Connect
To Top

Only one taxpayer will fund the Buckingham Palace repairs; The Queen

This is an opinion piece by Benjamin Knights on the restoration of Buckingham Palace and why he thinks the media aren’t telling people the full truth:

The media have attempted, and succeeded to mislead and fool the British public. There are now a great many people all over the country who are angry because they believe that they will be made to pay £369 million for repairs to Buckingham Palace. The media have of course created this whole situation. Only one British taxpayer will foot the bill for the work, and she is The Queen herself.

In a tradition dating back to George III, the British monarch always surrenders the profits from their own businesses, called the Crown Estate, to the government of the day. The Crown Estate is mainly a collection of properties in London and extensive agricultural land across the country. The monarch was always given a small sum of this money back to cover the costs of state events, such as royal tours abroad.

In 2012, George Osborne reorganised this system, creating the Sovereign Grant. This effectively meant that The Queen paid an 85% tax on her income. She received just 15% of the profits from her own businesses, approximately £40 million, and was expected to fund the Royal Family’s work with it. This makes The Queen the most taxed person on earth.

The Buckingham Palace repairs will be funded by a temporary increase in the Sovereign Grant. Instead of paying 85% tax, The Queen will now pay 75% tax.

The public will not pay anything whatsoever to The Queen for the renovation, but they will benefit from a huge sum of money, paid by Britain most generous taxpayer, to help with their failing public services.

This 10% increase in the money The Queen is allowed to keep from her own profits will be put to extraordinarily good use for the British taxpayer. Buckingham Palace is a focal point for the British and draws masses of tourists each year to spend their cash in the UK.

The Queen only lives in a small number of the rooms in the Palace, most being used for state occasions, civil servants and The Queen’s own staff. It is to the Palace that ordinary people travel to be made OBEs and MBEs and to receive the nation’s thanks for charitable works. Buckingham Palace also plays an enormous role in politics; with the Prime Minister being invited to form a government there. It is the living, breathing symbol of the British state.

Put against the $2 billion repairs for the Houses of Parliament, which will be funded by the taxpayer, this is a remarkably good deal. The British public will benefit from this wonderful Palace, and the priceless artefacts which are preserved inside for the nation, without having to contribute a penny towards its maintenance. I wonder if Rupert Murdoch would pay a 75% tax on his income?

Do you agree with Benjamin Knights? Let us know by commenting in the section below:

  • Gary Giff

    arse licking drivel

    • John Anderson

      Judging by your language, you aren’t smart enough to read the audited and published accounts of the Nation. Try to find someone who can explain the truth to you.

    • Jajwhite

      It seems that you are one of the people who think themselves nice and, though never having been homeless yourself, wish a ninety-year old woman who has worked every day of her life to become homeless, something you have in common with Ben Elton.
      I have been homeless myself and wouldn’t wish it even on something like you.

      • Gary Giff

        get a life twat, i bin homeless prob more times than you in drivel led life go and arse lick somewhere else, real people dont wanna see your stockholm syndrome drivel

  • Graeme

    Spot on

  • Kevin Long

    Nice to see someone telling the truth for once. I am sick to the back teeth of the media manipulating the truth day in day out about all manner of subjects.
    I am also sick of the “build us up knock us down” culture which the media has adapted.
    I am not into meditation or yoga and the like but come on guys and girls lets have some positive thinking for once in our lifetime.
    Remember the doom and gloom reported on the banks in 2008 , I truly believe that the media reported this in such a way that it crippled peoples confidence for many years to come.
    For the record I am not an educated man just a lad from the north who has done OK for himself and his family and who still believes in old fashioned values and morals.
    Speech over and thank you Benjamin for your article.

    • Kyle Lewis-McDonald

      Well said Sir and for the record you may consider that you’ve not have a formal education, but with the experience of life we all gain an education, for some it happens outside of the classroom, I’m a total Royalist and always will be.

