PDA

View Full Version : And the Biggest Benefits Scrounger Award goes to … The Royal Family!!!


Arch Stanton
27th Feb 2015, 09:28
Benefit "scroungers" give a bad name to all of the people who really deserve our support and of course the biggest benefit scroungers of all are the Royal Family.

Their PR machine does a wonderful job of convincing everyone that they actually make money for the UK because tourist only come here to stand outside the gates of their palaces and gawp.

In reality far more would come if we "stood the family down" and opened up their grounds to the public. The French tourist industry is based on this and is far more successful than the UK.

Apart from the Queen, who has some merit, the rest of them all have their snouts in the trough while the press focus on an insignificant number of "lower class" people who abuse the system.

If you are really concerned about how much fraud is costing the tax payer look at the sums involved in the banking bailout, but of course, like the Royal Family, they are not to be treated in the same way as the rest of us.

beaufort1
27th Feb 2015, 09:49
I'm sure there is more than one tourist gawping outside Buckingham Palace. :rolleyes:

sitigeltfel
27th Feb 2015, 10:08
Yes, and they sit all day on the sofa stuffing their faces with cheap lager and pizza while watching the Jeremy Kyle show. :rolleyes:

MagnusP
27th Feb 2015, 10:10
the rest of them all have their snouts in the trough

Or, perhaps, their arses in the seats of combat and SAR helicopters? Or serving in the RN in the Indian Ocean and the Med? Falklands anyone? I agree there are some I'd perceive as a waste of space, but sweeping generalisations don't really help your argument.

charliegolf
27th Feb 2015, 10:14
The French tourist industry is based on this

Not skiing, alps in summer, cote d'azure, wine regions, food safaris. Just palace gawping (from inside of course)?

CG

maliyahsdad2
27th Feb 2015, 10:17
I wonder how many buildings the Royals have collectively opened in the past 10 years alone, how many business events they have attended, how many charity events they have attended, how many charities they are patrons of, how many sick children they have visited in various hospitals, stuff like that that you cannot put a value on, then add on the revenue from tourists.

charliegolf, you missed out Disneyland Paris, the price of that place must add a small sum to the totals.

tony draper
27th Feb 2015, 10:17
Hmmm, a slight wiff of republicanism in the air,that's definitely just what this country needs, a President Millipede.:rolleyes:

Art E. Fischler-Reisen
27th Feb 2015, 10:43
Off with his jealous head!

Exascot
27th Feb 2015, 10:47
AS, get back into your working class box. Did they miss you out of the New Years honours List?

If you had ever worked for 'The Firm' you would know how incredibly hard The Royal Family work with amazing dedication to duties. They never volunteered but were born into post. In recent times there has only been one member of the family who has stepped down from public duties and that was due to ill health.

One thinks that you are a complete t:mad:r

Fareastdriver
27th Feb 2015, 10:49
It's just a troll.

parabellum
27th Feb 2015, 10:56
Nothing like a good troll, unfortunately the OP isn't very good!


Princess Anne alone does, or did, over 400 public engagements a year. No retirement age for any of them, continue until dead. Not sure if ORAC will bother to read this puerile thread but he did once produce the figures that will prove just how little the Royal Family costs the taxpayer.

charliegolf
27th Feb 2015, 10:58
I wonder how many buildings the Royals have collectively opened in the past 10 years alone, how many business events they have attended, how many charity events they have attended, how many charities they are patrons of, how many sick children they have visited in various hospitals, stuff like that that you cannot put a value on,

Jack Straw charges £5k a day. The 'working' royals must (guessing here) do 500 events a year between them. That's £2.5 mil for a start. Just a start.

CG

Oops, see post above, and assume £10 mil.

tony draper
27th Feb 2015, 11:06
People forget their school history,we were the first to try it out, alas President Cromwell's administration went pear shaped very swiftly,we found it wanting so went back to what had worked for a thousand years.
:rolleyes:

ORAC
27th Feb 2015, 11:19
Parabellum, since you ask.....

There are many misunderstandings about the cost of the monarchy, some of them perpetuated by republicans, especially journalists, who deliberately give false information about the number of members of the Royal Family, for example, who are on the Civil List. The following sets out to explain the facts and equip members to challenge any inaccuracies which they see or hear in the media. . .. .

The Queen and her Household has four sources of funding - the Civil List, Grant-in-Aid, the Privy Purse and private income. The first two, which cover official expenditure, are not taxed, the Privy Purse is fully taxable subject to a deduction for official expenditure, and the Queen pays tax on her personal income and capital gains. . .. .

