The Queen in Manchester today

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

Can some show me how this 55p is calculated?

It's actually just over 61p per person. Based on 2009/10 figures of £38.2m (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/03/are_the_royals_value_for_money.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/ ... money.html</a>) so may be a little bit out. Population currently 62.3m (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/inde ... Population</a>) gives you 61.3p from every man, woman and child.

So its doesn't include security?? Which is probably the biggest cost. If you see the amount of police surrounding her that must mean tens of thousand whenever she goes for a walk about.

And its per person not per tax payer.

Yes but she pays over £2 billion to the government out of the royal portfolio

 

[johnmc]

Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

It's actually just over 61p per person. Based on 2009/10 figures of £38.2m (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2011/03/are_the_royals_value_for_money.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/ ... money.html</a>) so may be a little bit out. Population currently 62.3m (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/inde ... Population</a>) gives you 61.3p from every man, woman and child.

So its doesn't include security?? Which is probably the biggest cost. If you see the amount of police surrounding her that must mean tens of thousand whenever she goes for a walk about.

And its per person not per tax payer.

Yes but she pays over £2 billion to the government out of the royal portfolio

Why does she have a royal portfolio though. How does she earn money on it that wouldn't be raised if there wasn't a monarch?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

So its doesn't include security?? Which is probably the biggest cost. If you see the amount of police surrounding her that must mean tens of thousand whenever she goes for a walk about.

And its per person not per tax payer.

Yes but she pays over £2 billion to the government out of the royal portfolio

Why does she have a royal portfolio though. How does she earn money on it that wouldn't be raised if there wasn't a monarch?

well there is at it has been fpr a while and i dont think they have to hand over the money so if we got rid of them they would still own all of that stuff and wouldnt have to donate the money

 

[johnmc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

Yes but she pays over £2 billion to the government out of the royal portfolio

Why does she have a royal portfolio though. How does she earn money on it that wouldn't be raised if there wasn't a monarch?

well there is at it has been fpr a while and i dont think they have to hand over the money so if we got rid of them they would still own all of that stuff and wouldnt have to donate the money

So if there was no monarch the windsors would still own all the palaces, land and swans? Ok.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

Why does she have a royal portfolio though. How does she earn money on it that wouldn't be raised if there wasn't a monarch?

well there is at it has been fpr a while and i dont think they have to hand over the money so if we got rid of them they would still own all of that stuff and wouldnt have to donate the money

So if there was no monarch the windsors would still own all the palaces, land and swans? Ok.

That might give the swans up, well they legally own it all so it would be some battle to take it off of them. The country would actually be worse off due to not receiving the cash and we would probably lose about a quarter of the tourism to this country. Its a stupid argument because there always will be a monarch, i have just shown that we actually make more from them than lose and yet you still have a problem. Why do people care so much, all the things to worry about or get annoyed from and people spend there time worrying about an old lady in a big house

 

[Anonymous]

The Royal Family make more money for this country than it does to have them. End of.

yes but why them? why can't my family live in luxury and go travelling in 5 star for a job? what makes them more important or special than anyone else?

equality my arse.

The Queen, 85, works more hours , pays more tax , creates more jobs and raises more money for charity than you , all through an accident of birth , her sense of duty after the death of her father is her motivation.

you've missed my point,

why should she get the opportunity over anyone else? i could be even better than her in that job, you never know.accident of birth? it's still this ridiculous notion that the royal family has been chosen by some made up man in the sky. we all know that's bullshit so why should they have this life of luxury?

and i'm not sure about "working" more hours. has she ever done 7am-5pm in a factory 6 days a week doing manual labour? or has she just gone round visiting loads of places on the back of the tax i pay? there's plenty of 85 year old women that have worked for 60 years and i mean real work and are now living on peanuts, you don't see wanna be middle class sheep waving and snapping pictures at them.

i understand they create money and do a lot of good but my problem is why them? why not bob from next door? it's the same with footballers, you get people saying "oh james milner is such a great guy and a model proffesional"- no he's just a guy who's talented and he realises he needs to get on with his job with minimal fuss just like 90+% of other people who work and considering the money he's on and the fact it's something he enjoys then so he should.

oh and jonny crossan, i'm nobodies loyal subject.

 

[johnmc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

well there is at it has been fpr a while and i dont think they have to hand over the money so if we got rid of them they would still own all of that stuff and wouldnt have to donate the money

So if there was no monarch the windsors would still own all the palaces, land and swans? Ok.

