Bob Arctor Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 that is a good point... i still cant understand the part that says "The money being used for the rewire replumb etc is from the Crown Properties Income, which goes to the government coffers. An increased allowance will be paid to cover the cost. In other words it is not coming out of your and my pocket unless we hire a crown property or pay admission to one." i know i am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but i dont get it Don't be hard on yourself Deano, it's complex and a bit arcane. The Crown Estate owns a lot of land and property, including a lot of farmland, grouse moors etc. The profits from this go to the Treasury, as is only right since a lot of this is land that used to be in common ownership before various monarchs took it for themselves over the years. Then the royals get a grant from the Treasury so that they can get by live in luxury, the rest is kept by the Treasury for general public spending. The amount of the grant is being doubled to pay for the refurb, so half of that is money that would otherwise have gone to general expenditure. I kind of buy the argument that if the building is not Part P compliant then this puts artworks at risk, but then the obvious solution to that is to move the artworks to public galleries and museums where they would be safer and where us plebs could see them. Including those tourists of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Our Monarch's home needs to be safe and secure for her safety and the safety of her family and visitors. Don't we all want that for our homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Our Monarch's home needs to be safe and secure for her safety and the safety of her family and visitors. Don't we all want that for our homes. yes.....but i wouldnt dream of asking you to spend your money on my house, if i couldnt afford it, then i would down size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 yes.....but i wouldnt dream of asking you to spend your money on my house, if i couldnt afford it, then i would down size But you aren't the Queen ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 But you aren't the Queen ! yes....you are right. but the same principle still applies, she should sell one of her other castles or land to restore the ones she wants to maintain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 (edited) Why? Money is obviously available. PS I note you have Don't go to Belfast at the bottom of your posts. Have you visited the Titanic Exhibition which is the biggest tourist attraction in Europe, the Crumlin Road goal museum or the Somme Centre. All well worth a visit if you go again. Edited November 20, 2016 by harvey19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Why? Money is obviously available. PS I note you have Don't go to Belfast at the bottom of your posts. Have you visited the Titanic Exhibition which is the biggest tourist attraction in Europe, the Crumlin Road goal museum or the Somme Centre. All well worth a visit if you go again. yup...unfortunately money will always be available... ps, No, i went to Belfast but unfortunately i was coerced by the company i was with to spend the whole weekend in the pub with them, most of it was just a foggy haze. i will have to back with my partner for a proper sight seeing experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Arctor Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Our Monarch's home needs to be safe and secure for her safety and the safety of her family and visitors. Don't we all want that for our homes. Of course we do, but the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, she could sell one of those to pay for the work. 120,000 children in the UK will be homeless this Christmas, in temporary accommodation, while millions of our money is being spent on rich people who have multiple homes, it's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 Why will 120,000 children be homeless in the U.K. this Christmas ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ECCOnoob Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 (edited) Of course we do, but the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, she could sell one of those to pay for the work. 120,000 children in the UK will be homeless this Christmas, in temporary accommodation, while millions of our money is being spent on rich people who have multiple homes, it's wrong. Would you sell your own house to pay for the upkeep of your place of work? I just cannot beleive some of the absolutely moronic and ill informed comments all over the press, social media and forums about this story. Its absolutely clear that 90% of the posters have no idea of what the Palace is used for and what it represents. Clearly people have no clue of how its financed or what impact that has on taxpayers. The Palace is the OFFICIAL RESIDENCE of the reigning monarch. IT IS NOT OWNED BY THE QUEEN. Yes, she lives there, just like the president lives in the white house and the PM lives in Downing Street and the soldiers and officers live in their Army Barracks or every other Prime Minister or Head of State lives in their own respective Official Residences during their terms of office.. It comes with the role. The palace is also a working building with offices of state, administrations, military and civil functions, the venue and accommodation for official state visits and formal ceremonies, a public attraction and barracks. We can kick her out and move her to her privately owned house but then what. What are we supposed to do will all those official operations that are still there. The building would still need repair and still needs a function. Despite what the moronic "off with their head" brigade chant. We have a monarchy. We have official state business around the world. They need a workplace and there needs to be somewhere where visting heads of state are accommodated and offical engagements run. What do some people want, an official visit taking place at the local Berni Inn and the Queen and officials working from some shared office complex in Luton. The crown estate has approximately 12 billion in assets and made over £304m profit last accounting year. The queen's cut of that is 15% with everything else going direct to us taxpayers. That put over £208m into the Treasury. Over the last 10 years the figures show over £2.4 billion has been generated and paid into the Treasury from the Crown Estates. Now, that % to the Queen is temporarily being incresed to maintain one of the CROWN ESTATE properties. You know, to keep it standing, to preserve it as part of the profit making Portfolio. Hardly seems an outrageous thing does it. Considering we have to year on year bail out the the flabby, mismanaged, wasteful, overused and overprotected bottomless pit called the NHS, I am very grateful for the money earned from the Crown Estates and certainly have no issue with their own profits being used to repair their own assets. "taxpayers paying to repair queen's house" my backside. Some people need to get a clue. Edited November 20, 2016 by ECCOnoob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now