The Queen and the Government are locked in a secret dispute over royal demands for increased public funding to meet the growing expense of the monarchy.

 

Palace aides have told ministers they need extra money to offset the cost of maintaining the Royal Estate of palaces and pay for increased fuel, food and staffing costs. But the Government is refusing to increase the £15m it pays for the upkeep of the Queen's occupied palaces and is fending off demands for a large rise in the £7.9m Civil List which pays for the monarch's public functions. Ministers argue that, in the present economic climate, Whitehall budgets are already overstretched. Royal aides counter that Parliament has a constitutional duty to ensure the Queen is financially secure.

 

An investigation into the royal accounts by The Independent, with the accountants Baker Tilly, has revealed that – by 2011 – the Queen will not be able to balance her books as the escalating cost of maintaining the Royal Household will be more than double the £7.9m allocated by Parliament. This year's palace accounts already show Civil List expenditure will reach £14.4m – £6.5m more than the Government has agreed to pay the Queen each year.

 

See whole article here: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-...ash-941452.html

 

She is one of the richest women on the planet, and she wants more taxpayers cash!

 

She is also buying a private jet.

 

Do you think we should hand over more taxpayers money, especially when we have to tighten our belts right now?

well seeing as we have a monarchy that is funded by the taxpayer, then an inflation rated increase would be fair. however, if she wants more then she should earn it from her vast resources.

well seeing as we have a monarchy that is funded by the taxpayer, then an inflation rated increase would be fair. however, if she wants more then she should earn it from her vast resources.

 

She should go to Hello or OK to raise some cash. The mystique of a 'Royal' Family has long since disappeared so they should put themselves out to tender.

 

Norma

We shouldnt have to give them a penny! what do they do?

We shouldnt have to give them a penny! what do they do?

They actually do quite alot and the public buildings are costly to run. I agree with Mushy - an inflation rise and nothing else (like the rest of us!)

They actually do quite alot and the public buildings are costly to run. I agree with Mushy - an inflation rise and nothing else (like the rest of us!)

 

Isn't Queenie about to fork out on a private jet though? If true ... is it strictly necessary what with the tightening of belts Joe Public has to do (and surely it ain't good for the environment). I honestly think they don't do much - well Mrs Queen and Princess Anne maybe ... but the others ... nah! I think the old 'good for tourism' chestnut is a useless argument too ... given that the French got rid of their Aristocracy and it hasn't done Paris out of its money's worth of tourism.

 

If the Royal Family are to get more money ... it should be the direct ones. The 'hangers on' as my old Dad used to call them should get nothing from the civil list.

 

Norma

 

hmmm... im not so sure about 'they do nothing for tourism'.. im sure they do, ok france might be doing well but maybe theyd be doing much better if they had a royal family.

 

wether or not though they are worth it is debateable. we dont know the figures and without them we simply cannot say.

she should get a job, summin like Tesco would do.........

hmmm... im not so sure about 'they do nothing for tourism'.. im sure they do, ok france might be doing well but maybe theyd be doing much better if they had a royal family.

 

wether or not though they are worth it is debateable. we dont know the figures and without them we simply cannot say.

The argument that they bring in a lot of tourists is a very weak argument. I don't want to have a tourist attraction as head of state. After all, why not have the Blackpool Tower as head of state?

 

If we got rid of the monarchy, the various royal palaces would probably bring in more tourist revenue than they do now as they could be opened up to visitors.

The argument that they bring in a lot of tourists is a very weak argument. I don't want to have a tourist attraction as head of state. After all, why not have the Blackpool Tower as head of state?

 

If we got rid of the monarchy, the various royal palaces would probably bring in more tourist revenue than they do now as they could be opened up to visitors.

