Scrap the Sovereign Grant

Grany yesterday you said of the buildings

‘They could be open to the public become tourist attractions
and bring in a lot more revenue’

Now you say these buildings are of little interest to tourists

The palace is up to no good.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=pSQyDNN4BYg

Annie I said the buildings and history are of interest to the public but not the RF People would come visit if these buildings were open up to the public and would bring in lots of revenue.

Grany the buildings are open to the public

Not all year round

Windsor Castle and Stonehenge have similar visitor numbers 1.5 million. The castle has a £20 plus cost that is £30 million alone, pretty significant I would say. Stonehenge also £20 entry but if you are an English Heritage member it’s free.
The main disadvantage with the Royals is the cost of security, it would be no concern if some obscure nobody performed whatever ceremony.
It is clear that the UK does value Royal ceremony or patronage or we would not ask them to participate in events. Look at the diaries of the active Royals and they are pretty extensive, and they do it at no cost to the venue. They could choose a celebrity and get charged for the appearance. The Royal events in London always seem well attended and enthusiastic.

If the Royals were replaced by a President and salaried functionaries to preform the same role, you would save the security cost but loose the ceremonial appeal

the alternative is republic/democrat president, like in america

Thanks but no flipping way. Our royal family and the history is worth every penny

Totally agree Craftyone

Signing a petition will make no difference whatsoever.

From what I understand, the Soveriegn Grant is money from the Crown Estates which is handed over to the Government. They then pay back a percentage of it to the Queen who pays all her bills, including staff costs with this money. So it was the RF's money to begin with. I think this began with George III. On the other hand, all the Queen's security costs come from the tax payer. Sandringham and Balmoral are her private homes. Buckingham Palace is used for State business. Not sure about Windsor, but surely that is used to host visiting dignitaries. I do not begrudge my 60p a year towards this family.

Just a comment on the value of the Monarchy to the country. It is estimated to be about £1.7bn, of which £550M is from tourism. The rest is patronage, Royal Warrants etc. The annual value of tourism to the UK is estimated to be around £150bn, so it wouldn't be a disaster for tourism or the economy in general if we didn't have the Monarchy. Incidentally, for scale, angling contributes about $1.4bn to the UK economy annually.

I'm not a royalist. We need to fund a head of state somehow and I don't have strong feelings about how we do it. The alternative to a monarchy isn't a US-style presidency, it could be an Irish style presidency, if we wanted one. But the population would rather have as a figurehead someone chosen because their ancestor used to be the butler to the King of Scots in the 12th Century, irrespective of what that person is like.

A president would mean politics involved

I definitely would not sign it. I am a royalist and proud of being so. However, I do think Charles will slim down the monarchy when he is King and I think that is the right thing to do.

Not much more slimming down to do, he wouldn’t cut off
Anne, Sophie and Edward they do much , this leaves William and Kate.

They don't do too much the Royals hardly work at all. And not good for tourism

m.youtube.com/watch?v=c5NpJnw7thY

Some people are for the monarchy and whatever The Republicans say/post will not change our minds ??

The Republicans - what did we do to deserve italics and Capitals? . I'll take that description as a badge of honour.

I know I won't change anyone's mind here, but I'm stating my view. My sister-in-law once told me that the Royals were the best thing about the UK. I was floored, I really don't understand that attitude. But, each to their own.

They don't do too much the Royals hardly work at all.

I 'met' the Duke of Kent a couple of years ago (well, I was part of a huge circle of people that the poor b*gger had to go round shaking hands with). It was his 83rd birthday. It was his second 'engagement' of the day, everything timed to the minute, and after a whistlestop tour, all that handshaking and a quick bite of lunch he went off to his third 'engagement' of the day. I thought it was a bit of a punishing schedule for an 83 yr old. I wouldn't fancy it at all and I'm more than a decade younger. I understand that Princess Anne does 2 or 3 a day and she's 70. I think it all looks really exhausting and it's completely unfair to characterise it as 'not work'. Doubt if many Gnetters would fancy it...

The thought of having to meet and greet Trump , smile, listen to his waffle and having to accept it ? No thank you

I respect the Queen, the Royals have their lives scrutinised and criticised just because they have been born into The Firm! How many of us could take the criticism? We know too well some have 'gone off the rails' that is so public. The Queen is worth every penny! Tourists flock to see them (outwith Covid). They are a national institute!! Let's keep them!!

I don't know of any president, or head of state whose children, grandchildren and great grand children benefit from state funding. Have a monarch if you want but let the rest fund their own charity work from their substantial private incomes.

Think of having to meet and entertain Mugabe, Ceauscescu! and many others over the years!! I think the RF by and large do a sterling job and I wouldn't want it any other way. At least the don't charge a personal fee every time they cut a ribbon.

Is a president the alternative to the Queen? The roles are clearly not comparable.
Still, despite inheriting the post, Her Majesty has managed to do the job. Not bad for a girl who didn’t go to school or sit any exams. We know that Charles, William and George will keep the RF going for a long while without us having the bother of elections. No need to defend them as nothing will change. Just don’t put them on the same footing as workers who turn out in all weathers to get to the jobs they have been interviewed for on time.

A President is an elected Head of State instead of a hereditary HoS
He or she would work represent us for our constitution, politically neutral, but step in if the government does something wrong. The Queen does not want to do the job of working for our constitution but still wants the trappings the luxury that goes with the job.
No Jaberwok they don't charge a personal fee when on visits but our local council foots the bill each time costing many thousands.

A president who can overrule an elected government ?

A dictator