[Rastus Pieface]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

What counts as directly or indirectly? Wouldn't they continue to perform charity work as independently wealthy private citizens?

no-one can answer your 2nd question. do all other independently wealthy private citizens perform charity work?

i can't answer your first question as i have not seen figures broken down into directly or indirectly. but this is irrelevant as 131 million quid is not to be sniffed at, is it.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Rastus Pieface

no-one can answer your 2nd question. do all other independently wealthy private citizens perform charity work?

i can't answer your first question as i have not seen figures broken down into directly or indirectly. but this is irrelevant as 131 million quid is not to be sniffed at, is it.

No, but a great many do.

Indeed, £131 million is absolutely not to be sniffed at - but I very much doubt that that money is contingent A) On Prince Charles' involvement and B) On Prince Charles being a Prince.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Doc Shmok

The British monarchy is not only good for tourism. It as advert for the class system. Rich people all over the world buy British assets to get a bit of class flair. Loads of super expensive property is sold off.

Source: Made in Britain

How is the British monarchy 'good for tourism'? Do you seriously believe that tourists come here 'to see the royal family'? Do people go to Amsterdam because of Queen Beatrix? Would less people come to see a Buckingham Palace that was fully open to the public?

I don't think our entrenched class system is something we should really want to advertise.

[welwynrose]

Maybe the government should stop asking him to perform official duties until he becomes Head of State

[Rastus Pieface]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

No, but a great many do.

Indeed, £131 million is absolutely not to be sniffed at - but I very much doubt that that money is contingent A) On Prince Charles' involvement and B) On Prince Charles being a Prince.

i think you've answered your own question (and possibly shot yourself in the foot).

can you name one independently wealthy private citizen who raises more (directly or indirectly) than Prince Chalres, in the UK?

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Rastus Pieface

i think you've answered your own question (and possibly shot yourself in the foot).

can you name one independently wealthy private citizen who raises more (directly or indirectly) than Prince Chalres, in the UK?

I'm not saying he doesn't use charity to raise money - he lends his name to a lot of things. My point is that he would retain his dubious celebrity status if his title were abolished. If he so wished, he could also go on to encourage people to donate (assuming, of course, he is genuinely passionate about charity and is not only doing it to appease the public). J. K. Rowling is a noted philanthropist and personally donates a considerable sum to various charities. However, the media are not ingenuous enough to give her credit for the sums generated by charities which she is indirectly linked to or even of which she is/was the ambassador. Much of the charitable revenue which Charles seems to be being credited with he has simply lent his name to. The actual revenue is obviously generated by the public and far more reliant on the charities' infrastructure.

[GreenJellyJam]

I was supportive of the Royal family now I've done a complete turn around after seeing how much they cost. Charles has his own money and private estates, why doesn't he use that?

To think of all the cuts we have to endure and they get paid that much, the only person who should be looked after is the Queen not the rest of them.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by GreenJellyJam

I was supportive of the Royal family now I've done a complete turn around after seeing how much they cost. Charles has his own money and private estates, why doesn't he use that?

To think of all the cuts we have to endure and them let get paid that much, the only person who should be looked after is the Queen not the rest of them.

One of the most appalling things I can recall is the present Queen's legal avoidance of inheritance tax on her mother's estate - a dodge which saved her £20 million. Surely a conscientious Head of State would have decided to contribute? The most shocking aspect of it all was the excuse:

"This was agreed with former Conservative Prime Minister John Major in 1993.

He accepted it in recognition of the need for the sovereign to avoid erosion of the Royal Family's wealth."

The nation misses out because the royals absolutely have to maintain their wealth. Would that we could all legally choose not to pay certain taxes because we don't want to 'erode' our wealth.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

How is the British monarchy 'good for tourism'? Do you seriously believe that tourists come here 'to see the royal family'? Do people go to Amsterdam because of Queen Beatrix? Would less people come to see a Buckingham Palace that was fully open to the public?

I don't think our entrenched class system is something we should really want to advertise.

I dont get why people are so obsessed with Buckingham palce being open completely, it is a working palace and used by the goverment for many functions as well .

We have those that those that say we should have a President and insinuate that that would mean the Palace could be open year round , well France has a President who has 6 official residences . The Élysée Palace is open to the public one day a year and then there is no guaranteed entry , in comparison Buckingham Palace is open for approx 3 months a year .

[Apple_Crumble]

Originally Posted by GreenJellyJam

I was supportive of the Royal family now I've done a complete turn around after seeing how much they cost. Charles has his own money and private estates, why doesn't he use that?

To think of all the cuts we have to endure and they get paid that much, the only person who should be looked after is the Queen not the rest of them.

Welcome to the club, GJJ.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by GreenJellyJam

I was supportive of the Royal family now I've done a complete turn around after seeing how much they cost. Charles has his own money and private estates, why doesn't he use that?

To think of all the cuts we have to endure and they get paid that much, the only person who should be looked after is the Queen not the rest of them.

He risks quite a bit for others as he did with Dumfries House , which was to help an area which was on its knees.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-of-Wales.html

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by skp20040

I dont get why people are so obsessed with Buckingham palce being open completely, it is a working palace and used by the goverment for many functions as well .

We have those that those that say we should have a President and insinuate that that would mean the Palace could be open year round , well France has a President who has 6 official residences . The Élysée Palace is open to the public one day a year and then there is no guaranteed entry , in comparison Buckingham Palace is open for approx 3 months a year .

