A baby boy!

[boltonboris]

About £30m a year or something isn't it?

Not easy to quantify the amount they 'bring in' but they definitely add to the appeal of a tourist trip to London... alas so would a guided tour round Buckingham Palace.

Suppose there's thousands of folk making and selling tat & memorabilia though, so that's something for GDP!

It apparently cost £212m for the Royal Family in 2012. £46m of that coming from the tax payer. Approximately 60p per person per year. The rest coming from 'donations'. Probably for knighthoods and shit.

The birth of Georgey boy alone, is expected to bring £52m into the economy. So a profit, as far as tax payers expense is concerned.

[thebish]

they probably do make a profit in some sense - I think it is more than 60p per taxpayer - it might be 60p per head - but not every head pays tax...

as for the tourism income they generate "for the economy" - that doesn't all go back to the taxpayer - most of it goes to small businesses - and some of that will return as tax to the government - and an even smaller amount of that will be refunded to me via a tax cut! I'm probably still down on the deal!

[BWFC_Insane]

they probably do make a profit in some sense - I think it is more than 60p per taxpayer - it might be 60p per head - but not every head pays tax...

as for the tourism income they generate "for the economy" - that doesn't all go back to the taxpayer - most of it goes to small businesses - and some of that will return as tax to the government - and an even smaller amount of that will be refunded to me via a tax cut! I'm probably still down on the deal!

And there is still the question of how much tourism we'd use, by for example not having a royal family but having the whole of Buckinham palace open (for a charge) to the public.

I mean people still go to Pompeii even though there haven't been any actual Romans there for a long time.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And it's my argument that is teleological!

I think it's astonishing that anyone honestly thinks she owns these things herself!

Not only that, a quick Google says she owns Balmoral and Sandringham are hers, the rest are held as sovereign on trust for future generations, which sounds wishy-washy, but correct. In other words, she doesn't own Buckingham Palace herself.

Hey, what I am selling here is uncertainty, doubt and complications. I am 'astonished' that you think it's so clear cut, but am slightly in awe at the bravura confidence of a man who thinks this question can be disposed of with 'a quick Google'.

Even if I take what you have said at face value, that "the rest are held as sovereign on trust for future generations", I can't help but wonder what enduring meaning this has once you have disbanded the concept of the 'sovereign'!

[mrkint]

one could argue that, given that the royals give up the profits on the land to the Treasury, that they actually cover their costs more thank six times over


(but then you could argue 'BUT WHY DON'T THEY GIVE OVER THE PROFITS FROM THE DUCHIES?' and then moan about inheritance tax and then claim that there is a myth about tourism. You'd be wrong about the last, like, but good on you for having a go)

Someone more republically minded might point out that it isn't *their* land to be giving up the profits on. If we were to get rid of the monarchy Lizzie wouldn't be keeping Buckingham Palace.

I'm an absolute republican constitutionally. Beyond that I'm not really fussed either way.

Alright, Marat. Calm down.

[Prufrock]

And it's my argument that is teleological!

I think it's astonishing that anyone honestly thinks she owns these things herself!

Not only that, a quick Google says she owns Balmoral and Sandringham are hers, the rest are held as sovereign on trust for future generations, which sounds wishy-washy, but correct. In other words, she doesn't own Buckingham Palace herself.

Hey, what I am selling here is uncertainty, doubt and complications. I am 'astonished' that you think it's so clear cut, but am slightly in awe at the bravura confidence of a man who thinks this question can be disposed of with 'a quick Google'.

Even if I take what you have said at face value, that "the rest are held as sovereign on trust for future generations", I can't help but wonder what enduring meaning this has once you have disbanded the concept of the 'sovereign'!

I'm far from confident on the actual, real life legal front! As I say, it sounds wishy washy to me. It's from a .gov.uk website though, so it's hardly yahoo answers. I'm not sure the legal position could ever be clear though. I think getting rid of the monarchy would involve quite a bit of winging it! I doubt we'd be ringing up the land registry or dusting off the deeds.

Which is what I was getting at originally. It had never really crossed my mind that Elizabeth Windsor might actually own Buckingham Palace, or the Tower of London or any other. Given the public money spent on these places (how did George III pay for it out of interest?) they just seem 'ours'. Even if we accept BP, I just can't see a case for the Tower, or St James's being hers.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And it's my argument that is teleological!

