FAO PLUM - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

FAO PLUM

JonnyTwoToes Avatar
banned6y, 7m agoPosted 6 years, 7 months ago
Ok, here is the info I was looking for in regard to how much the Royals actually give to our economy over what they take in income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

Like I said, I'm far from being a Royalist however, it makes good economic sense to keep them!
Tags:
JonnyTwoToes Avatar
banned6y, 7m agoPosted 6 years, 7 months ago
Options

All Comments

(45) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
Page:
banned#1
#2
I actually agree with you there 100%
banned#3
:w00t:

*Picks self up off floor.

It was obvious you have a thing for me. :-D
#4
JonnyTwoToes
:w00t:

*Picks self up off floor.

It was obvious you have a thing for me. :-D


Na I don't disagree with people for the sake of it honestly, :w00t:

I totally agree with the op word for word and shhhhhh don't tell my hubby, I won't tell your mrs;-)
banned#5
tinkerbell28
Na I don't disagree with people for the sake of it honestly, :w00t:

I totally agree with the op word for word and shhhhhh don't tell my hubby, I won't tell your mrs;-)


Mr fiancee reads my PM's so I've deleted that last one you sent me! You hussy you! :-D
#6
JonnyTwoToes
Mr fiancee reads my PM's so I've deleted that last one you sent me! You hussy you! :-D


:lol:
banned#7
I see no evidence there that suggests we'd be any poorer if we got rid of them. Summarise for me...
#8
tinkerbell28
I actually agree with you there 100%


tinkerbell28
Na I don't disagree with people for the sake of it honestly, :w00t:

I totally agree with the op word for word and shhhhhh don't tell my hubby, I won't tell your mrs;-)


+1
#10
master_chief;8431349
I see no evidence there that suggests we'd be any poorer if we got rid of them. Summarise for me...

+1
We would save £41.5 million straight off.
And think of the worldwide film and tv rights for the public hangings. Do it properly and we could even have a Pop Idol/Crimewatch hybrid were people phone a premium rate phone line to give the whereabouts of royals and peers with a chance to win a sliding reward scale depending where they are in the line for the throne.
Regarding the Crown Estate
Wikipedia entry
it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally

It wouldn't be that big a step to take these properties into public ownership. After all Henry VIII and his cronies took most of it from the catholics anyway.. :evil:
banned#11
master_chief
I see no evidence there that suggests we'd be any poorer if we got rid of them. Summarise for me...


[COLOR="Black"]The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury[/COLOR]

...and an annual profit of £226.5 million

You do the math.
#12
JonnyTwoToes
[COLOR="Black"]The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury[/COLOR]

...and an annual profit of £226.5 million

You do the math.


But you'd still get that without them as its from the land. Think that's the point. 226mil is sod all anyway:whistling:
banned#13
Shengis
But you'd still get that without them as its from the land. Think that's the point. 226mil is sod all anyway:whistling:


How do you work that out? Are you saying that the royal connections to the Crown Estates have no influence of the amount of money they take.

Buckingham Palace is the Queens home. Take the Queen away and you get a big house. Same attraction?
#14
JonnyTwoToes
How do you work that out? Are you saying that the royal connections to the Crown Estates have no influence of the amount of money they take.

Buckingham Palace is the Queens home. Take the Queen away and you get a big house. Same attraction?


of course its the same attraction, I couldn't give a monkey's if the Queens there or not, the history of the place is not gonna change is it?

I don't go to the Tower of London expecting to see the King there still...................
#15
JonnyTwoToes
How do you work that out? Are you saying that the royal connections to the Crown Estates have no influence of the amount of money they take.

Buckingham Palace is the Queens home. Take the Queen away and you get a big house. Same attraction?