Why would a British republic have to follow in France's footsteps? Rather, I'd say we should learn from others' mistakes.

Buckingham Palace should be fully open all year round because it is clearly not meeting its full potential. One often sees tourists having pictures taken outside the gates, but actual paying visitors are, at present, so few that the place doesn't even make it into VisitLondon's Top 20 attractions. This would likely change if it was decommissioned and fully open to paying visitors (a la the Tower of London). It's not the prettiest palace in the world, but it has a lot of historical value - it rather encapsulates Victorian London.

[kimindex]

@RepublicStaff

clarencehouse says Charles's travel an "investment" - last year he billed taxpayers £30k for return flight to Balmoral for private holiday

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by skp20040

He risks quite a bit for others as he did with Dumfries House , which was to help an area which was on its knees.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-of-Wales.html

I wonder if, out of interest, that £20 million came from lands of the Duchy of Cornwall (which fund British Princes of Wales).

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

I wonder if, out of interest, that £20 million came from lands of the Duchy of Cornwall (which fund British Princes of Wales).

It was borrowed via a bank loan whilst he looked for donations, ITV did a documentary on it to show the progress and the training and employment of local people etc .

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by skp20040

It was borrowed via a bank loan whilst he looked for donations.

Thank you. Cheeky monkey that he is!

[Mrs Niceness]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

You are aware that the Queen didn't pay tax for the first forty years of her reign, only pays it now on a voluntary basis and avoided paying inheritance tax on her mother's estate? Or is that kind of tax evasion perfectly acceptable?

I remember that and wasn't the old mother owing over 3 million a few years before she died, but royals and government didn't want to worry her as she was an old woman so they let it go.

Was it ever paid back I wonder.

[rusty123]

Originally Posted by Mike_1101

The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).

So even at that top end estimate that's less than the price of one solitary Big Mac per person per year (no fries or coke) and for that we get all that spectacle when they wheel the bling out, we attract loads of tourists and it supports hundreds if not thousands of livelihoods that would feed back into the economy and reduce that liability.

If you saved that money instead it would take you about twenty five years to buy one poxy match ticket for certain seats at Stamford Bridge for one solitary premiership match so all things considered I still think we get a bargain.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by rusty123

So even at that top end estimate that's less than the price of one solitary Big Mac per person per year (no fries or coke) and for that we get all that spectacle when they wheel the bling out, we attract loads of tourists and it supports hundreds if not thousands of livelihoods that would feed back into the economy and reduce that liability.

If you saved that money instead it would take you about twenty five years to buy one poxy match ticket for certain seats at Stamford Bridge for one solitary premiership match so all things considered I still think we get a bargain.

Spectacle? Frankly, I find it all very tacky and jingoistic. Tourists don't come to the UK because we have a royal family. One might as well claim, as I've said, that people go to Amsterdam because of Queen Beatrix. The price is negligible - some of us simply find the notion of heridity (and inherited perks, tax breaks and titles) wrong.

[kimindex]

Charles's trip to Middlesbrough, Teesside, Redcar and Burnley last October cost taxpayers £38,016

For comparison, it cost the PM £2,000 to visit Afghanistan last year.

@RepublicStaff

http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Financia...20Section4.pdf

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/cont...y-publications

[trevgo]

The NHS and the Monarchy. Two clapped out, innefficient anachronisms beloved like a religion by the sheeple,

[Rastus Pieface]

Originally Posted by trevgo

The NHS and the Monarchy. Two clapped out, innefficient anachronisms beloved like a religion by the sheeple,

well you're right about the NHS.

republicans want to replace the monarchy with a president (so its not the cost that bothers them), but as soon as we need the NHS to cut back on waste, then the 'sheeple' are up in arms.

[kimindex]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...avel-bill.html

The Duke of York spent more than £378,000 on taxpayer-funded trips last year, despite stepping down from his role as Britain’s trade envoy.

The royal accounts only give detailed figures for trips costing more than £10,000, meaning the true figure for the Duke of York’s travel bill could be significantly higher.

[Mrstimmy]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Spectacle? Frankly, I find it all very tacky and jingoistic. Tourists don't come to the UK because we have a royal family. One might as well claim, as I've said, that people go to Amsterdam because of Queen Beatrix. The price is negligible - some of us simply find the notion of heridity (and inherited perks, tax breaks and titles) wrong.

I don't I love it. And the best day I've had this year was our Jubilee street party.

Queen Beatrix isn't massive around the world like our Royal family. They are unique to us, and people are interested in them.

[Mrstimmy]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

I'm not saying he doesn't use charity to raise money - he lends his name to a lot of things. My point is that he would retain his dubious celebrity status if his title were abolished. If he so wished, he could also go on to encourage people to donate (assuming, of course, he is genuinely passionate about charity and is not only doing it to appease the public). J. K. Rowling is a noted philanthropist and personally donates a considerable sum to various charities. However, the media are not ingenuous enough to give her credit for the sums generated by charities which she is indirectly linked to or even of which she is/was the ambassador. Much of the charitable revenue which Charles seems to be being credited with he has simply lent his name to. The actual revenue is obviously generated by the public and far more reliant on the charities' infrastructure.

Yes he could, but then if he's no longer a Royal and the line stops, we become a republic, what then? He raises loads of money for charity, which can be continued through his sons, his sons children, their children, and will continue for generations. If we stop it all now, for symbolic gesture, we've ended years of history and tradition, and for what? The money and interest they raise ends, then what?