I think it's astonishing that anyone honestly thinks she owns these things herself!

Not only that, a quick Google says she owns Balmoral and Sandringham are hers, the rest are held as sovereign on trust for future generations, which sounds wishy-washy, but correct. In other words, she doesn't own Buckingham Palace herself.

Hey, what I am selling here is uncertainty, doubt and complications. I am 'astonished' that you think it's so clear cut, but am slightly in awe at the bravura confidence of a man who thinks this question can be disposed of with 'a quick Google'.

Even if I take what you have said at face value, that "the rest are held as sovereign on trust for future generations", I can't help but wonder what enduring meaning this has once you have disbanded the concept of the 'sovereign'!

I'm far from confident on the actual, real life legal front! As I say, it sounds wishy washy to me. It's from a .gov.uk website though, so it's hardly yahoo answers. I'm not sure the legal position could ever be clear though. I think getting rid of the monarchy would involve quite a bit of winging it! I doubt we'd be ringing up the land registry or dusting off the deeds.

Which is what I was getting at originally. It had never really crossed my mind that Elizabeth Windsor might actually own Buckingham Palace, or the Tower of London or any other. Given the public money spent on these places (how did George III pay for it out of interest?) they just seem 'ours'. Even if we accept BP, I just can't see a case for the Tower, or St James's being hers.

It's all hers, all of England, every inch of Wales, the majority of Scotland (excepting the Isles which are her son's) and a large chunk of Ireland. Plus the Isle of Man and other bits where she owns the land, the sheep and the people. We just pay homage to her.

[bobo the clown]

If there's ever been a moot argument this is it.

We aren't getting rid, despite the volume of the anti brigade. Queen's and Kings, however revamped, will continue for way past the lifetimes of anyone on here.

Their benefit is not simply the money they bring in (which DOES outweigh their costs) but the fact that they are not a flavour-of-the-month elected version. They offer NO political challenge to the democratic Governments and despite some of the fringe players they generally just get on with the job.

If we had an elected one would that be a figurehead version (a-la Ireland) or one with power ,,, as in France or the US ?

Without shadow of a doubt if we had an elected one, since that we'd have had Thatcher, Blair (& fckg Cherie !!)).

Maybe Branson or Alan Sugar ? Boris ?? Vince Cable ? These days would you say Simon Cowell would have a fair shot .... and barely had they got into the role then the press and public would attack them. They'd have had a legitimacy the current bunch don't even pretend to have ... so they'd express their views, and have every right to. Controversy would be there on a daily basis.

Why the hell would we want all that ?

Isn't the devil we know better ?

[Prufrock]

That's true-ish. But not in any practical sense. Aaaand, and this is my point. It's the Crown's, not Elizabeth Windsor's.

Edit: that's to LLS

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

(how did George III pay for it out of interest?)

I don't know - because he inherited a f*ckload of wealth from George II?!

[boltonboris]

they probably do make a profit in some sense - I think it is more than 60p per taxpayer - it might be 60p per head - but not every head pays tax...

as for the tourism income they generate "for the economy" - that doesn't all go back to the taxpayer - most of it goes to small businesses - and some of that will return as tax to the government - and an even smaller amount of that will be refunded to me via a tax cut! I'm probably still down on the deal!

It actually said 60p per UK household, but the maths didn't seem to add up..

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I agree.
That's to Prufrock.

[Dujon]

Poor wee chap. Imagine being born into a job rather than just the usual family. Undoubtedly that job comes with certain perquisites, but what a price to pay for them.

When it comes to being a republic I guess my over all feeling is somewhat ambivalent. Just like the U.K. & N.I. the King or Queen of those nations is our head of state. I would love Australia to become a republic, I really would, however the replacement of the monarch as head of state with some other position is the sticking point. The dedicated republicans here have come up with some weird and wonderful options but they have all been somewhat lacking. We even had a referendum on the subject some years ago - the proposition was rejected out of hand by voters.

It is though an interesting situation: What if the UK pre-empts us and becomes a republic itself? All of a sudden we have no head of state, only a Governor General who represented the defunct monarch. Messy. Well, perhaps not. Australia has a constitution. It might well need a bit of tweaking to cover the changes. Governors General are generally appointed by the Prime Minister of the day and, theoretically, approved by the monarch. So, the monarchical approval is defenestrated. The Governor General becomes a guardian of the constitution and Bob's your uncle.