That might give the swans up, well they legally own it all so it would be some battle to take it off of them. The country would actually be worse off due to not receiving the cash and we would probably lose about a quarter of the tourism to this country. Its a stupid argument because there always will be a monarch, i have just shown that we actually make more from them than lose and yet you still have a problem. Why do people care so much, all the things to worry about or get annoyed from and people spend there time worrying about an old lady in a big house

Im not worried. Im just commenting on a thread. I don't have a problem just an opinion. The tourism argument is often used but has no foundation. If you can prove people come to the country see the queen then please do. If you say people come to see the royal residences they will still be there. I've not suggested knocking anything down.

And if it is as you say an old lady in an old house then why are you so.bothered?

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

So if there was no monarch the windsors would still own all the palaces, land and swans? Ok.

That might give the swans up, well they legally own it all so it would be some battle to take it off of them. The country would actually be worse off due to not receiving the cash and we would probably lose about a quarter of the tourism to this country. Its a stupid argument because there always will be a monarch, i have just shown that we actually make more from them than lose and yet you still have a problem. Why do people care so much, all the things to worry about or get annoyed from and people spend there time worrying about an old lady in a big house

Im not worried. Im just commenting on a thread. I don't have a problem just an opinion. The tourism argument is often used but has no foundation. If you can prove people come to the country see the queen then please do. If you say people come to see the royal residences they will still be there. I've not suggested knocking anything down.

And if it is as you say an old lady in an old house then why are you so.bothered?

I said old lady in big house ;)
Well i see the amount of people that go to Buckingham Palace and Windsor. I dont think anyone would just come to see the Queen or the Palaces but they will spend 2 days of a weeks holiday going around seeing it all. There are grander better looking places than Buckingham Palace in London but they dont get the same amount of people go them. people go because the Queen lives there not because its a lovely building.
I have had 10-12 friends come from Australia and 5 from the USA and the first thing they wanted do was go there regardless of the fact its boring as watching paint dry

 

[johnmc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

That might give the swans up, well they legally own it all so it would be some battle to take it off of them. The country would actually be worse off due to not receiving the cash and we would probably lose about a quarter of the tourism to this country. Its a stupid argument because there always will be a monarch, i have just shown that we actually make more from them than lose and yet you still have a problem. Why do people care so much, all the things to worry about or get annoyed from and people spend there time worrying about an old lady in a big house

Im not worried. Im just commenting on a thread. I don't have a problem just an opinion. The tourism argument is often used but has no foundation. If you can prove people come to the country see the queen then please do. If you say people come to see the royal residences they will still be there. I've not suggested knocking anything down.

And if it is as you say an old lady in an old house then why are you so.bothered?

I said old lady in big house ;)
Well i see the amount of people that go to Buckingham Palace and Windsor. I dont think anyone would just come to see the Queen or the Palaces but they will spend 2 days of a weeks holiday going around seeing it all. There are grander better looking places than Buckingham Palace in London but they dont get the same amount of people go them. people go because the Queen lives there not because its a lovely building.
I have had 10-12 friends come from Australia and 5 from the USA and the first thing they wanted do was go there regardless of the fact its boring as watching paint dry

They would still be able to look round buckingham even if there wasnt a queen. In fact they could see all of it not a limited amount. Or do they only go because there is a living queen.

Imagine they turned it into a hotel. You could stay in the queens bedroom in return for what it would take to run a hospital ward for a month.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Queen in Manchester today

Im not worried. Im just commenting on a thread. I don't have a problem just an opinion. The tourism argument is often used but has no foundation. If you can prove people come to the country see the queen then please do. If you say people come to see the royal residences they will still be there. I've not suggested knocking anything down.

And if it is as you say an old lady in an old house then why are you so.bothered?

I said old lady in big house ;)
Well i see the amount of people that go to Buckingham Palace and Windsor. I dont think anyone would just come to see the Queen or the Palaces but they will spend 2 days of a weeks holiday going around seeing it all. There are grander better looking places than Buckingham Palace in London but they dont get the same amount of people go them. people go because the Queen lives there not because its a lovely building.
I have had 10-12 friends come from Australia and 5 from the USA and the first thing they wanted do was go there regardless of the fact its boring as watching paint dry

They would still be able to look round buckingham even if there wasnt a queen. In fact they could see all of it not a limited amount. Or do they only go because there is a living queen.

Imagine they turned it into a hotel. You could stay in the queens bedroom in return for what it would take to run a hospital ward for a month.

Thats what i just said mate. There are better buildings in London than Buckingham Palace but people go there because its the Queens gaff otherwise its just another big old building in London. It would be state owned for 2 weeks until someone offered them £350 million. Then it would either be someone elses house or a foreign owned hotel.