£102.4 million

Well Said sazz1 and Bluecat

Royalty is about mystique and magic going back a thousand years. That’s why they’re popular. It’s not the actual individuals who can be quite dull and ordinary, it’s that sprinkle of fairytale that makes them rather useful as heads of state. A lot of what they do and say drives me mad. But rather keep with this strange system than have the latest possibly dodgy ex-politician in the role. And it is an important role.

Shizam

Royalty is about mystique and magic going back a thousand years. That’s why they’re popular. It’s not the actual individuals who can be quite dull and ordinary, it’s that sprinkle of fairytale that makes them rather useful as heads of state. A lot of what they do and say drives me mad. But rather keep with this strange system than have the latest possibly dodgy ex-politician in the role. And it is an important role.

What RF that's what they call themselves got there through being the biggest thugs stole land that is their history and colonialism and slavery and no inheritance tax. People are wise to them now. They give their families grand homes all take do nothing to help people. Monarchy is there to support government and themselves that's all. These people are in public office for private gain.

A Head of State democraticly Elected could be in any profession and would be accountable to the people.

Our history the Royals did nothing to add to mankind the opposite

Sorry I just don't see what is "mystical" or "magical" about a German family invited to take over the British monarchy because the ruling class feared Catholics on one side and the peasantry on the other.

You are so right Casadon, not to mention all the Nightingale hospitals set up and never utilised and the ventilators purchased and never used as we simply never had enough trained staff to operate/monitor them. In future the Royal family will be pared down, Charles & William are already seeing to that but the Queen is worth every penny!

Its crazy to keep one family in total luxury so they never lift a finger in houses with so many bedrooms you can't count them whilst people sleep on the streets outside and go to bed with empty tummies. The queen has been good, I can't help but admire her dedication to duty, even when she was shot at on the Mall she remained composed which is amazing, I just think the monarchy is an outdated institution and unnecessary these days

No one HAS to bow or courtesy these days , what they do within the family is up to them and nothing to do with any of us. Prince William allegedly actively dislikes being bowed and curtseyed to, so I guess that will. in the future become a thing of the past. P.C, like the Queen is happy for people to do what they feel comfortable with.

I'm US, but a drop in the bucket. You should see what our politicians get as retirement after just a couple years service. Trade you anytime.

I do see your point here, Glorianny.

We could keep the monarchy but give it a purely ceremonial role. So they could do Trooping the Colour etc but we wouldn't allow them near the government, so no meetings with the PM, no opening Parliament, no seeing Red Boxes. We could pay them a set amount for a certain number of ceremonies and the expenses involved. If they wanted to do anything else like charity work or film premiers they would have to pay for it or negotiate with the organiser. Give 'em one town palace and one country home open the rest to the public. I wonder how long they would last with such an arrangement?

"As always, while the rest of us face a cost-of-living crisis and continued squeezes on public services, the royals walk off with hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money."

"The Grant is deeply dishonest, ignoring at least £258m of public money spent on the royal family every year, and falsely giving the appearance that the royals are funded from the Crown Estate."

"The palace also wrongly claims that the grant is an exchange for the surrender of the Crown Estate profits. That exchanged happened almost 300 years ago, and was between two parts of the state. The country is entitled to scrap the grant and still keep the Crown Estate profits."

"Instead of resorting to spin, to try and make the monarchy look cheap, they need to answer a few serious questions."

"Can this expenditure be justified? Can we get a head of state that costs less than this, so we can spend that money elsewhere? Why is the monarchy not facing significant cuts, while essential public services have been cut time and again over the past decade? Is this an ethical use of public money? What else could we afford for that amount?"

"The Irish presidency - which costs around €4.8m - demonstrates quite clearly that we can get an effective head of state for a fraction of the cost. Meanwhile, the £345m cost of the monarchy could pay for as many as 13,000 new nurses or teachers."