The Civil List is the sum provided by Parliament to meet the official expenses of the Queen as Head of State. About 70% of Civil List expenditure goes to pay the salaries of staff working directly for the Queen. Their duties include dealing with State papers, and organising the Queen’s public engagements, meetings, receptions and official entertainment, including Royal Garden Parties. In other words, the whole range of activities expected of a Head of State, whether president or monarch. . .. .

The Civil List as it currently exists was created on the accession of King George III in 1760, when it was decided that the cost of government should be provided by Parliament. In return, and in a move described by John Brooke in his biography of the King as "from the point of view of the Crown ... the most disastrous step that could have been taken", he surrendered the hereditary royal revenue. This included income from the customs and post office and the net surplus of the Crown Estate. The £132.9 million profit of the Crown Estate for year ending March 31st 2000 was paid to the Exchequer for the benefit of taxpayers. This sum far exceeds the total cost of the monarchy. The Queen’s Civil List has been fixed at £7.9 million per annum until 2011. Full details of Royal Household expenditure are published. . .. .

The Queen Mother and Prince Philip are the only other members of the Royal Family to receive annuities from the Civil List, of £643,000 and £359,000 respectively. The annuities of other members of the Royal Family who carry out engagements on Her Majesty’s behalf are provided by the Queen from the Privy Purse. The revenue for this is obtained from the Duchy of Lancaster, an independent possession of the Sovereign since 1399. It is not included in the National Asset Register of Government holdings published by HM Treasury. The Prince of Wales derives his income, on which he pays tax, from the Duchy of Cornwall. . .. .

The Occupied Royal Palaces, principally Buckingham Palace, St.James’s Palace, Clarence House, parts of Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle are funded by Grants-in-Aid. Obviously, they would be maintained by the State whether Britain were a monarchy or not. The Unoccupied Palaces, such as the Tower of London and Hampton Court, are maintained from visitor admissions. . .. .

Royal transport, required to enable the Royal Family to carry out almost 3000 engagements a year, is also funded by Grant-in-Aid. Of course, official travel would also have to be paid for if Britain were a republic.

Privately, the Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham and some smaller properties. Estimates of the Queen’s wealth have often been wildly exaggerated, as they mistakenly include items which are held by the Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation and are not her private property. These include the Royal Palaces, Art Collection, Crown Jewels etc. It is interesting to note that, far from being Britain’s wealthiest person, the Queen is 105th on The Sunday Times 2001 Rich List. . .. .

The annual cost of the monarchy is approximately £37 million. For details see http://www.royal.gov.uk . .. .

In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state, but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably.......

MagnusP
27th Feb 2015, 11:21
The Civil List was replaced by the Sovereign Grant by an Act of Parliament passed in 2011. It came into effect in 2012.

Mr Chips
27th Feb 2015, 11:25
Ignoring the rubbish trolling attempt regarding the Royal Family, I'd like to pick up on the other general point.

Whenever there is any kind of conversation about "Benefit Scroungers", some people try to deflect - to genuine cases, to bankers, and this time to the Royal Family.

Why does it matter what other groups are doing. There is clearly a class of people who treat benefits as a lifestyle, and have attitudes and behaviours to match.

rgbrock1
27th Feb 2015, 13:20
ORAC wrote:
In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections. Republics show great reluctance in publishing the cost of their heads of state, but the cost of the British monarchy compares extremely favourably

And here in the Republic of the United States of America, this is all so obviously true.

skydiver69
27th Feb 2015, 13:59
In reality far more would come if we "stood the family down" and opened up their grounds to the public. The French tourist industry is based on this and is far more successful than the UK.


I often wonder how much of the French tourist industry is based on its location instead of its attractions? It is after all bordered by 6 countries all of which attract tourists travelling by road who often drive through France to their destination thereby contributing to France's tourist total as a by product.

Tankertrashnav
27th Feb 2015, 16:59
Thanks for the gen ORAC and for your figures. So it looks like the whole shooting match costs each of us quite a bit under £1 per annum.

Arch Stanton, I'm going to be generous and round it up to £1, so if you would care to publish your bank account details (sort code and account number) I'll happily transfer £5 into your account. Then you can forget it for 5 years, happy in the knowledge that your contribution to the Royal Family has been paid for by someone else!

