Gransnet forums


To be furious at further royal privileges

(157 Posts)
bluebell Sat 29-Jun-13 11:06:28

HUNTERF Sat 29-Jun-13 11:18:13

The so called royal family are just a load of scroungers.


mollie Sat 29-Jun-13 11:36:16

Not all, Frank. Many don't get anything from the civil list and if you noticed, Charles actually took almost 50% drop in his share if the civil list last year. He also pays for his wife, his sons and daughter in law so they aren't a burden either. And, may I say, that the Queen may get a lot of money each year but its not her pocket money. It is used to maintain the royal palaces that actually belong to the country and attract lots of visitors, it is used to pay for the visits she makes and the entertaining she hosts for visiting dignitaries so that supports hundreds of small businesses who supply her and the palaces. And it pays the wages of hundreds of staff who would otherwise be out of a job. I don't think you can complain ... If we didnt have the royal family we'd have weasly politicians and would they attract as many tourists who spend a lot of money in this country and keep restaurants and hotels etc in business? I think not.

nightowl Sat 29-Jun-13 11:38:59

I'm not too happy about the recent pay rises for the Queen and now Prince Charles. They really are rubbing our noses in it aren't they? They would do themselves a few favours in public opinion by turning down a pay rise in the current climate and using some of their vast wealth for refurbishments to their homes and for living expenses. Which only seems to confirm that they don't give a flying fig about public opinion.

Butty Sat 29-Jun-13 12:04:24

I think the royal family do care a flying fig about public opinion, hence the new right of secrecy.
I find it interesting this has happened now. Damage control for future events perhaps?

Lilygran Sat 29-Jun-13 12:04:30

nightowl see mollie's post. Most of the royal residences actually belong to the state. Just like the Speaker's House or No 10 and 11 Downing Street or Dorneywood or Chequers or all the government buildings.

nightowl Sat 29-Jun-13 12:12:28

Yes * Butty* you're right, now I've read it properly.

Lilygran I know they don't own the properties themselves, and of course we have a duty to maintain those properties, but I do think they should be more accountable for where their money comes from and how it is spent. The link proves that they want to be even less accountable.

j08 Sat 29-Jun-13 12:22:26

I wonder if she gets her winter fuel allowance.

j08 Sat 29-Jun-13 12:25:10

If she does, it can't go far, heating that lot. No wonder she had that little leccy fire in the fireplace when the the Obamas visited.

vegasmags Sat 29-Jun-13 12:26:55

I don't think this is so much a question of money, but rather Prince Charles being horrified at the letters he writes to politicians coming under public scrutiny. This secrecy will just make people imagine the worst.

mollie Sat 29-Jun-13 12:28:01

They are more accountable now than any other monarch in the past so I can't complain if they want to claw some privacy back for themselves. Would you want to account for every penny you spend? I think not. They actually pay income tax on their private income so they do their bit.

Our royal family is our equivalent of The Disney business ... We pay the civil list to keep the business ticking over but they generate much more in tourism and world goodwill. They have no power these days, it's the elected, self serving politicians who decide how much tax we pay, if we go to war etc, not the royals.

HUNTERF Sat 29-Jun-13 12:47:04

What good are the Royal Properties doing me?.
I have never been to any of them.


Gally Sat 29-Jun-13 12:56:18

Nothing stopping you Frank and, possibly, it's not just about you? wink

Lilygran Sat 29-Jun-13 13:17:21

Possibly the wish for secrecy has something to do with the expected baby? People selling information to the media? How much would a picture of new baby be worth?

j08 Sat 29-Jun-13 13:18:59

The mind does rather boggle at the Queen seeking a "poverty allowance" to help heat the palaces/castles.

"*In 2004 the Queen asked ministers for a poverty handout to help heat her palaces but was rebuffed because they feared it would be a public relations disaster. Royal aides were told that the £60m worth of energy-saving grants were aimed at families on low incomes and if the money was given to Buckingham Palace instead of housing associations or hospitals it could lead to "adverse publicity" for the Queen and the government."

That is slightly unbelievable.

HUNTERF Sat 29-Jun-13 13:25:31

Why not convert Buckingham Palace in to flats.
There is a housing shortage around London.


nightowl Sat 29-Jun-13 13:48:29


'A letter exchange revealed a tussle over who has control of £2.5m gained from the sale of Kensington Palace land. Ministers said it belonged to the state, while Buckingham Palace said it belonged to the Queen.'

So do the residences belong to us or not? I don't think their financial affairs are at all transparent.

vegasmags Sat 29-Jun-13 13:49:32

There is a housing shortage nationwide Frank. Have you ever thought of renting out some of the rooms in the large house you inherited?

HUNTERF Sat 29-Jun-13 13:56:43


I have got sufficient pension to pay for the upkeep and Andie likes to go in and out of every room.


ginny Sat 29-Jun-13 14:11:15

Wouldn't it be good though in these times, when most people are having to stretch out money, if they could use some of their own fortune ? I imagine the refurbishment of the apartments for William and Kate would be a drop in the ocean for them. Ithink the 'royals' need to remember that it will take more than a smile, some fancy clothes and few tours and visits to endear them to the modern day public.

mollie Sat 29-Jun-13 14:40:06

Ginny, it was reported that the Queen has paid £1m towards William and Kate's renovations...

bluebell Sat 29-Jun-13 14:46:46

Mollie - the £1m was from the money we gave her. But money aside, it's the exemption from FOI that I am furious about - this is paving the way for Charles to interfere more and more and for us to know less and less about the power he will be wielding . And he's so STUPID as well - but actually , even if he were bright, I wouldn't want him interfering - who voted for him?

Lilygran Sat 29-Jun-13 15:26:14

We have taken money from the Crown and then give money back out of it for specified things. I believe the State is the winner. Suppose we had to support a President? Would it mean that only very rich individuals could be elected? That's what seems to happen almost everywhere else. And if they aren't very rich when elected, they are when they leave. Now who does that remind me of?

j08 Sat 29-Jun-13 15:28:21

I think Prince Charles should have a weekly column in the Telegraph. Then we could really judge him.

Bez Sat 29-Jun-13 15:32:25

The Queen is the the only Head of State who does not have a private jet. All the Presidents do.