https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...chy-of-cornwall-cornwall-meghan-b2112525.html Interesting breakdown of the accounts for the latest year. I did wonder why abolish the monarchy was trending again.
Charles taking £3m in Fortnum & Mason bags from former PM of Qatar (we don't know what the quid pro quo was), charity status for some of his interests to evade tax. Revelations that Charles and the queen had lobbied government hundreds of times at the point of laws being presented for royal assent, including some laws being changed, particularly one of a right to buy rental properties on royal estates. And today being opaque about the fallout from bullying claims. Not to mention the silence from the higher levels of the monarchy about the kiddy fiddler pay off. Oh, and it costs taxpayers an absolute fortune, and thats just the amounts disclosed, not the wider costs that come directly from government budgets such as policing and security. But oooh..... the Queen, she's so selfless, so driven by duty. Nonsense.
An estimated $700 million worth though. Not that arsed about the Royal Family but this on its own must be worth keeping them for me.
Happy to keep them. If they pay their fair share of taxes. Stop lobbying and meddling in laws to benefit themselves. If they break the law, they go to jail. And ideally, pay their own way instead of taking from the taxpayer.
People go for the landmarks not to see royalty though. I doubt many rock up to Buckingham Palace or Windsor with the sole intention of having a chat with the queen. The pyramids, various landmarks in France, etc etc all seem to do ok.
Who elected them anyway? As for the arguement about tourism, when was the last time a tourist visited Paris?
There's a fantastic interest though that drives this tourism. In America for instance. I don't get it but it is a thing
So..... if there was no Royal family..... we might get less Americans in London as well? It's very hard not to get giddy about such a thing.
We can get misty-eyed about the Royals adding money to the national purse through tourism, but where does that $700 million really go? You'll have difficulty convincing me it goes back into this country when people are relying on foodbanks and people sleep rough every night. Add to that the grossly underfunded mental health crisis that has swept this glorious nation - sorry but that money doesn't go into the hands of the people. Part of it will have funded the Queen's nonce son however, so let's keep selling our souls for a bit of GDP that we never see. Sorry Gally, not aimed at you but they are a stain on our nation, and they have blood on their hands.
Really? Has anyone here ever visited a foreign country because of the royal family? How many foreign palaces without actual royals get more visitors than Buck Palace? Versailles for one, I suspect the Winter Palace does too, possibly many others. The only argument for having a royal family is that we’re not ruled by someone who wants to rule over us. But for the cost savings it might be worth it.
You can probably add Belvedere in Vienna to that list. Although to be fair, the world class artworks on view there and in the Winter Palace are far more of a reason to visit them than their erstwhile royal inhabitants.
Except of course, republican France hosts more foreign tourists than we do. In the same way that Versailles gets a lot of tourists I'm sure Buckingham Palace will be a nice earner when tourists can roam all around it without Royal persons getting in the way.