Yes. People visit stately homes, castles etc. Got nowt to do with who lives there, they just go to look. Charles dickens lived in Rochester, people visit there to see where he lived. Same thing. Not sure why they do it but they do. I was passing through Faversham the other night and made a pilgrimage to Harty Ferry just to drink from the well. I was there about 5 minutes. Pointless but I did it.
#16
Shengis
Yes. People visit stately homes, castles etc. Got nowt to do with who lives there, they just go to look. Charles dickens lived in Rochester, people visit there to see where he lived. Same thing. Not sure why they do it but they do. I was passing through Faversham the other night and made a pilgrimage to Harty Ferry just to drink from the well. I was there about 5 minutes. Pointless but I did it.


ahem, Broadstairs too

:thumbsup:

Bleak Thread this
#17
I do think people in this country really underestimate the appeal of the monarchy to tourists and foreigners.

The Americans in particular are absolutely fascinated by the monarchy.
#18
JonnyTwoToes;8436688
[COLOR=black]The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury[/COLOR]

...and an annual profit of £226.5 million

You do the math.

Firstly I don't know whether to be honoured or horrified that you named a thread for me! Perhaps I will just be Honified (I am copyrighting this term and any future use must make reference to me).

Secondly, are the Royal family buildings now!!!! :thinking:

So if we own them can I kip in one if I am in the area?
#19
tinkerbell28
I do think people in this country really underestimate the appeal of the monarchy to tourists and foreigners.

The Americans in particular are absolutely fascinated by the monarchy.


But people visit the US to see the White House etc. I agree though, the yanks are fascinated by the Queen etc. Comes from having no history of their own:whistling:
banned#20
Alfonse
of course its the same attraction, I couldn't give a monkey's if the Queens there or not, the history of the place is not gonna change is it?

I don't go to the Tower of London expecting to see the King there still...................


But the history [COLOR="Red"]IS[/COLOR] of the monarchs !?!?!?!

Is their any other (non royalist) history associated with the crown estates?
#21
tinkerbell28
I do think people in this country really underestimate the appeal of the monarchy to tourists and foreigners.

The Americans in particular are absolutely fascinated by the monarchy.


thats because the Americans have no history and destroyed the local peoples lives and land that had any history
#22
JonnyTwoToes
But the history [COLOR="Red"]IS[/COLOR] of the monarchs !?!?!?!

Is their any other (non royalist) history associated with the crown estates?


yeah its history, wow :roll:
banned#23
Plum
Firstly I don't know whether to be honoured or horrified that you named a thread for me! Perhaps I will just be Honified (I am copyrighting this term and any future use must make reference to me).

Secondly, are the Royal family buildings now!!!! :thinking:

So if we own them can I kip in one if I am in the area?


It's about the Crown Estate - that is what I was trying to think of when you first brought this topic up.
#24
JonnyTwoToes;8437279
But the history [COLOR=red]IS[/COLOR] of the monarchs !?!?!?!

Is their any other (non royalist) history associated with the crown estates?

If we chopped off their heads it would still be history!
And what an attraction that would make.
3D glasses etc.

Joking aside for a second (and I can only promise that much)

What about the story of who actually built these things?

How they were worked?

Or are you saying the Queen or King did a lot of DIY.... Opps don't think I even made the full 60 seconds ...:oops:
banned#25
99% of the buildings in the Crown Estates wouldn't have been built if they weren't built for the sole purpose for the monarchy.

Stop making me stand up for the royals!
banned#26
Plum
If we chopped off their heads it would still be history!
And what an attraction that would make.
3D glasses etc.

Joking aside for a second (and I can only promise that much)

[COLOR="Red"]What about the story of who actually built these things?

How they were worked?[/COLOR]


Or are you saying the Queen or King did a lot of DIY.... Opps don't think I even made the full 60 seconds ...:oops:


Don't you bring socialism into this thread!
#27
Shengis
But people visit the US to see the White House etc. I agree though, the yanks are fascinated by the Queen etc. Comes from having no history of their own:whistling:


Alfonse
thats because the Americans have no history and destroyed the local peoples lives and land that had any history


Indeed but the monarchy are still a huge pull for tourists to come here and visit.
#28
tinkerbell28
Indeed but the monarchy are still a huge pull for tourists to come here and visit.


they'd still come if the monarchy no longer existed
#29
JonnyTwoToes
99% of the buildings in the Crown Estates wouldn't have been built if they weren't built for the sole purpose for the monarchy.