Checkboard
27th Feb 2015, 18:06
In republics not only do presidents have to be supported financially, as do former presidents and widows, but their official duties have to be paid for, and official and historic residences maintained. And there is the added expense of periodic elections.
To be fair, the UK supports these costs for the Prime Minister in addition to the Queen. ;)

seacue
27th Feb 2015, 18:45
I like the story about Prince Phillip. He was still fairly new on the job and had spent the day in rainy, cold Canada "opening" various buildings, etc. He is quoted thus (at the last stop):

"I hereby declare this place OPEN ... whatever it is."

He must have had an exasperating day.

victor tango
27th Feb 2015, 19:38
Republics work well in France and America etc as it's a system they have got used to over a long period of time and are comfortable with, generally.

We have had our KINGDOM for much longer (apart from a Cromwellian blip, which actually proves the point further) Any one who wishes to criticise is welcome to do so, so that we listen/digest and think of the alternative on offer.

Then thank God confirm our belief in our system.

If dissenters are still unhappy they can always :mad: off.

P6 Driver
27th Feb 2015, 19:46
Would the OP like to state what Benefits she thinks the Royal Family actually claim?

parabellum
27th Feb 2015, 20:29
Thanks ORAC.


I'll join Tankertrashnav and subscribe £5.00 for a further five years, thus freeing up £10.00 of Arch Stanton's hard earned wages/benefits in order that he may renew his subscription to Socialist Worker, or Red Flag or whatever rag he reads.

Fareastdriver
27th Feb 2015, 21:20
Including the United Kingdom but excluding the British Commonwealth over half billion people have a hereditary figure as their Head of State.

OSMO-SIS
27th Feb 2015, 21:49
Arch Stanton's hard earned wages/benefits in order that he may renew his subscription to Socialist Worker, or Red Flag or whatever rag he reads.

THE GUARDIAN ?

Private jet
27th Feb 2015, 22:21
Re Prince Phillip (Greek expat)

Apparently on one jaunt he asked an expat Brit "What are you running away from?" Bloody cheek. I hope the reply was "People like you....sir"

maliyahsdad2
27th Feb 2015, 22:26
Re Prince Phillip (Greek expat)
......

From Wiki. "A member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, Prince Philip was born in Greece into the Greek and Danish royal families, but his family was exiled from Greece when he was a baby."

I suppose you think he should have returned to Greece as soon as he could walk?

"People like you sir". You mean someone who has served his country tirelessly for over 70 years?

Ken Borough
28th Feb 2015, 05:22
I don't care how much the Monarchy costs Britian but i do object to what it costs us in Austrlia for their patronising visits which rams home to us that an Australian citizen can never be our country's Head of State.

ORAC
28th Feb 2015, 06:48
[I don't care how much the Monarchy costs Britian but i do object to what it costs us in Austrlia :p When did they join the Commonwealth? :p

alisoncc
28th Feb 2015, 07:33
Arch Stanton be very wary. A significant number of JB contributors swore the following oath, and being of an older generation take such things seriously. There were no conditions attached to the oath so it stands in perpetuity.

I,...................... swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies....

Arch Stanton
28th Feb 2015, 08:19
I would have respect for you if you had sworn an oath to protect the friends, family and fellow citizens of your country rather than the figurehead of the rich and powerful.

Maybe you can tell me why your allegiance is to royalty rather than the people of your country?

Exascot
28th Feb 2015, 08:25
Is this guy for real?

beaufort1
28th Feb 2015, 08:27
Well said alisoncc :ok:

bugged on the right
28th Feb 2015, 08:28
Yes Ken. you could elect Kylie Minogue, Cate Blanchett or some footballer to be president. An election every 5 years, changes to the head of state photos in government offices, stationery, different limos because the footballer wants more bling, and you would still have to cough for state visits from other countries, Government house and all the entertainment. Don't forget the last sensible control on rotten politicians and their foibles, as in Gough. Australia is in all respects a republic, HM the Queen has been as good for Australia as she has for Britain. Australia would not benefit in any way by becoming a republic.

alisoncc
28th Feb 2015, 09:30
I would have respect for you if you had sworn an oath to protect the friends, family and fellow citizens of your country rather than the figurehead of the rich and powerful.

Maybe you can tell me why your allegiance is to royalty rather than the people of your country? To quote Halton Brat:
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers who have taken the Oath, worn the uniform & even loitered in harm's way occasionally, have cultivated our own vocabulary and (often rich) manner of speech. This has been so for centuries. It has sustained us in hard times, and is an intrinsic facet of Service life.

No more to add.

Fareastdriver
28th Feb 2015, 11:19
Maybe you can tell me why your allegiance is to royalty rather than the people of your country?