 

Exactly! And if they do attract tourists ... it really is to London only! The last time I looked there was no 'Royal in Residence' at any of the houses around Wigan. If we are to have them - wouldn't it be a nice idea if the Royals resided where their titles suggest ... and spread the monarchy around the UK. So the Duke of York would live in York, The Prince of Wales would live in Wales, and Edward could live where the hell he likes as nobody knows who he is or what he does anyway.

 

On second thoughts ... no! I think we should just get rid of them.

 

Norma

 

The argument that they bring in a lot of tourists is a very weak argument. I don't want to have a tourist attraction as head of state. After all, why not have the Blackpool Tower as head of state?

 

If we got rid of the monarchy, the various royal palaces would probably bring in more tourist revenue than they do now as they could be opened up to visitors.

 

how many foreigners visit blackers tower?...:lol: its a uk attraction and has no appeal abroad.

 

like i said, we dont know the factual figures so wether or not they generate foreign money is a mute point.

Sell one of the Royal residences - that'll help pay. Don't go cap in hand to the government and say "hey, we used to be as important as you."

Hasn't she got enough? -_- Make her sell some of her cutlery or a broach or something of value to her.

Edited October 2, 200816 yr by Cal

In the interest of maintaining this great country's history I would suggest the Royal palaces are far too important to be left to rot. I also believe the Queen earns her upkeep with the amount of tourism she brings to the country - Think about it, without the Queen then we wouldn't have the 100,000s of Chinese and American Tourists coming into London and spending their money in the hope they may glance her at Buckingham Palace

In the interest of maintaining this great country's history I would suggest the Royal palaces are far too important to be left to rot. I also believe the Queen earns her upkeep with the amount of tourism she brings to the country - Think about it, without the Queen then we wouldn't have the 100,000s of Chinese and American Tourists coming into London and spending their money in the hope they may glance her at Buckingham Palace

 

Exactly - they visit London in the hopes of glimpsing the monarch. So the answer is .... just let London residents pay for her!

 

And anyway .... Paris probably gets as many tourist visits each year and their royalty lost their heads a few hundred years ago!

 

Norma

Edited October 5, 200816 yr by Norma_Snockers

Even though I am not remotely monarchist in principle, I do support this monarchy remaining in place at least until the Queen dies. However, it is ridiculous that they should be given such a huge increase in earnings at a time when everyone is feeling the pinch.

They do spend quite a lot though on stuff that needs money.

They do spend quite a lot though on stuff that needs money.

 

THEN THEY SHOULD CUT BACK THEN LIKE THE REST OF US DO!!!! sheesh...

THEN THEY SHOULD CUT BACK THEN LIKE THE REST OF US DO!!!! sheesh...

 

Totally dude.... In an economic climate of near-as-dammit-depression, tough tittie if they cant afford a few luxuries.... I mean, I want to afford tickets to go see both Jesus and Mary Chain AND Spiritualized gigs this month, I can only afford to go to one of those, I have to make CHOICES based upon my income and expenditure..... JAMC is a slightly cheaper gig to go to, so that's the economic choice I have to make innit...? Okay, a pretty simplistic example, but seeing as how we all have to "tighten our belts" according to Gordon Broon, well, why should the Royal Leechers whom WE pay for THROUGH OUR BLOODY TAXES be exempt from making such similar decisions....?

 

Totally dude.... In an economic climate of near-as-dammit-depression, tough tittie if they cant afford a few luxuries.... I mean, I want to afford tickets to go see both Jesus and Mary Chain AND Spiritualized gigs this month, I can only afford to go to one of those, I have to make CHOICES based upon my income and expenditure..... JAMC is a slightly cheaper gig to go to, so that's the economic choice I have to make innit...? Okay, a pretty simplistic example, but seeing as how we all have to "tighten our belts" according to Gordon Broon, well, why should the Royal Leechers whom WE pay for THROUGH OUR BLOODY TAXES be exempt from making such similar decisions....?

 

.... as if WE can afford it! ffs.. we are tightening our belts so we can get by, why should we tighten our belts any tighter just so they can swan around?..