      • running bear

        youve got something brown on your nose

    • Deirdre Pawsey

      I came to the same conclusion. I’m not a Royalist but our lying, manipulative press really angers me. They totally abuse their freedom. It may be noted that The Queen also paid the lion share of the repairs to Windsor Castle after the fire.

    • Mickey Lowe

      You sir have all the education one would need it seems. You have expressed very noble ideas with great finesse. I applaud you and whom you have become. Thank you for your wisdom.

  • Lil

    Finally someone with balls to state what is really going on. The media never shows the true things happening, they focus on petty things like a mother kissing her daughter on the lips, or the dress of Marilyn Monroe which she wore whilst singing Happy Birthday to President J F Kennedy, selling for 4.5 million. Kids being killed in Allepo, The crisis getting worse in the Ukraine, where a high percentage of the elderly will most likely die as they can’t afford to put on their heating and eat at the same time. The Queen is a rare one off monarch who has always put her duty to our country before her own wants and desires. Not any one of us could do what she has done.

    • Philip

      Or the press produce fawning, sycophantic drivel about some overprivileged idiot marrying another overprivileged idiot; or an overprivileged idiot giving birth; or a couple of overprivileged idiots going on a tour of Canada; or an overprivileged idiot being on the morally repugnant throne for x number of years…

      • Lady Martha

        If you didn’t have these “overprivileged” people, your country would be far less able to finance the uncounted numbers of immigrants, freeloaders and whiners like yourself who complain that anyone on earth should enjoy a bit of success and admiration. These royal people, most of whom who get nothing from the government, contribute in ways that far outweigh what those few may “cost” the public. Get rid of them at your country’s peril.

        • Janet

          Freeloaders and whiners who deserve success and admiration dear lady whos looking down ones nose, yes everyone deserves a good life not just the greedy elitist morons. People never cease to amaze me.

          • James McIntosh

            Would you lkike to live for 90 years in the 24/7 glare of the media, would you suffer all the snide remarks of jealous people like yourself if you were graced with a bit of success. The Queen works damn hard for her privileged position. It would behold the whiners to get off their arse a bit more and work as hard as the Queen of UK.

          • darren

            i’ve worked since the age of 13 and i’m now having to fight for what i have, i have only been out of work for yr n half and that was due to ill health, i’m 32 now n all i do is work to try n have a comfortable life instead i’m working to fight just to survive let alone live comfortably, i hate royalty i hate gov. every day now i have to choose heat, eat or roof that ain’t a life

          • James McIntosh

            True, fight the political establishment that imposes this upon you. If you are Maltese, vote for any other party except red or blue. Give those who believe they have some divine right to be elected a bloody nose. Vote for change, go on you can do it, go on.

          • John grima

            where do the Mlayese come into this?

          • dixiedoesit

            If it’s so terrible for her (and I imagine most people would love to be in her position given the sumptuous rewards) then there is a pretty simple solution which is to get rid of the Monarchy. Then everyone’s happy.

          • James McIntosh

            Just simple envy on your part. You have absolutely no idea of the GDP value of a Royal connection. Just green with spiteful issues. I am sorry for you.

          • dixiedoesit

            Ah, the old “you’re jealous” line. I figured someone would offer that up at some point – wasn’t expecting it quite so soon because usually people put up a better argument before falling back on that. Obviously you weren’t able to do that. You can always tell when someone knows they are on the wrong end of the argument because the insults start, as has happened here. And as for the “GDP value of a Royal connection” that isn’t even in dispute so please try to keep up; it’s absolutely disgusting that any value should pertain for an accident of birth.

          • James McIntosh

            I agree that “birthline privilege” is unfair but its the system we have. One wonders at how many of the haters would actually want the job of running the “Top Job”, at least the Royal Line is schooled in their expectations whereas the Republican school would have anyone with a few millions, enough to buy an election, can buy their way into being all powerful, recent events in USA show that it is possible, and use their money to get into the Highest Office in a Nation’ administration and influence, good or bad, the entire nation. As for the envy part, how do you make your argument that you are not envious when you decry privilege. there is no such thing as equality acrosss an entire people. Even the Communists were adamant in that sentiment. Please do explain your ethos as to how you would make all equally lowly and humble, for that is the only direction that disincentivising people with dreams and vision will go.