Years ago I was travelling in a tube train en route to the Air Ministry. I had reached the end of my service and I was going for an interview where they were going to try to persuade me to stay on. I looked around my fellow passengers, the worst assortment of humanity that you would care to meet and thought whether I should continue to lay my life on the line for these people.

Not [email protected]@ly Likely.

Ken Borough
28th Feb 2015, 11:52
Bugged etc,

I see that you (a) are aged 16, and (b) live in the UK. I suggest that when you grow up and become an Australian national, feel free to express such puerile views.

bugged on the right
28th Feb 2015, 12:02
Ken, I'm afraid the joke is on you. I changed my age in order to appeal to a moderator's perceived demographic. I'm 64. It's a long story but relates to me being given time out from a thread. I am actually an Australian. Like others on this thread I took the same oath and am proud of having served Queen and country. As for your last comment, I find nothing more repulsive than bitter left wingers who have not served their country in any way calling my views puerile. I will send you a dollar and 50 cents to pay your part of supporting our Head of State. Now, back in your box

ArthurR
28th Feb 2015, 12:06
Bugged etc

I see by your Profile that you where Born November 1998

and joined PPRuNe July 2000

Joining under 2 years old I am impressed

Fareastdriver
28th Feb 2015, 12:22
The only reason that Australian politicians support the Republican Movement is the chance that they may be elected as the President.

MFC_Fly
28th Feb 2015, 14:01
Their PR machine does a wonderful job of convincing everyone that they actually make money for the UK because tourist only come here to stand outside the gates of their palaces and gawp.

In reality far more would come if we "stood the family down" and opened up their grounds to the public.
Evidence for this please?

I have several relatives that are native nationals of several different nations around the globe and the first time they discuss the UK with me all they talk about is the Queen and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

When they visit the UK, far from wanting to go into Buckingham Palace, etc, all they want to do is SEE WHERE the Queen lives. They then "stand outside the gates of their palaces and gawp."

In fact I have relatives coming to visit in a couple of months time, and again the first thing they have asked to see in London is Buckingham Palace. I asked why they wanted to do that and they said "because the Queen lives there". Not one comment of 'because it's beautiful' or 'because we ant to go inside', simply 'because the Queen lives there' :ok:

ShyTorque
28th Feb 2015, 15:33
I don't care how much the Monarchy costs Britian but i do object to what it costs us in Austrlia for their patronising visits which rams home to us that an Australian citizen can never be our country's Head of State.

How can we let you have your own head of state? We can only do that when you learn how to spell the name of your own country!

Tankertrashnav
28th Feb 2015, 17:34
Ken Borough - I'm not sure if you realise just how little the average Brit cares whether or not Australia becomes a republic. There are now only 16 Commonwealth Realms, as countries which still have The Queen as Head of State are known, and quite frankly I'm a bit surprised Australia didn't go down that road years ago. Your choice, and a matter of complete indifference to most of us in the UK.

Just one thing - if you go, will you please take your bloody soap operas with you?

MFC- FLY - I get the same thing when I visit internet news chat rooms based in the US. On introducing myself as a Brit I frequently get asked "How's the Queen?" (as if I'd know). I usually respond with "Don't know - how's Obama?" which nearly always starts an anti Obama rant which I can sit back and watch!

Ken Borough
1st Mar 2015, 00:01
Shy Torque, I'm sorry about the typos. Good help is almost impossible to find in these parts!

Tanker, . I agree that the Brits mostly don't give a FF about Australia's position on the Monarchy. The push to retain it is in our own country by a very small groupfof seemingly influential peopke who do their best at every tun to denigrate the concept. Our somewhat discredited PM is a leading monarchist, having taken unilateral decisions to reinstate knighthoods and award one to HMQ's husband. This was met with derision and incredulity which has probably been to the advantage of the republicans.

I share your views re the soaps. Never watch them, know little about them and don't know a soul who admits to watching them.

John Hill
1st Mar 2015, 02:21
When I visited the country with the name that is not to be mentioned on this site the young women had endless questions about life on the 'outside'.

They asked if women really starved themselves to be beautiful, they asked if everybody went to church on Sundays and they asked about Queen Elizabeth and Princess Di.

parabellum
1st Mar 2015, 05:18
a very small groupfof seemingly influential peopke who do their best at every tun to denigrate the concept

In your dreams Ken. Cast your mind back to the most recent visits of HM Queen or William and Kate, if it went to a referendum tomorrow the monarchists would win hands down. Apart from that though Ken, if Australia did vote for a republic who is going to pay for the transition? Then, who are the beneficiaries, do you really want yet another pollie or retired/failed lawyer to get their snout in the gravy train? Please tell me one tangible benefit the ordinary Australian tax payer will receive should Australia become a republic.

