UKC

£6million, bless her. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40412343

Most eye-wateringly, the Sovereign Grant has increased from £31 to £82 million over the last 6 years, at a time when the rest of the country has been run into the ground. 

Absolute disgrace. 

That report is well over a year old. What point are you trying to make by raising it?

T.

I saw it on Twitter today and googled it. 

The point I’m trying to make is blindingly obvious, surely? 

Not to me. If you had a point worth making you'd have referred to the profit made by the crown estate, that the royal family's upkeep is drawn from these profits, that the excess amount goes to the exchequer and that the increase goes towards future-proofing buildings that are part of generating these profits, thereby guaranteeing that they can continue to generate income for decades to come.

I'm no royalist, I judge them purely on what they can do for the balance sheet; and that's quite a lot.

So no, any point you're trying to make seems like the result of not clearly understanding the subject you've chosen to raise.

T.

“In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment - what later became known as the Civil List.”

So what are effectively public assets raise revenue, a percentage of which goes to fund the monarchy? This percentage is changed to suit prevailing circumstances. While the prevailing circumstances have led to  a wrecking ball being taken to other public bodies, the percentage paid to the Royals has increased, giving them nearly a 3x increase over 6 years. This was a choice that was made. 

Govt has already blown well over a billion on Brexit preparations (and that's just the bit they have coughed to). On top of that there's all the  lost  GDP  and you are worrying about £6m.  Get a bloody grip!

How do you imagine the crown originally came into possession of those lands? Perhaps they started off with just a small holding, worked really, really hard and with prudence, forethought, sacrifice and good planning, slowly built up the family business?

Then again, maybe the royal family just happen to be descended from people very similar to the sort of greedy, vicious, power hungry warlords currently making life hell for ordinary people in places like Afghanistan and Somalia.

I’m not exactly overjoyed about that, as would be evident from my posting history. 

If six million is chicken feed, give it to the homeless. Or indeed a plethora of more worthy causes. 

I thought the treasury what the royal estate generates and she is given back 15%. So if her annual amount has increased then that is proportional with how much the treasury is keeping. 

Ps. It's probably the same as the amount of tax Amazon dodges every day in the UK. 

It's a shameful abuse if the benefits system. The hereditary peerage system in the Lords is a similar disgrace; throwing money and power at the meritless.

You can argue all day of the historical rights and wrongs of how the crown estate came to be. You can't deny the reality that it has been incredibly well managed and profitable in the hands of the Royals. If the government had got it's hands on it 50 years ago those assets would long since have been sold off at rock bottom prices to fund short term tax reductions and would now be in the hands of private enterprise, not contributing to the public purse. Norway set up sovereign wealth funds from oil revenue which will bestow financial security for generations to come. We're not Norway. Our governments would never invest in assets to fund future financial stability, they have repeatedly demonstrated that whatever side of the house they are on they will sell the country dry for a short term hit of popularity. Whatever you think of the Royal family it's hard to argue that the crown estate puts us out of pocket, it's quite clearly the other way around.

I agree, a peerage should be earned, by say writing a factual report on how the Labour party treats people of different religions, take jews for example. 

Agree. That's why there are threads now about the state of the railways, airports... or the nhs. Whilst all parties continue to promise tax cuts. 

That is an argument against privatisation if not for nationalisation. It is a weak argument in favour of a monarchy. Also the Crown Estate belongs to the Crown but isn't really owned or managed by them. You could get rid of the royal family and the business would tick along just fine.

Monarchists laugh at the ridiculousness of North Korea's Kim Jong dynasty. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

It really should be ended once Brenda dies.

Not sure how many visitors Balmoral will get when it became Corbyns summer residence.

Not sure how well McCluskey memorabilia will sell, but that would capitalism, so I presume they'd give it away. 

Yeah, cos no bugger bothers with Versailles these days do they?

Machu Pichu without the Inca.

Pyramids without the Pharaoh.

Kremlin without the tzar.

.....etc, etc.

I suggest living royals have greater financial draw than dead ones. 

Versailles is stunning. Without the queen buck. palace looks pretty grim. More like a former institution. 

Stonehenge is a little drab and the Druids went AWOL a couple of millennia ago, tourists still seem to like it.

Summo doesn't think these things through. 

