrid arrangement that the state owns the place but the Queen pays for the upkeep and servants etc out of the Civil List, but this is based on a vague recollection of facts.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Howard)

    Unfortunately I need to go where the work is and that tends to be grubby little places.
    :eek: you're not a pimp in a bordello are you?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    But I would like you to verify something for me - who owns 'Buck House'?
    Tricky question. When it was originally bought it was the private property of George III. It was designated a royal palace early in the reign of Victoria, but whether it was sold to the Crown Estate, I'm not sure. Given that the Crown estate is the property of the reigning monarch however, basically it's the monarch's either way.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Chrism)
    Tricky question. When it was originally bought it was the private property of George III. It was designated a royal palace early in the reign of Victoria, but whether it was sold to the Crown Estate, I'm not sure. Given that the Crown estate is the property of the reigning monarch however, basically it's the monarch's either way.
    Curiosity got the better of me so I attempted to get a definitive answer to that question and this is the first link I came up with;

    http://www.republic.org.uk/news/news12.htm

    If you've got the energy have a peep and see what you can glean from it.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,803

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
Do you want your parents to be with you when you collect your A-level results?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.