          • dixiedoesit

            It’s nothing to do with making all “equally lowly and humble” which is another incorrect assumption on your part. For example, Germany and USA are fine examples of entrepreneurial societies (that categorically DO NOT disincentivise their people) and manage to do so without a Head of State who who became so merely by navigating the birth canal. As for the fatuous point about “envy” it is actually to do with “fairness” (or “decency” if you prefer). Were people who fought to abolish slavery or to get women the vote “green with spiteful issues” just because they could picture a fairer, more open society? (Incidentally, both of these were defended by their apologists with the argument “that’s the system we have” as you seek to do here). Wanting things to be better and fairer doesn’t make one a “hater” – in fact if you read the posts on this page you will see most of the “hate” coming from the pro-Monarchists.

          • The Slayer

            “absolutely disgusting that any value should pertain for an accident of birth.” so you are for outlawing inheritance all together? When the parents die the funds they have earned do not go to the children but to the state?

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. Read the thread properly and you will see I was talking in the context of the “GDP value of a Royal connection” which was raised by another poster. It is this which is disgusting, given that it is based on an accident of birth.

          • James McIntosh

            How wrong you are.

          • dixiedoesit

            This is another one of those dead give-away statements that shows when someone doesn’t have a coherent argument. You’ll have to do a bit better than just shouting “you’re wrong” without having anything to back it up.

          • James McIntosh

            Your “coherent argument” amounts to what exactly, please elucidate how your argument is the only correct and right version, as opposed to a moral thought, which by the way has no legal grounding. Morals are a personal ideal.

          • Tim Lockett

            No Janet, Everyone who works hard to have a good life deserves a good life. Greedy elitist morons one of which has rescues 433 families/people flying a search and rescue helicopter. and another serving his country in Afghanistan. Are YOU so deserving?

        • Junglist1981

          “finance the uncounted numbers of immigrants”

          The vast majority of people who choose to move here work full time and pay taxes.

          The Queen isn’t exactly slogging away at her desk 8 hours a day to bring home the bacon is she. The vast majority of the income is from the royal estate, money that would still be made if the whole lot was put into a public trust. The Royal family only serve to reenforce the class system in this country, they need to be phased out.

          • Bettina

            Considering the Queen still works at her age, who are you to disparage her. She has worked tirelessly until now and she is 90 now! If you call working until you drop dead privilege, I don’t know who you think you are. She has a duty and is still fulfilling it at her age. You should thank her for it, not disparage her. She may not go out and bring home the ‘bacon’ as you so nicely put it, but do you really think that someone her age wants to have as many public engagements as she has every year? She has now worked, even if you take the newer retirement ages into account a minimum of 25 years longer than most pensioners in your country!

      • James McIntosh

        Look to the over privileged idiots of Malta as well, when you chose to rant. The Royal household does little more than the amateur Government of Malta but brings billions of pounds worth of investment into the UK, yes £billions. Republicans just cannot abide the thought of the Royal line. I find some sympathy there but not much else, towards jealous and spiteful people.

        • John grima

          Once again how does Malta feature in this discussion

          • James McIntosh

            You are looking at the rich UK Royals in isolation but there are a few rich and privileged in Malta, and many other countries, of the same genre. Expecting privilege for no perceived input, in a manner similar to Royalty or some Executive Presidents.

      • The Slayer

        You’re talking about footballers here, right?

  • SUSAN HORNE

    I am very pleased that you have explained things it was very interesting. Especially the fact that she is paying absolute massive tax bills. There have been some horrible posts on Facebook and some people should be truley ashamed of their offensive outbursts. I would hope that they apologised for their comments but I wont hold my breath. Thank you again.