...and there's me hoping that this had all been safely put to bed decades ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng&

And without the Queen the tourists wouldn't even have the draw of the men in shiny shoes and funny hats, or shiny breastplates and pony tails.

It's the government that should be getting a bloody grip.

I don't think Versailles has had a single visitor since 1789!

There are actually druids kicking about. They are only allowed on site there 4 days a year. 

I'd argue that having feel living royalty living in palaces is a bigger draw for tourists than person in cloak at Stonehenge.

How do the the tourist numbers and revenue compare between the royal estate and stone henge? If course this comparing apples to oranges really.

Like them or not. The royal estate brings a ton of revenue of which they get 15% back. It's a fact you can not escape, even if you don't like the individuals involved. 

Just cos they choose to have a bit of a chant and wear a dress now and again doesn't make them anymore real druids than the blokes hanging around outside the coliseum in armour are real centurions. Historians know hardly anything about the real druids. There's also a bloke turns up for solstice telling everyone he's King Arthur, I don't believe him either.

I'd be more than happy to have an experiment. Let's have a trial run as a republic and see if the Tower of London is suddenly queue free of a weekend.

Yes it is.

I can see your confusion here. The royal estate is a money making business. The royal family is a tiny group of people milking a shit load of perks, privileges, patronage and cash, purely on the basis of who their Daddy was.

Bit of an embarrassment in this day and age.

Edit: typo

Stonehenge is the 5th most popular paid visitor attraction in the country with more than 1.5m visitors. Far mor than any of the royal estate. The British Museum is the most popular free attraction with more than 5m visitors.

Relevance? You are comparing apples and oranges like sticht. The royal estate isn't one venue. It makes money from a whole range of things. Without that royal attraction those Chinese or American tourists might never come to the uk for 2 weeks; spending money on attractions, hotels, food etc.. one day of which will be a bus trip to stonehenge. 

Royalty are bit of fluff or icing on the cake which adds to the uk's tourist draw in a big way. The little tourist gifts like the queen and 007 at the Olympics opening, money can't buy that kind of marketing. 

You asked the bloody question!?!

When weighing up the pros and cons of the royal family the only pro that repeatedly crops up is their supposed tourist pull. The only way this can reasonably be assessed is by comparing the UK with other countries. Now ask yourself, how many extra tourists do you suppose countries like Holland, Norway, Spain and Thailand are getting because they're monarchies? Do you think loads of people visit Australia, Canada and New Zealand because of the Queen? (after all, your average tourist has about as much chance of seeing the Queen in New South Wales as South Wales). Conversely, do you really think that the vast majority of the worlds nations that have jettisoned the last vestiges of their feudal past have done so at the expense of serious tourist dollars?

No it's was a sticht who first compared the royal estate to Stonehenge. Not me.

Last point from me on this thread anyway, beyond the blonde hair tangerine skinned Muppet across the water, who is arguably the most globally recognisable person alive today? 

The UK will miss the queen when it's stuck with Charles and William. 

Sounds like you recognise that the whole farce needs winding up once her maj has left the building.

You where the one who asked about tourist numbers.

You have got your apples and oranges out again, plus a few lemons.

Most countries monarchy are much less visible, have different history and don't have the longest reigning person in the world.

Other places have lady boys or the great outdoors and their rather odd royalty (if any) is irrelevant.

No, but given that the queen generates money and has no influence on democracy what's the problem? 

Better the current system than President Blair, or Chairman McDonnell. 

I wouldn't say winding up, but all the hangers on, half sister of this and that, cousins etc.. need to pay their own way in life. Princess pushy etc.. it can certainly be leaned!!  

Indeed. Over the past decade the vulnerable have endured austerity - the young, the sick, the old and the poor, because "we can't afford it". Yet somehow we find money for wars and royals.

Nothing to do with 30 years of continual tax cuts and people wanting to spend all their on themselves, then blaming others for the lack of funding. 

In this instance it's the closest comparison we can make.

Japan's monarch was central to their country's self image and didn't they also have the longest reigning until the previous incumbent died? Don't think many tourist were rushing over on the strength of that though.

Can't think of any other countries outside the UK with such a high density of sites of historical and cultural significance alongside areas of outstanding natural beauty and world class museums, galleries and theatres, a thriving arts scene and world famous festivals and cultural events.