Ken Borough
1st Mar 2015, 05:30
Sorry, guys, for the thread drift. As an Australian Republic versus a foreign Monarchy has been done to death elsewhere, I will not continue the debate on this thread. For my critics and the dissenters, please don't take this as a retreat! :ok:

Stanwell
1st Mar 2015, 06:27
OK then...
Slight thread drift again.

When the time comes for Her Maj to pass on the baton, is Charlie likely to take it up and run - or pass it on?

Tankertrashnav
1st Mar 2015, 10:10
Definitely take it. What possible reason would he have to abdicate, except to please a lot of people who would like to see it skip a generation? He's waited all his life for the job, he's sure as heck going to take it when the post becomes vacant.

That is if the Queen doesn't outlive him, which is a possibility.

Chris the Robot
1st Mar 2015, 16:35
I do wonder why we actually need a single person to act as "Head of State" (whether monarch or president), the Swiss don't and yet they have arguably the most democratic form of government in the world.

wings folded
1st Mar 2015, 16:52
In fact I have relatives coming to visit in a couple of months time, and again the first thing they have asked to see in London is Buckingham Palace. I asked why they wanted to do that and they said "because the Queen lives there". Not one comment of 'because it's beautiful' or 'because we ant to go inside', simply 'because the Queen lives there'

You might want to correct their false impression. She is hardly ever at BP; spends most of her time at Windsor if it is not Sandringham or Balmoral.

mixture
1st Mar 2015, 17:40
the Swiss don't and yet they have arguably the most democratic form of government in the world.

Yeah, Switzerland.... the country where you can't have a piss after 10pm or wash your car on a Sunday. Democracy at its best.... :rolleyes:

Tankertrashnav
1st Mar 2015, 17:52
She is hardly ever at BP; spends most of her time at Windsor if it is not Sandringham or Balmoral.

Not so. A mate of mine, a superintendent in the Met, finished his career on royal protection duties and explained the system. Its Buck House Monday to Thursday, then on Friday the whole shebang ups and moves to Windsor for the weekend. Back to town on Sunday night, and so it goes on. On top of that it's Balmoral for the summer hols and Sandringham for Christmas.

Easy for the tourists to check - if the royal standard is flying over Buck House then HM is "at home".

sitigeltfel
1st Mar 2015, 17:58
Yeah, Switzerland.... the country where you can't have a piss after 10pm

Methinks you are taking the piss.......;)

Thomas Oberle, a lawyer with the homeowners’ association HEV, says that contrary to popular belief the rental law in Switzerland is not very specific. This means that landlords can interpret the law as they see fit.

They are free to set their own house rules, for example, banning pets or insisting that permission is needed to keep them. There are no blanket Swiss rules that apply to all tenants, in other words, and the oft-quoted “ban” on flushing the toilet after 10pm is an urban myth.Swiss ban on toilet flushing 'an urban myth' - The Local (http://www.thelocal.ch/20130522/rules-and-regulations-that-dog-tenants-in-switzerland)

Chris the Robot
1st Mar 2015, 19:34
If the Swiss seriously cared about the car-washing law, more than 100,000 of them would sign a formal petition to remove it, since over there any petition with more than 100,000 valid signatures (about 2% of eligible voters) over an 18 month period automatically results in a referendum.

Over here if 2% of eligible voters signed a petition, those in power would most likely say "well the other 98% didn't".

It's not a perfect system in Switzerland (e.g. universal suffrage in Appenzell Innerrhoden)but it is far better than just about everywhere else.

Over here, I don't see why we shouldn't just have a referendum on the monarchy every x number of years (perhaps with every General Election), after all it would keep them behaving well.

parabellum
1st Mar 2015, 21:50
I don't see why we shouldn't just have a referendum on the monarchy every x number of years

Excellent idea Chris, whilst we are at it we can also allow local communities to have a referendum on who they want to stay in the area and who, because of anti-social behaviour, must pack up and leave, democracy in action! :rolleyes:

lasernigel
1st Mar 2015, 21:57
Thank you alisoncc for your quotes. As a Vet who served nearly 13 years for my Queen and Country I hope AS can see the error in his first and subsequent remarks.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/lasernigel/Freedom_zps461irvd1.jpg
:ok: