It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

37.5 million on British Tax payer for the Royals Refunishment

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Is it worth it or not?

I mean Kate Middleton it was reported hardly worked before sleeping with Prince William. That was seen as acceptable behaviour. And now they want the high life, and to just swan about at their posh home enjoying pennies from the tax payer, many who are not even royal supporters Id imagine.

I think William wants to work with aircrafts or is. Maybe part time. Do they really warrant this?
Is what they are doing real worth it? The effort they put in to lift their hands and wave, meet and greet international movers and shakers?

What's it all about?

news.uk.msn.com...




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: FreedomEntered

Nope, not worth anything, never done anything, famous for being famous, "useless eaters" and probably the most expensive bunch of inbred "welfare" cases on the planet. My question would be, "How much are the colonies paying for this tripe?"

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 02:57 AM
link   
It would be nice if there was a box on my tax return which said "If you want to contribute X amount of dollars to the royal family then please tick here" In which case I wouldn't tick it, and I doubt too many others would either.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:01 AM
link   
It is interesting I was stunned to learn that in other countries the royals do not flaunt their wealth in such a manner. Some of them live more ordinary lives. Which surely fits with the job role, which is to understand the " people" .

It is interestingly how the news said Kate Middleton is a Future queen who most women can identify with. They couldn't be further off the mark really. Id go so far to say her luxury life from little hard work is something women could never identify with, unless they won a lottery.
edit on 26-6-2014 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: FreedomEntered

That's just flat out embarrassing if you ask me. I wouldn't expect an Ikea job but $37.5 mill ???

Kind Regards
Myselfaswell



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Whether it is worth it or not, I believe the Royal family brings more revenue to the UK in the form or tourism etc than if they weren't there so financially, it appears yes the Royal family is a viable attribute to the UK, as well as culturally.

Specifically regarding the refurbishment the actual total cost was £4.5 million, the £37.5 million is the total official expenditure of the Queen for the last year, which includes spending on many things, including repairs and maintenance to Royal property. Perhaps you should correct your thread title to £4.5 million as this is accurate, whereas £37.5 million isn't.

As for the repairs required for the refurbishment, it appears asbestos needed removing and the wiring /plumbing etc were from 1949 so needed updating to make it habitable. Prince William purchased the curtains, carpets, soft furnishings, kitchen and some of the fittings himself.

I guess as a plus for spending public resources allocated to the Royal family, given to the Queen, she prioritised it over repairs to Buckingham Palace and is 'making do' with renovating buildings already in use rather than using or purchasing further grand estates for the 'Cambridges'. They are being given to reside in, an apartment at Kensington Palace, it isn't huge and the building is already used so keeping the cost of security and maintenance costs to a minimum unlike a vast estate which would cost many more millions of taxpayer's money in upkeep, security and running costs yearly.

So whether people agree to having a Royal family or not (and I choose not to opine or argue that here), it appears that it was actually a more frugal use of the funds already allocated than otherwise could have been.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


The Civil List was established in 1760, when George III surrendered the income from the Crown Estate to the government in exchange for a fixed annual payment from the Treasury. The taxpayer gained an exceptional bargain from that arrangement: last year, total government spending on all functions of the monarchy amounted to £7.9 million from the Civil List, £22.6 million in grants-in-aid for communications, travel and property from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and £4.6 million from other departments. That total of £35.1 million is dwarfed by the £226.5 million profit passed to the Treasury by the Crown Estate.


www.telegraph.co.uk... mbridge.html


The Queen deferred repairs at Buckingham Palace to allow the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to refurbish their home.

Royal aides said renovation work at Kensington Palace was “prioritised” over repairs to the monarch’s home, allowing the couple and their baby son to move into Apartment 1A, the former home of Princess Margaret.

The disclosure comes as newly published accounts for Buckingham Palace show the Queen’s official expenditure over the past financial year rose in actual terms by £2.4 million to £35.7 million — or 56p for each person in the country.

More than a third of the monarch’s spending from the sovereign grant — the system of funding her official duties from the public purse — was to maintain royal buildings, the figures show.

Spending on property maintenance increased by £4.2 million to £13.3 million, a rise in real terms of 45 per cent, amid a “backlog” of restoration work.

A total of 133 projects were carried out across the estate.

However, the biggest single scheme was the refurbishment of Apartment 1A, which had been used for office space since Princess Margaret’s death. A total of £4.5 million has now been spent on the works, including £3.4 million in the last year and the removal of asbestos from the apartment.

“It was a priority,” an aide said. “We have a backlog and we prioritise things in terms of the backlog but we also have to prioritise in terms of occupational activities of the royal household.

“In the case of 1A at Kensington Palace we needed to use it.”

Work at the apartment also included installing new plumbing and electrical systems, as well as “simple decoration”.

The Duke and Duchess paid “privately” for carpets, curtains and furnishings as well as a family kitchen to supplement the larger “working kitchen” for official events financed by public funds.

The Prince of Wales is believed to have paid for at least part of the bill for the fittings and the family kitchen.
Royal sources said the apartment was refurbished in 1963 and has required “a significant amount of work” to make it habitable again.