Again, where can you evidence the royals generating more money than they cost? The problem?... The police and armed forces swear allegiance to someone on the strength of their birth, we're all subjects (an objectionable status in the 21st century) and what about the subconscious message sent by all that bowing and scraping? Know your place around your social superiors and all that.

I don't think so. The likes of Blair and McDonnell would have to work extremely hard and then be voted into the position. And crucially, they can be voted out again too.

So perhaps we should make the most of asset we have. Not all monarchies are alike.

Which is great, but doesn't mean royalty is bad. It's part of the whole package. 

It's the USA without it's monarchy that raises a flag at school and brain washes their kids. So again monarchy is kind of irrelevant, culture is whatever develops or evolves through society over time.

Well that depends on the voters and if you look at the last decade it's impossible say that any one idea is mad or unlikely anymore.

Staggering ignorance and insensitivity from you (but not unexpected).

The poorest - be they disabled, those on in-work benefits, or those now accessing food banks, actually DO "spend all their on themselves" [sic], because they live hand to mouth. 

But I don't see them as an asset. I see them as a burden....you have been reading my posts on this thread?

If they cost more than they're worth and reinforce the belief that some people are entitled to privilege by birth, then royalty is bad. Ditch tax payer funding and mandatory bowing and scraping and they're welcome to call themselves what they want and wear whatever head gear they fancy.

Yup, and that's bad too, but it's got naff all to do with a debate about monarchy.

.....errr, right. So as far as you're concerned dictatorships, absolute monarchies or theocracies, all the same to you is it?

^Fixed that for you^

C*bblers - how about "without the Royal Family we would instead have a Presidency".

Imagine President Margaret Thatcher or President Tony Blair - I personally shudder at the thought of either. But that would have been the likelihood judging by what has happened elsewhere in Europe.

Just curious - how many people on the other side of the world (or even the continent) do you think could name the King of the Netherlands, or the Queen of Denmark? How many people can name the Queen of the United Kingdom? It's beyond refute that she's far more well known than any other living monarch on the planet; it's not beyond the realms of possibility that she is a big tourist attraction. Certianly the throngs of slow-walking idiots with cameras around Buckingham Palace and Horse Guards on a daily basis suggests that the monarchy is an attraction in some guise (along, bizarrely, with red phone boxes).

She's inoffensive, takes a reasonable percentage of the money the Crown generates and gives the rest to the country, and (essentially) voluntarily pays income tax on her other income. She's a fantastic ambassador and head of state, and who on Earth would want to swear allegiance to President Blair when joining the Armed Forces?

How consumed by avarice would you have to be to receive 10s of millions in state money and also not pay any income tax?

Tax isn't a "nice to have". It is essential to a functioning democracy. It's the price of a civilised society. It is at the core of a societal safety net that protects ALL of us should the worst happen. 

All of those soldiers revered on Remembrance Day rely or have relied on a functioning tax system. All the young in this country benefit from the tax system. The reason we can walk the streets safely, trust that order will prevail, and, know someone - an ambulance or fireman - will come to our aid in an emergency,  is because of the tax system*.

Stop making out that Brenda is doing US a favour by paying tax. If she didn't, she knows she'd be out of a job. She's doing it to save her own skin.

*A simplified example that ignores MMT.

You'll have to point out to me where I suggested that tax is optional in modern society, because I'm fairly certain that that's not what I said.

Though on that subject, I'd say it's fair to compare the Queen paying income tax that she's not legally obliged to do with MPs following the rules to the letter (and beyond) in claiming all of the expenses they're entitled to. Duck ponds and all.

Maybe we should get rid of the MPs and go back to being an absolute monarchy?

You remarked that Brenda voluntarily pays tax as if it were evidence of her generosity, selflessness & largesse.

The fact that she is not legally obliged to pay it is the problem.

It's certainly an improvement on Prime Ministers shadily moving money around offshore to avoid doing precisely the same, or ministers taking advantage of immoral or illegal trickery to avoid capital gains tax, isn't it? President Cameron? No thanks, I'll take Brenda.

I dunno. I look at North Korea and reckon a personality cult supported by the bovine is not a system I'd want to be part of.

