The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Increased funding for Royal Family

£369bn will be spent on refurbishing Buckingham Palace during the next 10 years. Meanwhile food bank use is at a record high.

The money should be spent on tackling homelessness, poverty and other social issues in the UK. Not on a bunch of irrelevant lizards who serve no purpose and contribute nothing to the UK. And before anyone says 'Tourism money!!1!1', no tourists come to see the Queen and the royal family. They come to see royal buildings. So to set aside money on improving the Queen's already lavish lifestyle is a complete waste.
(edited 7 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

I see the £10bn a year which Farage claims we have at our dispense not being sent to the EU is being used wisely to benefit the people of this country.
Reply 2
Avatar for Dez
Dez
20
The refurn is £369 million, not billion. You just over-inflated the figure by 1000x. In reality this is a drop in the water in terms of UK budget. It's also being funded out of the money already being paid back to the Treasury from the Crown, which is in fact more than enough to cover the cost of the refurb.
Original post by Dez
The refurn is £369 million, not billion. You just over-inflated the figure by 1000x. In reality this is a drop in the water in terms of UK budget. It's also being funded out of the money already being paid back to the Treasury from the Crown, which is in fact more than enough to cover the cost of the refurb.

Ah. Didn't read it right. Apologies. Still don't think the royal family should receive any taxpayer funding.
Reply 4
Avatar for Dez
Dez
20
Original post by ClockEnderAFC
Ah. Didn't read it right. Apologies. Still don't think the royal family should receive any taxpayer funding.


They aren't, the money is coming from assets owned by the Crown.
If we became a republic it is very likely that Buckingham palace would remain in public ownership and this money would be spent anyway...
It's Children in Need today
Reply 7
Avatar for viffer
viffer
16
Original post by ClockEnderAFC
£369bn will be spent on refurbishing Buckingham Palace during the next 10 years. Meanwhile food bank use is at a record high.

The money should be spent on tackling homelessness, poverty and other social issues in the UK. Not on a bunch of irrelevant lizards who serve no purpose and contribute nothing to the UK. And before anyone says 'Tourism money!!1!1', no tourists come to see the Queen and the royal familyThey come to see royal buildings. So to set aside money on improving the Queen's already lavish lifestyle is a complete waste.


Aren't you in some way contradicting your own argument :smile:
The royal family receive around 20-30 million per year. The land they own generates money (about 150 million per year from rent and usage of it etc), all of which goes to the government due to an agreement signed. Simple maths says they produce more money than they're given.

Furthermore, there's the economic benefit of tourism due to the royal family, which can be valued in the billions.
Original post by ClockEnderAFC
£369bn will be spent on refurbishing Buckingham Palace during the next 10 years. Meanwhile food bank use is at a record high.

The money should be spent on tackling homelessness, poverty and other social issues in the UK. Not on a bunch of irrelevant lizards who serve no purpose and contribute nothing to the UK. And before anyone says 'Tourism money!!1!1', no tourists come to see the Queen and the royal family. They come to see royal buildings. So to set aside money on improving the Queen's already lavish lifestyle is a complete waste.


It is disgusting! Wouldn't we all love to scrounge off the public when we need a make over at home. £369 billion of our money when the NHS is close to collapse, the disabled are having their benefits withdrawn, the unemployed being sanctioned for petty mistakes, people are homeless, and we have to pay for Buckingham palace repairs?

Make the Royal family pay their own bloody bills!
we should get rid of the royals in the same way parliament did in 1649. the old fashioned way.
Original post by ClockEnderAFC
Ah. Didn't read it right. Apologies. Still don't think the royal family should receive any taxpayer funding.


Excellent, we can stop their overtaxation then too, or do you want to keep that bit?
the only things holding our Nation together are the NHS & the Royal Family.
Original post by the bear
the only things holding our Nation together are the NHS & the Royal Family.


The assorted Acts of Union disagree :tongue:
Actually the Royal Family do bring in tourism money. Buckingham palace isn't the biggest or best palace in the world, but having a history that can be seen even today makes it all so appealing to the Chinese tourists you see crowding around the gates. I think we should pay the Main Royal family 100k or so each, good money for doing nothing, and we use Buckinham Palace as one wing a hotel, say 2k a night, with conference rooms, and the rest a massive museum, with places blocked off where the Royal Fmaily live. We convert all the other castles and palaces to hotels, sell them or make them into museums, and do this until we finish off all of their palaces and homes. They get one area, in Buckinham Palace and we exploit the history of the rest of the land. We use the money we pay the Royal Family to go to emergency services and to disabled and pension benefits. Then we enforce all prisoners to work in factory style work to earn money for their family and to fund the prisons they are in. Then we can cancel out the problems of being unable to afford prison guards, which is also helped by making cells smaller and prison life very harsh and strict,
I read online that all state owned or crown estate palaces are all national heritage sites and as such, would be maintained regardless of whether the monarchy still existed or not.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by AlexS101
If we became a republic it is very likely that Buckingham palace would remain in public ownership and this money would be spent anyway...


Yes. I'm all for keeping nice looking historic buildings going. But the difference there is that we have public ownership. I'm not happy about paying all that money for a someone's flipping house.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Yes. I'm all for keeping nice looking historic buildings going. But the difference there is that we have public ownership. I'm not happy about paying all that money for a someone's flipping house.


Well all palaces, other than Balmoral and Sandringham, are part of the 'Crown Estate' and are not the private possessions of the royal family and belong to the state. They are publicly owned, and that is one reason you can visit Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle etc.. This is also the reason the government is planning to finance the maintenance too, because as publicly owned buildings, the government is responsible for their upkeep.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Yes. I'm all for keeping nice looking historic buildings going. But the difference there is that we have public ownership. I'm not happy about paying all that money for a someone's flipping house.


So if I put somebody in every building in the country you would demand preservation should stop? Should we let number 10 fall into disrepair, or otherwise fail to maintain it because it's the official residence of the PM? How about Chevening, I doubt many Foreign Secretaries could afford to maintain that themselves, although it should certainly be easier with three cabinet level salaries using it.
Honestly, this makes me so sick!!! Disgusting. Privilege smh

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you