Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Give the Queen a new yacht? 
Author Message
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:38 pm
Posts: 442
Location: Manchester
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
bobbdobbs wrote:
You do realise they (the royals) were not asking for a yacht. Your reply does suggest that they have.

An opinion on the radio discussion I heard this morning was that Gove is rather unlikely to have just come off with his own bat. It's not really the place of the Education secretary to get involved in. But Gove is known to be very sympathetic to the Royal family. There was some kerfuffle not so long ago about some members of the royal household - particularly Prince Charles - having an awful lot of 'private briefings' which weren't being publicised at all. Some of the minutes of those briefings brought into some question who was briefing who. Given this and given the yacht would take several years to build and outfit, which probably means Charles would get much more use out of it than his mother would because as sprightly as she may be, Liz isn't going to be up to long foreign trips for much longer, well you follow the dots...

Jon

But surely all Charles would need to fund the building of a new yacht himself is the profit from a few packets of Duchy biscuits?

_________________
According to a recent poll, over 70% of Americans don't believe Trump's hair was born in the USA.


Mon Jan 16, 2012 4:51 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
It's not the first time Gove's tried to launch a failboat and it won't be the last. Also, we could just give them one of our eBay warships and get them to collect...

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:05 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:20 pm
Posts: 3838
Location: Here Abouts
Reply with quote
From research it appears that the general opinon from those in the know (and I have no stone-cold facts here because I'm not connected in any way to the Royal Family) that the monarchy costs us about 66p per person per year. The travel budget for the entire Royal family is about £7m per year. The Queen travels in a standard Sikorsky helicopter, she doesn't even own a jet and I think that virtually no one considers her a spendthrift. If she wasn't the queen most people would think of her as an ordinary rich lady with a big stock portfolio. Most of the criticism goes towards the extended family.

The tourist argument is difficult. The revenue from immediate attractions is nowhere near £40m and many people argue that tourists would pay to see Windsor Castle if it was empty. Personally, I think that the royal family is responsible indirectly for a big chunk of the tourist dollar, because people tend to go to London simply because they always read about the monarchy. England makes way more tourist dollars than Germany (a much bigger country). Although there are a lot of tourist dollars in France and Spain and Italy,

The other argument is the "crown estates" which were taken from the monarchy in 1760. They have been managed like a corporation for the last several decades. The value of the "crown estates" is about £7b, or the equivalent of the net worth of the Duke of Westminster (the richest peer in Britain). They produce an income of £200m, almost 5 times the allowance for the royal family. Each new monarch renews the agreement with parliament, so if the monarchy is abolished, the heir might have a valid legal claim on taking the estates back. At the very least they might ask to have Windsor Castle as personal property.

The queen is perceived as having a net worth of about £320m . About a third of that is Sandringham and Balmoral, and some smaller properties. About 100m GBP is a stock portfolio, and the rest is some personal artwork, jewelry, horses and such. A lot of it she inherited from her mother who is from a very wealthy Scottish family.

I'm not that upset at the thought of an extra 62p, for one year to buy her a yacht, this is the Diamond Jubilee for heavens sake, what do you think would a more fitting gift from the nation? £25 M&S voucher?

I accept that quite a lot of people are anti-royalist, which is fine, but if the numbers are true then having a monarchy is worth the price we pay. In comparison, the Danish Royalty costs the equivalent of £10m per year. A much smaller amount, but considering Denmark is the size of Scotland it is almost double the amount per person.

_________________
The Official "Saucy Minx" ;)

This above all: To Thine Own Self Be True

"Red sky at night, Shepherds Delight"..Which is a bit like Shepherds Pie, but with whipped topping instead of mashed potato.


Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:28 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
jonbwfc wrote:
HeatherKay wrote:
Words fail me.

They don't fail me. [LIFTED] off.

+1
I'm a fan of the queen, but this idea is just stupid.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:49 pm
Profile WWW
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
I do wonder how much of the backlash is also down to it coming from Michael Gove; a man who seems to have managed to piss off pretty much everyone in the country as far as I can tell. I wonder if it would have been taken any differently if someone generally well liked (say Stephen Fry) had suggested it?

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:51 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 6146
Location: Middle Earth
Reply with quote
Zippy wrote:
I'm not that upset at the thought of an extra 62p, for one year to buy her a yacht, this is the Diamond Jubilee for heavens sake, what do you think would a more fitting gift from the nation? £25 M&S voucher?


62p per person would give a cost of £37m, and one quote from the media is:

Quote:
After criticism in the Commons over the expense of building a yacht - estimated to be £60m


A yacht at £40m would incur a cost of £4m (10%) per annum just to keep it ticking over. Would the Queen really want a yacht that would effectively be a 10% pay cut? Or would it more likely that this cost would be hidden somewhere?

_________________
Dive like a fish, drink like a fish!

><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>
•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>`•.¸¸.•´¯`•.¸><(((º>

If one is diving so close to the limits that +/- 1% will make a difference then the error has already been made.


Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:57 pm
Profile
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 7:26 pm
Posts: 17040
Reply with quote
belchingmatt wrote:
Zippy wrote:
I'm not that upset at the thought of an extra 62p, for one year to buy her a yacht, this is the Diamond Jubilee for heavens sake, what do you think would a more fitting gift from the nation? £25 M&S voucher?

62p per person would give a cost of £37m, and one quote from the media is:
Quote:
After criticism in the Commons over the expense of building a yacht - estimated to be £60m

A yacht at £40m would incur a cost of £4m (10%) per annum just to keep it ticking over. Would the Queen really want a yacht that would effectively be a 10% pay cut? Or would it more likely that this cost would be hidden somewhere?


1) The price of a new 'Britannia' was estimated at £60m ten years ago, when the old one was decommissioned. That cost was why it was decommissioned rather than replaced. I'd imagine since then there's been a fair amount of inflation added to that figure.

2) True, The Queen does not own any air transport. She doesn't need to. There are a number of RAF transport aircraft (known as 'The Royal Squadron', officially known as 32 Squadron RAF logistics corps) equipped for her and other VIP use. Technically they are only available for her use when not on standard military duties but since they're not fitted to carry standard military equipment and material, they're hardly ever on military duties. So we (as in the state) have effectively 'loaned' her a couple of 'corporate jets'. Obviously she's not the only one using them but I'm dubious the amount she's being billed is their actual amortised cost. A BAE 146 isn't exactly a cheap little runabout.

I do stand by what I said earlier though. I very much suspect that, especially given events re: Prince Philip at Christmas, she will soon be entering a phase where her public appearances and foreign state visits will be reduced and her sons, daughter and grandsons will take over much of the load. In which case, giving her a sodding great yacht she won't actually use all that much seems a rather ill advised 'gift', regardless of cost.

Jon


Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:25 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
One can Royally [LIFTED] off!!

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:05 pm
Profile
Legend

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:30 pm
Posts: 45931
Location: Belfast
Reply with quote
Royal yacht plan backed by Prince Charles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jan/1 ... ce-charles

Not any more I suspect...

_________________
Plain English advice on everything money, purchase and service related:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/


Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:34 pm
Profile
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 7173
Reply with quote
I am going to be manifestly unhappy when that cock inherits the Crown.

_________________
timark_uk wrote:
That's your problem. You need Linux. That'll fix all your problems.
Mark


Mon Jan 16, 2012 11:34 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
Linux_User wrote:
I am going to be manifestly unhappy when that cock inherits the Crown.


I'm inclined to agree.

I think that given the general climate, Elizabeth has been quite wise in the way she has acted on the whole so as not to increase animosity from those of a more republican bent. I can see Charles being a monumental penis in that regard, he seems to radiate a sense of entitlement that one doesn't see on the present monarch, and I think that's going to piss off a lot of people.

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:55 am
Profile WWW
What's a life?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 10:21 am
Posts: 12700
Location: The Right Side of the Pennines (metaphorically & geographically)
Reply with quote
Hmmm. Today's paper said if it happens it will be paid for by donations, not by the tax payer.
I like that idea, but only if further donations are made to cover the running costs. The tax payer shouldn't have to pay a penny.

_________________
pcernie wrote:
'I'm going to snort this off your arse - for the benefit of government statistics, of course.'


Tue Jan 17, 2012 12:32 pm
Profile WWW
I haven't seen my friends in so long
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 24, 2009 6:37 am
Posts: 6954
Location: Peebo
Reply with quote
The only way I'd support Charles being King was if he immediately abdicated in favour of his son but somehow I can't see him doing that.

They don't need a yacht and maybe the idea of a crusie ship at this particular moment in time, regardless of who it's for, isn't the best idea in the world either.

_________________
When they put teeth in your mouth, they spoiled a perfectly good bum.
-Billy Connolly (to a heckler)


Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:22 pm
Profile
Occasionally has a life
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 11:38 pm
Posts: 442
Location: Manchester
Reply with quote
davrosG5 wrote:
The only way I'd support Charles being King was if he immediately abdicated in favour of his son but somehow I can't see him doing that.

Maybe the shock of finally becoming king will give him a heart attack :-D

_________________
According to a recent poll, over 70% of Americans don't believe Trump's hair was born in the USA.


Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:51 pm
Profile
Spends far too much time on here
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 6:44 pm
Posts: 4141
Location: Exeter
Reply with quote
lumbthelesser wrote:
davrosG5 wrote:
The only way I'd support Charles being King was if he immediately abdicated in favour of his son but somehow I can't see him doing that.

Maybe the shock of finally becoming king will give him a heart attack :-D


Well, that family does on the whole have a history of the males being short lived and the females living for a very long time...

_________________
"The woman is a riddle inside a mystery wrapped in an enigma I've had sex with."


Tue Jan 17, 2012 1:56 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software.