As always when this issue appears in its various guises - the Queen, Starbucks, Amazon, whoever - I'd suggest you should take issue with the law, not those operating inside of the law.

I am. Isn’t that obvious. I’ve got no issue with Elizabeth Windsor, although I’m old enough to remember when she started paying, popularity of the royal family was at an all time low, it was very much a strategic move.

My apologies. I misinterpreted your post to mean your problem was with the Queen because she's not legally obliged to pay taxes, in the same way that people complain about Starbucks not paying the tax it doesn't legally owe.

By the way, the Queen doesn’t operate within the law. She is above the law. I find the principle of this very problematic in the 21st century.

I'd suggest the ignorance is on the side of people who really do believe public services will ever improve on the uk's current tax rate.

Yes and if the 90% of society not in this bracket started paying more tax, the 10% of people who fall into the groups you mentioned would all benefit from it. But no, they'll keep voting for tax reductions, so they can spend their money on electronics, cars, holidays and so on, whilst complaining about hospital waiting times, school class sizes, rail infrastructure etc. 

This 90%, what is the salary range you think we are dealing with here?

If we look at European countries where the practical power lies with the Prime Minister and Parliament, but they have an elected, but essentially honourary President, this appears not to be the case at all. It doesn't appear to be a retirement plan for ex-PMs, in fact the Presidents tend to be quite minor politicians who are notable for other contributions to society and in some cases have little or no political history. I've made the point before, that if we abolished the monarchy, the Queen or perhaps William or Harry could stand for election and would very likely win. I probably wouldn't vote for them, but it would have some legitimacy, they could also be voted out, terms would be time limited and the role would not automatically pass to their children.

Excellent idea. Other possible candidates include David Attenborough, Stephen Fry, Maggie Smith, Steve Redgrave, JK Rowling...

Monarchy is worth every penny. You only have to go to one of the DofE gold award presentations to figure this out. Or to my brotherinlaws  dad who after 60  years of community service is going along to London for the first time to the mournday service to meet the queen to understand this .

cost is peanuts.

The Sovereign Grant has increased from £31 to £82 million over the last 6 years. You need to find cheaper peanuts.

You mean the 15% of the income the estate generates that they gave to the treasury has increased. The other 85%(£464 bn) the treasury kept and spent. 

It startling really. Nearly half a trillion over 6 years. 

I'm not sure that they generate billions (I'll go check, and of course it depends on the time period concerned); but your point, that all the money it costs to run he monarchy comes from the Crown Estate and so is in effect money they make, and the remainder goes straight into the exchequer to help fund the running of the country, is valid and seems to be the focus of some misunderstanding here.  Put bluntly, the royals earn their keep and then some, and what's left over subsidises running the country.  Those who aspire to remove the goose laying the golden eggs should be mindful of what they're wishing for as should they do so, one net result will be that taxes go up to replace the source of income they've removed.

T.

Like I've said, my view of this is that the balance sheet is the ultimate king.

It's now 25%. Also you appear to be confusing millions with billions and billions with trillions.

This latter sentence is indeed startling.

It isn't money that they make. These are state assets in all but name.

2.7 billion over 10 years is it not?

As the sovereign dosent actually manage it wouldn't the crown estate (possibly under another name) still exist without the monarchy?

All well and good if we were discussing a normal business built up through hard graft and prudence. Not the case with the crown estates, whose roots lie in the Norman conquest. It might have happened a long time ago but that land was seized at the point of a sword by a regime that went on to pacify the North in a campaign every bit as vicious as the Nazis in Eastern Europe.

From Wikipedia....

Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the Treasury,[4] thus relieving him of the responsibility of paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List.

....sounds like an incredibly good deal from the Royals point of view when you consider UK national debt stands at £1.8 trillion.

So what we're discussing is stolen land, exchanged in a deal incredibly favourable to the beneficiaries of the original thieves. But the original point of the OP is that in a time of great austerity, the money granted to one of the richest families in the land, has increased 264% over 6 years. 

...and you want us all to tug the forelock, with a heartfelt "Thank'ee Ma'am".

.

Stolen from who? land purchased in good faith by the Vikings?!

Do you do any volunteering?

Judging the past by the standards of the present doesn't work.

