I'm not sure what comparing visitor numbers from country to country shows to be honest. Paris, Istanbul, and any number of other cities have unique things that attract visitors. The Royal Family is one of the things that is unique to the UK that attracts visitors to London and the rest of the country. What would be the point of getting rid of one of those? Paris wouldn't pull the Eifel Tower down because a small number of people think its ugly. I agree that the number of members of the Royal Family that receive government funding should be reduced. I also wouldn't be opposed to those properties that are used by the Royal Family but owned by the state being put to other uses, either in conjunction with their Royal function or instead of. A lot of the properties are under private ownership though and I don't agree with stripping them, or anyone, of their private property. If they wanted to gift some of those properties to the nation (to be administered by English Heritage or the National Trust), that would be a different story.
I didn't say that the only reason is tourism. I said they were a symbol of national identity. Every country has those. One of ours just so happens to be a small group of people with slightly odd accents.
Historically royal family land use was used to make money out of industry (poor conditions little care) and rent land/housing to workers and as it modernised we often still pay it in ground rent. It’s just not right. Billionaires made out of owning the land we walk on. Zero effort while we all struggle on. That’s the kind of wealth the nation needs to redistribute. look at the crown estate and the duchy of Cornwall and the land reform in Scotland https://whoownsengland.org/2020/10/...nds-ten-largest-institutional-landowners/amp/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/25/scottish-land-reform-bill why would the state make money from the wealth of this land rather than the royal family and offset things like national insurance rises. It feels immoral to me. It isn’t the property of the royal family it belongs to the nation.
https://images.app.goo.gl/P3w3xGDqcVU3c7D3A Since the french revolution they have a great symbol of national identity..Marianne, no need for expensive heredity spongers
I understand about land ownership and its history. But anyone can own land and rent out/charge ground etc. In some cases, that ground rent is used (at least partially) to fund local amenities- Letchworth Garden City in Hertfordshire being one example. I don't see that as immoral at all. Some people own things and others don't. I'm not sure how much the state would make from coastal mud flats. Like the Royal Family itself thats an anachronism- not many people are desperate to claim sea birds and washed up whale carcasses. If the Crown Estates weren't making money from some of that land though, what effect would that have on tax payer funding of the Royal family?
But as the article points out in its very first sentence, that's not analogous to the Royal family. Of course they're not the only symbol of national identity but they are one that is unique to the UK.
They don’t need any they increase their riches every year and could comfortably survive with no sovereignty grant https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals
Hmm. Republic are going to give an unbiased assessment of it aren't they? But this is interesting "one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 25% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio". So the crown estate not only funds the Sovereign Grant but puts three times that amount into the public purse. Not sure I see the problem.
Well as the only other source is the Royal Family themselves as they aren’t able to be scrutinised or declared publicly because they made amendments to the law to avoid it (despite apparently not being involved in law making) I’ll trust the republic version. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
You don’t see the problem in the state losing 25% of riches when poor people are paying increase national insurance contributions despite increased inflation and growing poverty levels ?
Like I've said, they're a symbol of national identity. Governments spend large amounts of money on such things. And its not 25% of all riches, its 25% of income from the Crown Estate.
So we’d get the other 25%of those profits if it belonged to the state and could offset child poverty instead of paying for the royal boys to head off to Eton with their fellow elite, ready to exploit another generation
You could equally say cut government funding of the arts or certain sports but these things, like the Royal Family, contribute to the character and culture of the country. These are things that governments are always going to spend money on. I'm sorry but I'm not offended by people attending Eton, or any other school of that type. As for poverty, that's a multi-faceted problem which requires much more than just having money thrown at it.
You seem to be a lttle confused here. How is 'THE STATE' losing 25% of anything. The income you refer to comes from those Property that The Crown gave up in exchange for the yearly grant. As I see it the State is the winner on this deal by 75%.
The royal properties are our properties so we lose 25. Maybe you’re confused and think the royal families land wasn’t taken from the people .maybe you’re confused and think we owe them something for living a privileged life, exploiting it’s subjects and denying right like the right to buy from its tenants.
The thing is you have to go so far back in time to find the point that much of that land was 'taken from the people' that it makes it meaningless. Apart from which, can we really say that land grabbed by an Anglo-Saxon warlord, which was then ceded to a King of one of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, which was then taken in war by another of these Kings, which then became the property of another King when the kingdoms were amalgamated, which was then won in battle by William the Conqueror, and which then passed down the generations to the current Royal family, as having been taken from the people? And which people are we talking about? The Roman Empire? The Iron Age tribes? The Belgic incomers who grabbed the land when they arrived from Europe in the late Bronze Age? Much of that land has never belonged to the people.
Everything bit of land that belongs to the royals belongs to the people. It’s not their personal land that they bought from an estate agent. I’d go as far as saying all inherited royal land be it dukes duchesses queen prince whoever is ours and they can keep one to live in which is more than fair. The rest can be used by the people who the country belongs to. Not one family. If their land can give them wealth it can give us wealth. How can a person paying rent to a social housing landlord have a the right to buy but a tenant of royal land have no right to buy, because it costs the Windsor’s some of their wealth. It stinks.
No, I'm not in the least confused. But I do like history, and the who owned what is a historical fact. The lands ownwed by The Crown were not taken from 'The People', unless you mean the previous Landowners. For the sake of simplicity, I'll start with 1066. When William beat Harold all the land in England became his, in theory. Many of the Saxon leaders lost their holdings. Only a negligable amount of anything was owned by what, today, we think of as 'the working class'' William gave great tracts of this to his supporters, who we now think of as 'The Nobility' and some Saxons kept what they had held previously. The nobility parceled tracts off to their supporters too. Over the centuries The nobility saw their lands diminish mostly to The Church and by flogging bits off. A merchant class developed and bought up relatively small estates and villages. Then Henry the Eighth confiscated and flogged off, mostly to the newly rich Merchant Class, most of The Church Lands. So Land ownership became more widspread and along the way the Yeoman Farmer appeared. The deal made between Parliament and The Crown was something similar to a Perpetual Annuity. So far it has worked well for all parties for most of the time. Your philosophy seems rather akin to my understanding of the Native Australians who believe that land can not be owned, simply used for a while by the occupant. So to return to your point, just who were these people that The Royal Family took the Lands from? And if it was the Saxon Lords, who did THEY get it from. And if it was the Celtic Lords, who did they take it from. And if you think this is complicated, enquire into the properties included when Jasmes the Sixth became James the First. And YES, I confess to having oversimplified this. I aint no teacher.
