Abdication?

If only there was thirty five million for the homeless
I have put my 56p in the charity box on my shelf - well, in fact I upped it to £1 so that's a start.

If you want some facts and figures anniebach:

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/19/uk-spends-2bn-housing-homeless-short-term
Yes, I know it is two years out of date, so it could well have gone up by now.

So I expect that equates to a lot more than 56p per taxpayer.

Claws sharp today Jingle

Really? I manage.

Anniebach

Your posts are unforgettable.

POGS, sense of duty does not equal caring . So you could be bothered to find one post!

Anniebach

So now you are saying 'duty' is a nonsense regarding the Queen , she doesn't give a fig.

You are as Elegran pointed out inconsistent.

Your post June 12. 13.57. You said this.

"I think Anne and Charles have a sense of duty as do their parents"

You could have fooled me, ab. Your posts do sound very much like an attack on her personal qualities. If you had made them about someone on GN they would have been deleted.

Elegran, it has nothing to do with liking or disliking a person one does not know . She may be a sweet old girl, I do not see a monarch who cares for the people ,and my opinions of her are as a monarch

Charles has five homes which has round the clock protection. William has a twenty roomed apartment in KP and a ten bedroomed country house , yet he has his offices in St James Palace, all this for a part time air ambulance pilot

But you have denied previously that you dislike the queen, ab. Your posts don't bear that out. Make your mind up. It would be more honest to say that you intensely dislike her as a person - that is the inpression you give.

Not flogging a dead horse Alea, all this nonsense of this queen living of a life of duty to her people - she doesn't give a fig for the people of this country , her concern is the crown, sod the people

I have only been on Gsnet for a few weeks but I'm beginning to get a measure of the hierarchy.

As far as I know we have the Queen for that

"Dead horse" and "flogging" or what?

I agree with Anniebach. I have nothing against those people but don't like the exhalted way they live and are regarded.

I'm sorry for anyone born into this life, but I'm a whole lot sorrier for the dreadfully underprivileged.

Just the Queen and the Duke of Ed ta x

If we have to protect their homes it's a pity they have to have so many homes to protect , doesn't bother them what it costs the country, and for what? Opening buildings, giving their names for charities and filling Buck house balcony

Ex PM's cost us a fortune in protection and they only bring money in for themselves so why can't they pay for their own protection?

It would seem that security is the only gripe here, but any head of state + their immediate family and their homes have to be protected, so even in a republic the costs are roughly the same, except dreary president, foreign interest = money virtually nil. Royal family, foreign interest, can't get enough particularly Americans, money = shedloads!!! win win all round!

Wish the windsors would take responsibility for the cost of police protection of their homes , I exclude Buck house and Windsor

Looks like we are doing better than other countries then, value for money wise,which is interesting.Royal children do far more now than they have ever done in the past, to justify their position in life.

If only there was thirty five million for the homeless

The latest info I can find so far on what the Civil List is spent on is the ten years from 2000 to 2010 All the figures will have gone up since then, but I assume the categories of things that the queen pays for and the general proportions will be the same

"Between 1990-2000 an unspent surplus of £35m led to an agreement that the Civil List would be frozen at £7.9m until December 2010."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/10391693

"If the Queen's expenditure exceeded this sum she would be able to withdraw funds from the £35m reserve." By 2010 £34.1m of the reserve had been withdrawn.

The largest expenditure was pay, but "Spending on executive and administrative salaries has increased by 77% while housekeeping and furnishings salaries has more than doubled since 2001. But the Palace points out that the Royal Household has taken responsibility for additional salary expenditure since 2000 which was met previously by government departments."

" . . . the richest hereditary peer in the UK is the Duke of Westminster, who owns large tracts of land in London. He is worth £7000m (the same as the crown estate). He is not a royal. . .The royal family costs 66 pence per year per person in the UK. That's about $1.05 in US dollars. The executive office of the president of the United States is about $1.10 per person (in the U.S.)."

and

"The Italian President for example costs the Italian taxpayers £1.29 a year each in tax"

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081109075629AAzTMI4

Out of interest I conducted an informal survey on the Royal Family amongst a group of people I know.

I asked:

Would you keep the Royal Family as they are?
Would you keep them, but in a pared-back form?
Would you get rid?

Out of a group of ten, only one person would keep them as they are; seven would pare them back and two would get rid altogether.

The Group comprised one pensioner, four middle-aged people and five youngsters (school age).

Don't forget HM has to pay her staff out of those millions.
Will the homeless have to pay the house builders out of my 56p?

And no, I am not heartless, this is getting daft.

I just think a president and first lady etc etc will cost more.
In fact, I am willing to bet 56p on it.

So the budget we should expect - X millions given to the queen will be matched for housing for the homeless ?