If the Royals had to pay all the taxes the rest of us pay on an estate that large - income tax, corporation tax, land taxes and most importantly inheritance tax they'd have lost most of it long ago.  

Yes.

I had considered that the Labour candidate could be Sir Tony Robinson. Much loved, lots of history in the Labour movement, but not a career politician. Plus electing President Baldrick would be just wonderful.

Electing Tony Robinson sounds like a cunning plan.

If you really think that everyone in the world should remember any slight committed against their forebears going back nearly a thousand years then the entire world might just as well descend into a never-ending barbaric war of attrition that wouldn't cease until only one person is left standing.

I'm a protestant (however technically) - does that mean I have the right to despise every member of the catholic or muslim faiths in the world because of what happened to my forebears?

Maybe you're part Viking (or Scottish) - does that give me the right to retaliate for what your forebears did ?

In practice, no matter what patch of land, in whatever country of the world, has, at some time been fought or argued over. So on that point no-one has the  (God-given ??) right to anywhere, and by extension, any property either. So give me your home address and that of the place you work at - I  may want to demand either as possibly one of my forebears once lived there and was kicked off it by one of yours (or the person who sold it to you - the possibilities are endless).

Firstly, I think you're taking a rather flippant illustration on my part a little too literally. 

Secondly, historic slights, real or imagined, should be consigned to history. In this case we're not talking about history, we're talking about a family that thinks they're due deference, privilege and a whole lot of taxpayer funding purely based on who their mummies and daddies were.

Sorry, but my belief is that everyone in this country should follow the same laws, be taxed the same and should receive both the money and the respect that they actually earn.

Edit: I work for the NHS. You'll have to PM me for my home address; it's only an ex-council semi but I am prepared to fight you for it.

I don't think I am being that flippant.

How many people are there in this country, and indeed UKC, who come from a middle class background of financial security that was founded on the slave trade ?

Why not demand that every one of them hands over all the financial security that they and their family had, not only based on what they inherited, but also whatever any of them acquired from their education - which was of course given a leg up because of the private (or just plain nice) schools which they were able to attend which were equally based on their legacy from the slave trade ?

Lets have a go at everyone whose forebears deserve it, rather than someone who actually works for a living, long past retirement age, and with restrictions which no-one on this forum would put up with (no matter how much money was thrown at them).

The basis of this entire post is a narrow pseudo-leftist political view which is really a cover for plain jealousy.

 should receive both the money and the respect that they actually earn.

Did you pay the real market price for said ex-council semi, or did you get it on the cheap from your friend Maggy ?

I love it, you call stitchplate a “pseudo-leftist” and a “friend of Maggy” (sic).

Funny that you should mention benefit from the slave trade, for many years that was a strongly protected Royal racket. Read some David Olusoga if you want some background.

Read the post. I said that I was being flippant.

Since it was only a tiny minority involved, I'd say very few.

What the hell are you on about? Your last post you're arguing against historical reparations, the next you're arguing for them.

As far as reparations go, the difference between the descendants of former slave owners and the current royal family is that it's only the royals that are reaching into their subjects pockets to fund their lifestyle. Imagine if the descendants of slave owners were still demanding a tithe as compensation for their ancestors freeing their "property'.

Jealousy? Leaving the crown estates to one side, Charley and her Maj privately own over 105,000 hectares of land, including prime farming land and some of the most valuable urban real estate on Earth and yet they also think they deserve a slice tax money from every working stiff in the UK, they think it right and proper that everyone who meets them bows and curtsies, they award themselves medals and honours by the shed load just 'cos' (Charles has a chestful that'd make a North Korean Field Marshall blush) and they wear enough bling on state occasions to make a West coast rapper feel self conscious.

This whole ridiculous pantomime is well past it's sell by date.

I fondly remember that late 80's when I could often be found out and about demonstrating against myself.

Bought from private owners. It's my only residence, and if it sets on fire or needs a bit of work, I wouldn't expect everyone else in the country to pay for doing it up (unlike the royals).

Numbers don't matter - there's only one Queen.

I'm NOT arguing for - I said "Why not ?" I was asking why pick on someone whose antecedents got their dosh 900 years ago by nefarious means, but not those who did so much closer to now.

Not actually - it's called the Crown Estates - no difference to other land or housing acquired from the proceeds or other actions.