Would a similar structure work in the U.K.?

[Montreal Wanderer]

Poor wee chap. Imagine being born into a job rather than just the usual family. Undoubtedly that job comes with certain perquisites, but what a price to pay for them.

When it comes to being a republic I guess my over all feeling is somewhat ambivalent. Just like the U.K. & N.I. the King or Queen of those nations is our head of state. I would love Australia to become a republic, I really would, however the replacement of the monarch as head of state with some other position is the sticking point. The dedicated republicans here have come up with some weird and wonderful options but they have all been somewhat lacking. We even had a referendum on the subject some years ago - the proposition was rejected out of hand by voters.

It is though an interesting situation: What if the UK pre-empts us and becomes a republic itself? All of a sudden we have no head of state, only a Governor General who represented the defunct monarch. Messy. Well, perhaps not. Australia has a constitution. It might well need a bit of tweaking to cover the changes. Governors General are generally appointed by the Prime Minister of the day and, theoretically, approved by the monarch. So, the monarchical approval is defenestrated. The Governor General becomes a guardian of the constitution and Bob's your uncle.

Would a similar structure work in the U.K.?

Constitutional question. If the Queen ceased to be head of state of the UK, would she cease to be the head of state of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.? I'm not sure she would.

[Dujon]

I would suspect so, Monty. Of course this only refers to Australia and your legal system might well differ.

"1. The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is herein-after called "The Parliament," or "The Parliament of the Commonwealth. "

2. A Governor-General appointed by the Queen shall be Her Majesty's representative in the Commonwealth, and shall have and may exercise in the Commonwealth during the Queen's pleasure, but subject to this Constitution, such powers and functions of the Queen as Her Majesty may be pleased to assign to him."

______________

That, of course, was written during the reign of Queen Victoria and not that of QEII. To my way of thinking the lack of a monarch (of any gender) would leave Australia in a legal vacuum.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Poor wee chap. Imagine being born into a job rather than just the usual family. Undoubtedly that job comes with certain perquisites, but what a price to pay for them.

When it comes to being a republic I guess my over all feeling is somewhat ambivalent. Just like the U.K. & N.I. the King or Queen of those nations is our head of state. I would love Australia to become a republic, I really would, however the replacement of the monarch as head of state with some other position is the sticking point. The dedicated republicans here have come up with some weird and wonderful options but they have all been somewhat lacking. We even had a referendum on the subject some years ago - the proposition was rejected out of hand by voters.

It is though an interesting situation: What if the UK pre-empts us and becomes a republic itself? All of a sudden we have no head of state, only a Governor General who represented the defunct monarch. Messy. Well, perhaps not. Australia has a constitution. It might well need a bit of tweaking to cover the changes. Governors General are generally appointed by the Prime Minister of the day and, theoretically, approved by the monarch. So, the monarchical approval is defenestrated. The Governor General becomes a guardian of the constitution and Bob's your uncle.

Would a similar structure work in the U.K.?

Constitutional question. If the Queen ceased to be head of state of the UK, would she cease to be the head of state of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.? I'm not sure she would.

This came up in conversation over the weekend.
Apparently, Jamaica, New Zealand, and one of the other 15 realms has agreed that they don't need to change their constitutions to have a female as Queen before a male if George had been Georgina. The other 12 however are not so certain, and Canada is notoriously difficult to change its constitution, so theoretically in the next century, if not before, we may well have a Queen of the UK and some realms plus a King of Canada, Bermuda, etc.
Australia is even split down the middle with NSW stating its opposition to constitutional change and Queensland already ramming the changes through [or vice versa]

[Lord Kangana]

If they're so profitable, why do they need a public subsidy? Why not just privatise them like everything that's of any use in this country?

[Prufrock]

If they're so profitable, why do they need a public subsidy? Why not just privatise them like everything that's of any use in this country?

Well quite. They give back more to the state than they directly get. Well, so does anyone not employed in the public sector paying more tax than they receive in benefits or tax credits! They can still use the NHS; we could even pay them salary!

[thebish]

If they're so profitable, why do they need a public subsidy? Why not just privatise them like everything that's of any use in this country?

Well quite. They give back more to the state than they directly get. Well, so does anyone not employed in the public sector paying more tax than they receive in benefits or tax credits! They can still use the NHS; we could even pay them salary!

what do they give back to the state?

[Prufrock]

Haven't you heard? We get loads of money!