Royal family or a president?

You missed my point Paddyann - Buckingham Palace belongs to the state so the government is responsible for repairs and renovations. No-one is squirrelling anything anywhere.
I agree more economies could be made but `I understand several economies have already been made in recent years - the ditching of the Royal yacht for instance, reducing the staff in the royal household, and I think they paid for the repairs to Windsor after the fire and now pay taxes too - correct me if I’m wrong!

I have for a long time advocated that the RF should become a proper tourist attraction and be expected to behave as such by taking part in various heritage extravaganzas. It now occurs to me that they could be paid for such appearances stricly according to the popularity and income derived from them. Who would bring in most would be interesting to see.

A president would not provide luxury transportation for his/her children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great great grandchildren and all the other hangers on would they ?
I think they would gillybob
And I may be wrong but I thought that William and Kate provided their own vehicles unless working on official business on behalf of HM.
They have a Land Rover Discovery - very nice but no better than quite a number of young families.

The thought of using and paying people to be tourist attractions is going back to the days when people with physical disabilities were employed in circuses I would never want to see anyone degraded by this practice. If people choose to dress up and be a tourist attraction their choice.

They have done zero for tourism in the North of England ( and many other areas)

The Prince's Trust has six centres in the North East; they do a lot to help young people.
www.princes-trust.org.uk/about-the-trust/where-we-work/north-england

As for tourism - I suppose if they bought a home in the NE that could encourage tourism but would bring problems with it too.

trisher surely you haven't forgotten It's a Royal Knockout?
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/was-this-the-day-when-royalty-lost-the-plot-1305932.html

!!!

but I do think that they are vastly overpaid
I don't think their pay actually goes into their own bank accounts - it all goes into the business and is paid out in expenses, salaries for staff etc etc.
They pay out of their own incomes for the upkeep of their own homes, any staff and private expenses.
It's a business!

I'll save my ire for greedy bank and business bosses.

If Buckingham Palace belongs to the state, why do people have to pay £24.00 to visit it, and even then are restricted to a very small part of it - especially since the government, via taxpayers, is responsible for the palace's upkeep and any renovations.

The royal family agreed to pay taxes because there was increasing disquiet amongst the general population about their tax-free status. As it turned out, in return for paying taxes the calculation used for annual Civil List payments List actually cancelled out the tax they pay and actually enhanced their financial position.

In 2010 This is Money reported:

"The Royal Family have secured a lucrative deal that will earn them tens of millions of pounds from the massive expansion of offshore windfarms.

"They will net up to £37.5m extra income every year from the drive for green energy because the seabed within Britain's territorial waters is owned by the Crown.

So the Crown owns the seabed. It's positively medieval.

I do wish there was a LIKE button for your commentEleothan

It surprises me that in a country supposedly ingrained with democratic values that the ancient tradition of inherited status still pervades. The Royals obviously have an efficient and well oiled PR Team ensuring that it remains so.
Bread and Circuses?

The profits will go into the Crown Estates, of which the Royal Family get 15% of the profits instead of from the Civil List.
That money goes towards the running of the business of the Head of State.
HM is not exactly pocketing the money from the seabed.

It's how you tell 'em!

I don’t buy assertion the RF are good for tourism - tourists come to the U.K. for the historic buildings, art galleries, shopping and go to places like Bath, Oxford, Cambridge and Stratford. They don’t come here in droves to catch a glimpse of her ma since most of them won’t. A few came here for the wedding- there’s not going to be another one of those huge occasions till HM pops her clogs and we have Charles coronation - then after that we’ll have to wait till George’s wedding I guess. So we don’t rely on royal events to drum up tourists - we’d still have loads of them without a RF as do France, Italy, USA etc

they're not coming for the weather either

Jalima ?

Let’s just keep the RF but scaled right down. A President would still have hanerons and have a great deal of money spent on them. Also seen in other countries Presidents who are corrupt and manage to stay as a president for a life time. Just thinking of China.

It's half-term - what should we expect but rain!

and Mugabe Barmeyoldbat

It’s my fault it’s raining, planted grass seed two weeks ago and hoped for a bit of rain. So be careful what you wish for?

There is no way on this earth they would buy a home in the NE Jalima

We don’t exist to them . I can just imagine her maj. and co. getting an Asda delivery to their Northern palace .

Hopefully the younger generations will see sense and get rid !

I'm not a royalist but couldn't imagine a president. I'd us rather opt for a cut price monarchy similar to the Scandinavians.

We don’t exist to them
I think Prince Charles has heard of you - and Harry - and Camilla.
Perhaps they should have popped by chez vous for a cuppa
(I'll have a word)

paddyann I don't know where you get your statistics from but they can be manipulated interpreted in any way you want. As my DF used to say "there are lies, damn lies & statistics".

I believe in a "slimmed down" royalty, get rid of Andrew & his two DD. I respect Anne for not allowing her DC titles, they have had to make their own way in life especially Zara, yes money & connections help but sheer hard work & determination got her to the Olympics (& a medal).

I have always been a Royalist, there is a lot more "behind the scenes" than we normally see. The Countryfile programme was a real eye-opener for lots of people. Without the Royal Parks London would be a poorer place, just imagine if those weren't protected, luxury properties built on them? Certainly no affordable housing there, I think we would all prefer the green open spaces.

A while ago on this thread add somebody mentioned Sue Townsend’s book about the Queen living in a council house. I don’t know if anyone mentioned the title. It’s The Queen and I, and it’s about what would happen if we elected a republican government. Very funny, and worth reading whether you favour the monarchy or a republic..

get rid of Andrew & his two DD
We have, we don't support them, if HM wants to help out of her own pocket then that is fine.

I hope that's what you meant, anyway, Legs55!

Yes, anyone who imagines that social housing would ever be built on Royal Parks is living under an illusion - it would be mansions for rich foreigners - and Londoners would have nowhere green and lovely to visit within easy reach.