I return to a previous comment - do we really want former politicians such as a President Blair for example.

Just checking - there are an awful lot of lefties who rail against Thatcher, but were quite happy to take a home off their local council for peanuts.

Should have put in a smileyface - I was being sarcastic.

You should take a wander down canal street. They're two a penny.

I'm picking on the royals cos they're the only buggers still reaching into my pocket on the basis of historical events, not current reality. 

As pointed out up thread,  in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the Treasury, thus relieving him of the responsibility of paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List. The OP's gripe was that this annual grant has risen by 264% in 6 years. An absolutely disgusting figure when you consider average pay rises and public service cuts over the same period.

Nope...why does it have to be a former politician? Personally I think Guy Martin would do a cracking job.

Edit: typo.

Why do you assume I'm a leftie? The US Republican Party is quite right wing, can you guess their stance on monarchies? (the clue is in their title).

The same Guy Martin who came across in his  breakthrough media thing “TT: Close to the Edge” as either a petulant crybaby or a dullard , regarding basic rules?

Yep, same one. Should fit right in with the current crop of presidents don't you think? (actually I just fancy a pres with a broad Northern accent. You did clock the smiley face, right?).

Not really a grant is it. It is 15% back of the profit the royal estate makes and gives the treasury, so they are hardly taking money out of your pocket in any shape or form. 

This ignores the extended economic benefit, every visitor to a royal building etc..  will also likely pay for accommodation and food etc.. 

It's funny how people get all worked up over royals taking money etc.. but have no issues with over paid celebrities and footballers etc. 

As has been pointed out several times now, the control of the crown estates was transferred to the government in 1760. The royals no longer had to service the national debt, pay for defence, the civil service or their own personal debts. In return they were to receive an incredibly generous stipend. As an illustration of just how generous this deal was consider that the annual cost of the UKs civil service, defence and interest on the national debt currently runs at £125 billion.

Just to reinforce that they've exchanged annual liabilities of £125 billion for an income of £82 million from crown estate annual revenues of £340 million. Quite some deal.

A few thousand visitors buying a cream tea rather pales into insignificance against £125 billion.

I'm not being taxed to fund celebrities and footballers.

To put things into sharper relief, the total cost of the royals is somewhere North of £300 million. The total cost of providing home care packages (as reported this morning) to Scotland's 45,000 elderly is £360 million. If that figure doesn't give you pause for thought then I despair.

It’s not 15%, it has risen to 25%.

It’s not the Royal Estate that is separate and 100% of that goes to the family, it’s the Crown Estate.

Where do these numbers come from, and how is it even possible to put a definite figure on direct income from royalty?

I think the Queen does a brilliant job and if we need a head of state I'd vote for her but that doesn't mean you shouldn't question how much that job ought to be payed or at what rate it increases.

I also think it's a bit daft to argue that this was agreed in 1780 therefore we need to stick by it now. If we treated everyone the same now as then none of us would have the vote etc.

I'd be a bit more inclined to pay her what she wants if she moved her official residence up to Dewsbury, Bacup or Hull then some of the economic benefit would reach the places it needs to rather than further congesting London (we'd also find out the real draw of the royal family over such things as the buildings they live in). 

I am repeatedly astonished that the merits or otherwise of the monarchy are discussed in terms of their economic cost or benefit. The head of the monarchy is our Head of State, and as such has a significant constitutional position. The discussion should centre around whether a hereditary monarchy is the most appropriate way of determining who should be our Head of State. In addition to that, there should also be consideration of the role a hereditary monarchy in upholding the many hierarchies which play a part in our society, and the associated societal benefits or otherwise of our present system of government. 

Quibbling about costs or trying to claim that the monarchy is good because of tourists is palpable nonsense. 

The Crown Estate is a national asset, as mentioned above a deal was done by George III in 1760, whereby he gave up the assets in exchange for not having to pay for the cost of government. 

Part of the deal was the “Royal List” a payment to the royal family for carrying out royal duties. This is now called the Sovereign Grant and is taken from the profits of the Crown Estate, currrently at a rate of 25%. The profits of the Crown Estate have risen, but also the percentage, meaning that the current Sovereign Grant is three times what it was less than a decade ago.