    • Jessica

      He isn’t quite right about the tax bill thing. The Crown Estate doesn’t belong to her anymore. The government agree to give her money from it and the rest goes to the Treasury. She is not paying any tax on it at all and the 85% going to the Treasury is not tax. She also doesn’t manage the Crown Estate so it’s not her business or her private income. If the monarchy was abolished she wouldn’t get a penny from it. We let her have it. I agree completely that the money should go to the palace and people are fundamentally misunderstanding that when they claim she should pay it herself, but this post doesn’t explain Royal finances correctly!

      • Nicholas Webster

        The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the “Sovereign’s public estate”, which is neither government property nor part of the monarch’s private estate. As a result of this arrangement, the sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, exercising only very limited control of its affairs. Instead, the estate’s extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise “the powers of ownership” of the estate, although they are not “owners in their own right”. So in a nutshell the monarchy does sort of own the Crown Estates, but the government run it for them

        • Jessica

          No they don’t. It is run by an independent body and the queen can only benefit from it in a very limited way. She doesn’t own it or manage it or make decisions about it or have any right to benefit unless the government agrees. If the monarchy was abolished, it would not be hers anymore. It would go to the people. We let her keep it, bottom line

          • Glen Gallogly

            Blank

          • Nicholas Webster

            I said exactly that, did anybody actually read my comment? ‘the estate’s extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners’….. The usual riff-raff of an overly-angry republican 😉 Are you a champagne swinging socialist by any chance?

          • Jessica

            Actually I am a die hard royalist who runs several extremely successful blogs dedicated to the Royal family. I am also someone who believes Royal finances should be transparent and not lied about. This post is untrue and my entire reason for posting here is to educate but apparently people would rather believe a lie.

            I think the funding to BP is completely justified actually- not that you bothered to ask- but to write off the opinion of tens of thousands of people as “riff raff ” because they don’t agree with you is narrow minded and dangerous. You made a snap judgement about me and a personal attack on me. All that does is undermine you and show that perhaps a mature debate isn’t within your capabilities. I am quite offended by your rudeness but that’s your call. I would just recommend that you ask people their opinion before assuming you know and then judging them for it. It will only embarrass you when you find out you’re wrong as you have about me

        • Jessica

          She owns it as much as she owns the palace or the Royal collection or the duchy of Lancaster I.e she doesn’t. She benefits as long as the public allow it

        • Jessica

          The notion this is the Queen paying tax on her income out of the goodness of her heart is just so wrong

          • Nicholas Webster

            & how do you know that she isn’t paying out the goodness of her heart? You know there is a big probability that Lizzie has morals…. Don’t forget she is human!

          • Jessica

            You’ve misunderstood my point so I’ll rephrase. I don’t care why the queen pays taxes! The point of the post is that the 85% from the Crown Estate given to the Treasury is NOT her voluntarily paying tax as claimed in this post. It is a misleading assertion

        • Sharon Plessier

          Crown estate land isn’t just held in this country, there’s land in Manhattan which was purchased by George III, too. The income from this was transferred to the Government (in perpetuity) in exchange for them paying off George IV’s debts, which Prince Charles has successfully lobbied to have transferred back to the crown upon his succession. Hence, a lot of people wanting to see what else he has lobbied for.

    • Lady Martha

      Absolutely–though never hold your breath too long for chronically envious individuals who resent others with a farthing more than themselves to apologise for meanness and insufferable cruel remarks.

    • dixiedoesit

      He is COMPLETELY wrong about the tax status here, and is clearly misleading everyone. It is a disgraceful post. The Crown Estate is held by the Treasury on behalf of the Monarch who receives 15% of the profit every year (yep, EVERY year!) The other 85% is returned to the Treasury, so in other words the other million of us get to share it. To suggest this represents a taxation level of 85% is a gross distortion.