"No other public body has its funding pegged to the profits of another, entirely separate organisation. Linking royal funding to Crown Estate profits makes as much sense as linking it to the price of petrol."

"Providing a golden-ratchet clause, which means the grant can never go down, is the most appalling feature of the grant system. If Crown Estate revenue drops to zero we would still be paying them at least £86m a year."

"We need to put the monarchy on a proper budgetary footing, just like any other public body. We need to slash that budget down to below £10m, and only fund what's required for the functions of the head of state."

Anniebach

Charles carried a plastic bag through customs , when ?

Yes, could we have chapter and verse on that?

How much does A million pounds in cash actually weigh ? In 50 pound sterling notes it would be a weight of 24.20 kg, which is 53.35187 lb

Is Charles likely to lug a plastic bag that weight personally through customs? Does he carry anything through the airport? Would the bag stand the strain or burst and distribute £50 notes all over the airport?

I doubt that Charles carried that plastic bag through customs himself. That’s what he has servants for, although in the name of political correctness, they’re called aides now.

Good posts Glorianny and Grany. I particularly like Glorianny’s suggestion. If the politics was taken out of the role of the royals, so no more lobbying for their own self interest, then the royals could be retained simply for ceremonial purposes. That seems to be the main reason people like them, they enjoy the ceremony and appear to believe that this brings in lots of tourists. Repeatedly reminding people that countries without royal families get equal numbers of tourists is totally ignored. I wonder if all the tourists who visit Spain go there because they have a royal family. Mmmmm, I think not somehow.

What do you suppose Charles and would answer when they asked him at customs "Did you pack this bag sir?"

Don't know where that "and" came from!

Glorianny

What do you suppose Charles and would answer when they asked him at customs "Did you pack this bag sir?"

The royal family do much for charities, far more than cutting ribbons and charities need money. Do republicans really believe money raised by the royal family would be given to charities by the government?

Never any mention of money raised because the family never
disclose what they personally donate, and they do donate.

It is small things which irritate me. The Queen has done a fantastic job but should step down now permanently. Charles needs to stop wasting money in one breath- ie travelling by plane costing £1500 between palaces and in the next, saving the planet.

Does he need so many aides? Can he not put toothpaste on his own brush, fill the bath with water and lay out his own clothes the evening before?

The toothpaste , you forgot the tearing off the loo roll, wiping his bum, wiping his nose

^Never any mention of money raised because the family never
disclose what they personally donate, and they do donate^
How do you know they donate, for certain?

Spreading his marmalade, combing his hair, saying goodnight to his children, deputising in bed when he is too tired to perform, breathing for him, etc etc.

For goodness sake, the toothpaste story was when he was injured and unable to do it. It was picked up by the media and has been produced ever since whenever someone wants to imply that he doesn't lift a hand for himself. I assume those who repeat it have never damaged a hand or arm, so don't know how frustrating it is when you can't use it.

Stephanie48

^Never any mention of money raised because the family never
disclose what they personally donate, and they do donate^
How do you know they donate, for certain?

How do you know they don't, for certain?

So it's like a religion then?

I know of two donations but can’t speak of them , if they choose not to say then it isn’t for me to say.

Anniebach

The royal family do much for charities, far more than cutting ribbons and charities need money. Do republicans really believe money raised by the royal family would be given to charities by the government?

Never any mention of money raised because the family never
disclose what they personally donate, and they do donate.

Giving Evidence today publishes research about Royal patronages of charities: what are they, who gets them, and do they help? This fits within our work of providing robust evidence so that charities and donors can be as effective as possible.

In short, we found that charities should not seek or retain Royal patronages expecting that they will help much.

74% of charities with Royal patrons did not get any public engagements with them last year. We could not find any evidence that Royal patrons increase a charity’s revenue (there were no other outcomes that we could analyse), nor that Royalty increases generosity more broadly. Giving Evidence takes no view on the value of the Royal family generally.