Stop making me stand up for the royals!


But that was in the time of the 'great' kings & queens, conquest and all that. It's all just stagnant now. What have they built recently?
#30
Alfonse
they'd still come if the monarchy no longer existed


See I don't think they would not in the numbers they do, but there is no way to say one way or the other really.
#31
tinkerbell28
See I don't think they would not in the numbers they do, but there is no way to say one way or the other really.


People visit Graceland, not seen fat ******* in residence lately :lol:
banned#32
Shengis
But that was in the time of the 'great' kings & queens, conquest and all that. It's all just stagnant now. What have they built recently?


'Great' kings and Queens. On what level of 'Greatness' are you judging that?
#33
JonnyTwoToes
'Great' kings and Queens. On what level of 'Greatness' are you judging that?


lol weak
#34
tinkerbell28
See I don't think they would not in the numbers they do, but there is no way to say one way or the other really.


well IMO that's utter tish
#35
JonnyTwoToes
'Great' kings and Queens. On what level of 'Greatness' are you judging that?


On the level that they actually did something that was worthy of historical record. Chopping off their wives heads etc :lol: I'm not anti royals but can't off the top of my head think of anything they've done lately (for lately read, within my lifetime). Apart from Charlie talking to the plants and that one who wrote kids books about a helicopter or something, and shes not even a 'proper' royal.... Not in the same league really.
#36
Shengis
People visit Graceland, not seen fat ******* in residence lately :lol:


:lol:

Alfonse
well IMO that's utter tish


Well it's all opinion isn't it, my opinion is it's not:thumbsup:

Shengis
On the level that they actually did something that was worthy of historical record. Chopping off their wives heads etc :lol: I'm not anti royals but can't off the top of my head think of anything they've done lately (for lately read, within my lifetime). Apart from Charlie talking to the plants and that one who wrote kids books about a helicopter or something, and shes not even a 'proper' royal.... Not in the same league really.


I know what you mean.
banned#37
Shengis
On the level that they actually did something that was worthy of historical record. Chopping off their wives heads etc :lol: I'm not anti royals but can't off the top of my head think of anything they've done lately (for lately read, within my lifetime). Apart from Charlie talking to the plants and that one who wrote kids books about a helicopter or something, and shes not even a 'proper' royal.... Not in the same league really.


Their lives aren't as exciting as you may think. A condensed history of a monarch's reign may seem 'great/exciting' but look at how long the actually reigned for and it get's pretty dull.
You'd have to go back to before the 1400's to get real excitement! (Killing Scottish people/having pokers shoved up bums, that type of thing).

I'm sure if our Queen had the chance, she'd be doing both of those activities, probably in that order.
#38
tinkerbell28

Well it's all opinion isn't it, my opinion is it's not:thumbsup:
.


well it is, if you think tourists just come here because we have a monarchy, I think you'll find its because we HAD a monarchy rather than some tax dodgers with little to do with anything
#39
JonnyTwoToes
Their lives aren't as exciting as you may think. A condensed history of a monarch's reign may seem 'great/exciting' but look at how long the actually reigned for and it get's pretty dull.
You'd have to go back to before the 1400's to get real excitement! (Killing Scottish people/having pokers shoved up bums, that type of thing).

I'm sure if our Queen had the chance, she'd be doing both of those activities, probably in that order.


I'm sending David Starkey to come and slap you
banned#40
Alfonse
I'm sending David Starkey to come and slap you


I'd slap him back. And then slap him again for being an annoying, over sensitive, pain the teeth!

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!