  • Dave RObinson

    Well done the truth is coming out at last

  • Steelbonnet

    You should have written more about the hypocrisy of those MPs calling for the Queen to pay for some or all the remedial works and asked how many of them are paying towards that other State Palace that only they occupy and use, the Palace of Westminster.

    • Lady Martha

      Excellent point!

    • James McIntosh

      Ah, but they are politicians. Politicians pay for nothing, not even their own food. The taxpayer covers that as well.

    • Enraged Royalist

      Are these the same MPs that claim back all their living expenses and repairs to their own properties, in fact they receive a wage and get paid back all the money they spend, no wonder once they get their snouts in the trough they never want to leave.

  • Philip

    If the work is being done “to benefit the nation” and if Buckingham Palace holds many treasures and artefacts which are “preserved for the nation” how come the nation can’t go inside and look at them or visit anything other than a tiny fraction of Buckingham Palace for a few months every year? The “queen” ought to be kicked out of there and all of the other royal residences (other than the ones she really owns privately such as Balmoral and Sandringham) and they should be opened up fully to the nation for us to visit and enjoy rather than being the preserve of an over privileged so-called royal family.

    • PM

      Yes that is a great idea. Why don’t you also move out of your home?

    • Jessica

      The Queen only occupies 10 rooms out of over 700! She also doesn’t personally decide how and when BP should be open. She has input but it’s not totally up to her. The palace is host to every visiting head of state and thousands of ordinary people who visit for investiture etc. It would be impractical to have people in every building all year round when there are important diplomatic events occurring

    • John_Twiss

      Buckingham Palace happens to be an official residence that also happens to be the business centre of the crown. Since when does any one have open access to all areas of a business centre? I do not recall that the public has open access to the Houses of Parliament or even the offices of all members of parliament. The public does not even have open access to the majority of council offices so why would they have open access to Buckingham Palace? As for the priceless articles and artifacts in the Palace, the vast majority of the art works and objects exist because they are the personal collections of successive monarchs. I would have no problem with a reasoned and rational comment, but spurious attacks made with neither knowledge nor forethought are simply stupid.

  • Sam

    Thankyou for speaking the truth.

  • Barry

    This only holds true if you believe the monarch should own the crown estate in the first place. As it is land and property commandeered by her marauding, despotic ancestors maybe it isn’t truly hers in the first place.

    • Jessica

      Spot on Barry!

      • Lachie Mor

        Do you own your own house?

    • anosrep

      There’s no “should” about it – she DOESN’T own it.

    • Enders_Shadow

      Let’s try and think, shall we. The Crown Estate is a chunk of assets owned by the ‘Crown’ as head of state. The money from the Crown Estate is added to the general funds of the government. If the UK were to become a republic, the ‘Crown Estate’ would continue to exist – probably as a part of the assets of the government. It would not go to the descendant of the Queen – who would probably be known as the Duke of Lancaster. So it’s all about whether the money should be in one fund or another. It’s not about who owns it in any meaningful sense…

      • Tim Lockett

        So that means we take ALL property from EVERYONE in the UK? A bit like Mugabe has done in Zimbabwe possibly??? That has been a thundering success hasn’t it!! lol!What would happen to money spinners like Trooping the colour, The changing of the guard and Royal weddings/investitures and the like. Or are the worlds TV stations and public in general going to flock to see your republican replacements for the royals?

        • tb303

          Yes, as they already do in every sensible country that has abolished monarchy lol check the evidence, the tourism argument is way overplayed.

        • Ian Perry

          What are you ranting about?

      • Dave

        You mean the Government would sell at a discount/gift/PFI the estates to their friends and cronies so the money would go to rich individuals rather than the proceeds go towards the general coffers and hopefully towards the greater good?

      • Jessica

        Some rare sense in this discussion! Thank you!

      • Nicola

        No, the Crown Estate are private lands and holdings owned by the Royal Family. They own them outright, not because they are Royal. If we abolished the monarchy they would still own these properties and the profits would go to them and stay with them.