“This is the couple’s one and only official residence and it is here they plan to stay for many, many years to come,” an aide added.

Much of the cabling and plumbing at Buckingham Palace dates from 1949.

In 2013-14, £800,000 was spent removing asbestos from the basement to prepare for new electrical cabling and duct covers to be installed.

The sovereign grant, calculated on a formula of 15 per cent of profits from the Royal Estate was set at £36.1 million for 2013-14. The remaining £400,000 of the funding was put into a reserve pot.

Sir Alan Reid, keeper of the Privy Purse, said public funding of the monarchy had fallen by 8 per cent in real terms in the past two years when maintenance costs were removed.

edit on 26-6-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: FreedomEntered

Vive la Republique
21st century Britain doesn't need an outdated monarchy , when the Queen dies that should be the end of the line.

If this is a democracy we should be given the choice before any replacement is crowned.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Give us a choice and they result will be continuing the line and our system of Government which is a constitutional Monarchy. Polls show they are very popular and remember the last time we did away with them? we soon demanded them back.
Fact is they bring in more than they spend.


Just to add do you want a President? do you think that having a president would be cheaper?

www.express.co.uk...

thefinanser.co.uk...

I see the money spent is upgrading our "Mascots".

edit on 26-6-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: boymonkey74




Polls show they are very popular

In that case there's no reason to fear giving the people the choice , if we're to be given an in , out choice for the EU then why not a choice of the constitutional head of state ?

I don't support the monarchy but am happy for it to continue if it is the will of the people.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

If the government gives the nation referendums on such minority issues all the time like the UK being a republic they wouldn't get anything done.
If enough people thought like you they would give us one but they do not.
The EU referendum is a must because far more people have demanded one.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: FreedomEntered
Is it worth it or not?

I mean Kate Middleton it was reported hardly worked before sleeping with Prince William. That was seen as acceptable behaviour. And now they want the high life, and to just swan about at their posh home enjoying pennies from the tax payer, many who are not even royal supporters Id imagine.

I think William wants to work with aircrafts or is. Maybe part time. Do they really warrant this?
Is what they are doing real worth it? The effort they put in to lift their hands and wave, meet and greet international movers and shakers?

What's it all about?

news.uk.msn.com...


becoming a royal and symbol of british empire is a LOT OF WORK.. they are hard working young couple that earned their pennies doing britain's diplomatic works.

try jetting around meeting strangers while having a wooden smile pasted on your face and standing to listen to speeches by world leaders/ministers and pretend you all happy and understanding..

it broke lady diana's mind when she in this game.. i hope kate is stronger than lady di

prince charles on the other hand, he dont deserver anything from taxpayer since he is off the game..



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Tall poppy syndrome.

They are worth far more in tourist dollars than they ever get from the Government and that should be easy to understand.

The British people would never vote to remove them, it would be a monumental cock up if they did.

The old buildings need to be updated and if the Royals were not doing it then the Government would have to.

It seems to be a real case of the have nots complaining and when the tourist industry died they would all be screaming 'why'.

You don't kill the goose that lays those golden eggs.

P



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358




They are worth far more in tourist dollars than they ever get from the Government and that should be easy to understand.

How many tourists actually get to see them ?



The British people would never vote to remove them, it would be a monumental cock up if they did.

So because of rhetoric we don't get to test that argument ?



The old buildings need to be updated and if the Royals were not doing it then the Government would have to.

The royals are not doing it.



It seems to be a real case of the have nots complaining and when the tourist industry died they would all be screaming 'why'.

I don't believe that would be the case , tourists come here for our history not invisible royals.



You don't kill the goose that lays those golden eggs.

No but you do dispatch an old animal that's had its day , we need to look forward not back.


edit on 26-6-2014 by gortex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358




They are worth far more in tourist dollars than they ever get from the Government and that should be easy to understand.

How much tourism will it take to replace the billion that was spent on the Queens birthday? One thing that could be done is to remove the royals tax exempt status and be forced to pay capital gains and corporate taxes like any other major business operation. They receive millions that they do not pay a dime in taxes on.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Kate isn't a scratch on Diana. Diana was strong. She wasn't broken by the lifestyle. Princess Diana was lynched and broken by the other Royals. Diana was the one saving grace of that wretched family. a reply to: milomilo



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

A billion spent on her birthday? source please.
I don't think many here even know how we fund the Monarchy here in the UK.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: FreedomEntered

Maybe the question should be asked of the contractors who carried out the work.
Have they over inflated the costs, knowing that the tax payer is picking up the bill.

Nothing would surprise me.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: FreedomEntered
What's it all about?


This sounds a lot like the freeloaders on government programs here in the states.




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Well on this site I never seem to find any conspiracy theory answers its always very plain sort of predictable replies its sad. I mean people just worship whom ever they are told to. No questions asked really...



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: FreedomEntered

Respect is not the same as worship.
You want just conspiracy theory's or the actual truth on how they get funded?.
edit on 26-6-2014 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join