This discussion excludes private assets including the duchy of Lancaster and the duchy of Cornwall.

Interesting suggestion, but do you really think it would work? Like it or hate it London has become the iconic centre of what foreign visitors (with all their cash) consider to be the centre of what is British.

Symbols of Britain are the great Westminster buildings - House of Parliament, Big Ben, Westminster Abbey, the Thames, Westminster Bridge etc etc, followed closely by Buckingham Palace, Trafalgar Square, Tower Bridge, Tower of London etc etc. As tourist magnets they are irreplaceable, and no other British City/Town is so well known abroad other than perhaps Edinburgh or Stratford on Avon, and, as we recently learned, other than Salisbury which is well known in Russia, particularly amongst it's security service officers, for its Cathedral with it's 123m spire.

Another thing is that our road and rail network evolved around London.

I am not convinced that shifting our head of state's principal residence to the North would bring in the crowds, and I suspect overall, tourism would suffer.

So if the Crown could manage its Estate at least 75% as successfully without an active monarchy, we'd all be quids in, both economically as well as democratically?

Actually, I'm with Harry on this one. The biggest failing of such a constitutional monarchy is not financial at all. It's that it's 'precendential' rather than Presidential

I work in a lot of developing countries and see that most of them have far better constitutional frameworks than does the UK, yet we take pride in being seen as one of the founders and principal upholders of democracy.

And all the scaremongering about President Thatcher or President Blair could easily be countered simply by making ineligible for the office of President anyone who has ever held political office at any level.

Nothing against Liz though. She's ace!

Crown Estate has little to do with the Royals as a tourist attraction, it’s just a big land owner.

I agree the constitutional issue is much more important. However, the fact that the state payment to the monarch has tripled in the period that local authorities have had their budgets cut by 40% is part of the constitutional issue.

This is the key point, how much would it suffer? You've acknowledged she's not the main draw for tourists so what is her contribution? It's impossible to say but if she moved to nice semi in the north Buck house, Balmoral, Windsor etc could all be turned into hotels makeing extra revenue for GB Inc that isn't available to us now we have to support the Royals.

Not strictly true, the duchy food brand which obviously sells because of its royal links was started by Charles for the tenant farmers, so they could could sell their produce with added value, or at above base market values. 

It's easy to knock them because they are an obvious target but few could fault the benefit of the duke of Edinburgh scheme or Princes trust. 

In what way is that relevant to the crown estate?

I like the Swiss system, but it might be impossible in a larger country. The USA system is overly complex. France, revolution and then back pedalling over fuel prices! 

Where would you say is best or at least better?

Because it's one half of the royal brand aiding the other, or more importantly their tenant farmers. 

The duchy of cornwall is part of the Royal estate, not the crown estate (which the royal family have no management role in).  Or do tenant farmers on the crown estate also get some sort of privileged access to the brand? 

Not sure there's much credibility in trying to justify a constitutional anachronism by contrasting it with other countries that have highly political Presidential roles the like of which nobody has suggested would be welcome in the UK.

Yes. Whilst the crown estate is managed by the commissioners the royals do still have over sight and on behalf of the treasury the commissioners are obliged to maximise profit, whilst not breaking any of the rules or guidelines. 

What isn’t true?

That there isn't a cross over of benefits between royal and crown estates. 

It's a pointless debate in some senses as royalty is like marmite. But given recent events in western presidential systems I don't think the uk would be any better without them. 

Duchy Originals is a brand of organic products, owned by the Prince of Wales. There may be some cross over with the Crown Estate (which is 75% urban) in the same there will be cross over with McVities and Hovis.

It's actually owned by Waitrose these days, started losing money abut 10 years ago so got sold.  Charles still has some involvement, and they still make donations, but it's basically a Waitrose own brand now.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. A Monarch is all part of the whole fairy tale charade along with all the iconic bits of London which foreigners find so appealing, particularly Americans and Japanese, even the French. My French gf LOVES our Royals, I think they bitterly regret chopping off the heads of theirs. And the developing feud between Kate and Megan is like mana from heaven for the Paps. Can you really imagine Hull having the same attraction abroad? Anyway Trump wouldn't know where that is....

Would be great to see hordes of tourists turn up at Pontefract though, cameras at the ready!