        • Tom H

          No, the Crown Estate is an independent “company” which works under the rule of Parliament. The Queen does not own all those properties.

        • Enders_Shadow

          My longer reply quoting Wikipedia about the Crown estate seems to need confirmation. I would suggest you have a look at that. Note that when Ireland abandoned the Monarchy, the Republic didn’t pay George V for the Crown Estate land of which he was being deprived, although the parallel is not exact.

    • James McIntosh

      This point could be justified at any ownership of any land, so I would chose your words carefully about land ownership if I were you.

      • Jonathan Pearson

        we have free hold and lease hold….iff i give you something to hold for free…it dosen’t mean it belongs to you…as a commoner your not allowed to own land. all caused by invasion and occupation…class system all mechanisms to suppress and enslave .

        • James McIntosh

          I challenge your reasoning, supply proof of your statement.

        • Arthur Rusdell-Wilson

          That is legally correct. As a freeholder you do not own the land but an extensive bundle of rights in the land called the “fee simple”.

          • John

            Hence only the queen or a Texan can have an allodial title and truly own land anywhere in the western world.

          • Arthur Rusdell-Wilson

            I believe that some land in Orkney and Shetland is held on allodial tenure, as the islands came to Scotland as the dowry of a Norwegian princess and have never had the monarch of Scotland or England as feudal overlord.

      • Greet

        There’s little argument against land ownership as such, but inheritance of property perpetuates inequality. If the kids want the estate, they should earn enough to buy it

        • James McIntosh

          Well now, that surely is not the way inheritance works. Do you mean that you would wish your family to forego any assets you had acquired if they could not afford to purchase them. Where do you advocate that assets would end up in that case.

          • Jim Hornzee

            In my family we liquidate all assets and then distribute the funds. So to answer your question- whoever buys it.

          • Lizbags

            So you sell the house, shares etc,o f deceased parents, and then distribute the money to children or other beneficiaries? That is simply inheritance of money assets instead of land assets
            Or do you mean the money is distributed widely, outside the family, with the fact getting no more than a host of other beneficiaries.

          • Jim Hornzee

            Well the money goes to the family or it’s not really inheritance then: you should be allowed to provide for your children. My grandparents were by no means rich but at least owned their houses and the funds have help their grandchildren struggle that little bit less, while the actual assets have moved on to become (in each case here) a young family’s home instead of a disinterested landlord’s rental property.

            This system would also do away with the land-rich gentry living on the poverty line, while also freeing up vast swathes of land for affordable housing (assuming a developer bought it).

        • Loud

          Do you want your kids to buy their inheritance that you leave them one day? That is, if there is anything to leave.

          • Greet

            Beyond a small threshold, say £100k to allow for a family owned home to convert to a mortgaged one, I don’t think they should get a thing. This is of course impractical in such a complex system, the wealthy would still be best placed to work around the rules

    • Tim Lockett

      Would you get President Mugabe to reallocate all the funds and lands to “Deserving people” Barry? (The mates of the new revolution) Because that is working out really well isn’t it! The once bread basket of the world is now a wasteland. With fools like you, that is what would happen to this country. Lets dictate ALL property is theft, then all we have to do is decide WHO the theft is from, so we can give it back!! Once again would that be to YOUR mates and family??

      • VirtualMark

        You’re a simpleton.

        • Karl Marx

          get rid of all private ownership of property….let’s have pure communism!

          • John grima

            That worked really well in the land that gave us comminism, the USSR.

          • Zul-kifl Chaudry

            Russia did us give us communism, hell the communist manifesto was published in London

          • Linda a

            Yeah like that worked!!!there are now more billionaires in Russia on the failure of “pure communism” than anywhere else in the world!!! Oh and on the subject of giving back land and assets how about USA returning all the stolen wealth to the native American Indians!!

          • Krysie

            Communism is an ideal, but it doesn’t work, there will always be haves and have nots. It gives everyone something to work towards and I can say this, because I am not well off financially but spiritually happy with my lot.

    • atomicmrpelly

      This is somewhat ludicrous. Am I allowed to keep my house, or was that commandeered by marauding, despotic ancestors? If the Queen is to be forced to give up all her legally owned property, who else will be?

      • dixiedoesit

        You miss Barry’s point. Your house (I assume) was acquired legally. The Crown Estate was acquired largely at the point of a sword or through military force by one of the most powerful armies the world had seen up to that point.

        • Tom H

          Please look further than the tip of your nose. The palace is primarily used for international relations. They help attract foreign companies to build a branch I the UK or help promote UK products abroad. That alone brings in billions of pounds in the UK every year, and that’s only one function.

        • The Slayer

          And where do you think the land your house sits on was acquired?

          • dixiedoesit

            Is that really the best you can do to defend this anachronism? There is a WORLD of difference between my humble piece of turf (legally acquired so far as anyone knows) and the barely conceivable lot of the Royal Family.

    • Gray Lyons

      Yay let’s all have a Republic then Barry, Do you realize how much it would cost the British taxpayer if we were to have a President? Let me throw a few facts in and show you. French Presidents cost France £95 million per year, Italian Republic. Its president performs almost exactly the same constitutional function as The Queen, bar a few political powers, yet amazingly costs Italian taxpayers £181.5m per year. Daddy of them all is the US President. Its reported that the Yanks have paid out 100 million on holidays alone for the outgoing President. His salary is 440,000 a year, his security is undisclosed but at a guess it must be getting on for a billion then you have the Presidents like he will become and their security details along with their large presidential pensions that they will get until they die and when they die its still not over because if the ex first lady is still alive she herself will have to have a security detail. What is done is done Barry no one can change the past be it right or wrong. We have to have a head of state be it a Monarch or a President. We get a magnificent deal with what we have.

      • Roddy Williams

        We do the same for ex Prime Ministers (which is essentially what a President would be) so your argument doesn’t really hold. Comparisons with America don’t hold either, since it is a completely different social and political system. The French President, by your figures, seems to cost a good deal less than our monarchy, and with a Presdient, refreshingly, we get the chance to choose who it is. That seems far more logical and cost-effective than having a Head of State based on essentially an accident of birth.

      • Daisy Chain

        You cannot compare a political institution like the French Presidency with a ceremonial only job which is the monarchy. The first is vital, the latter an optional extra.

        • Jonny Storm

          An optional extra which contributes £1.155+ billion to the UK economy every year as well as an enormous amount of global coverage / free advertising for Britain across the world.
          I think most reasonable people are quite happy to have an old rich lady with zero political powers hosting tea parties and the like in her garden all while paying more into the treasury each year than we’re all likely to in our entire lives…

          • Daisy Chain

            Don’t believe that for one minute. Other countries seem to do well without a monarchy. People would still visit this country especially those whose family originated from here. More people visit Chester Zoo than royal sites. Even the Telegraph debunked that myth years ago.

          • Jonny Storm

            You can believe what you like Daisy, I don’t care about your subjective opinions and feeling, I rely on facts and figures.
            I call bullshit based on the following articles written by the newspaper you chose:
            The Telegraph, 23 Jun 2010, “The Royal family is a bargain for Britain”
            The Telegraph, 28 Jul 2010, “Monarchy attracts £500 million a year from overseas tourists”
            The Telegraph, Friday July 1 2011, “More than ever, the Royal Family is worth every penny”

        • Mat

          It might be worth reading up a bit, we are a constitutional monarchy, it’s not all ceremonies you know.

          • Daisy Chain

            I have actually quite a bit on the subject. I understand the business of giving assent etc. and signing documents but if this were to disappear tomorrow there would be no glitch in proceedings. It’s a bit of a non job.

      • Jessica

        I am a royalist but to play devil’s advocate, it isn’t about money. It’s about democracy. The monarch is never elected and certain groups are fundamentally excluded (a monarch would not be allowed to be openly gay for example due to their position as head of the CoE). It doesn’t matter to republicans whether the president would cost twenty times as much; to them a democratic system where the people have chosen their head of state is worth the price

        • William Stewart

          Jessica, the Queen is part of democratic system and is there by the consent of the people. She does not reign just because of birth. That is merely the way of chosing the candidate. The Queen rules by the consent of the Parliament, which at any time, if they wished, could do away with the monarchy. In the two main internationl definitions of Republican states, that makes the UK a Republic. In 1922, Ireland became independent, but still under the British Monarch similar to Canada. In 1937 De Valera, The Irish Prime Minister passed a law making Ireland a Republic. The Queen remained their head of state until 1949 when further legislation was adopted. De Valera, a committed Republican, correctly pointed out, after 1937 Ireland was a republic both in law and by international accepted definitions of a Republic, as the head of state is in place by the consent of the people and could be removed if the people wish. Many Presidents in Republics around the world today are chosen by means other than direct elections. Some are partially heredity. Remember in the UK we do not vote for our Prime Minister. We elect a house of commons who then agree the Government, including the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister does not even have to be an elected MP.

          • Jessica

            I said I was playing devil’s advocate William so I’d address your arguments to Republic supporters. Although, we haven’t chosen the Queen as our head of state and unless the government allowed it we wouldn’t be allowed to vote to remove her so I’m not quite sure some of the arguments would hold up against them.

          • Jessica

            Also the fact that some Presidents aren’t elected doesn’t make the Queen more democratic. It just means some Presidents are also in their position without being democratically elected.

          • Jessica

            But I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying as none of us voted for a government under Theresa May and no one voted for a coalition! Democracy is always flawed and I am happy to have the Queen as head of state but I can see why others would object to having a head of state they’ve never been allowed to choose

          • Philip Quinton

            She is NOT there by the will of the people, she IS there due to an accident of birth. The British people have no real or practical opportunity to rid themselves of the royal parasites.

          • Jonny Storm

            I really never understood this logic when they bring in more revenue and pay more in taxes in a single year than most of the people complaining will contribute to the country in their entire lives…

        • Jim Hornzee

          Aren’t there gay bishops in the CofE now? Not that far of a stretch then?

          • Jessica

            No you’ve oversimplified a little. You can be gay if you a clergy member in the Church of England but you are expected to be celibate as they consider homosexual sex to be a sin, whereas straight people aren’t. A small number of gay priests have married and have all either been fired or faced severe “discipline” within the church. Now the monarch is not just a bishop or a priest. They are the supreme head of the church. To the CoE they are the most senior religious figure on earth and so they are held to a standard which is higher than any bishop. The queen couldn’t attend her own son’s wedding as he was marrying a divorcee in a civil ceremony!! The Church doesn’t recognise same sex marriage so the monarch would have to marry in a civil ceremony. They would have to be celibate publicly. And by the nature of primogeniture their child could never inherit the throne as they can’t have a biological child. The likelihood of a monarch being openly gay is as likely as the Archbishop of Canterbury being openly gay. It might happen but not in my lifetime.

          • Jim Hornzee

            Hmmm…. yeah, I didn’t really think that that one through to its logical conclusions, did I?

          • Jessica

            We all do it!! It’s a shame as I would love to see an LGBT person in such a symbolic position 🙁

      • clive

        Why not use the president of uraguy as an example. A truly honorable man, who drove a battered old banger.

    • Tom H

      She doesn’t even own the place… She only uses it.

      • dixiedoesit

        Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it. Great system, that is. I imagine they are still laughing their royal heads off at that scam.

        • Tom H

          Please look further than the tip of your nose… The palace is primarily used for international relations. They help attract foreign companies to build a branch I the UK or help promote UK products abroad. That alone brings in billions of pounds in the UK every year, and that’s only one function. There are many more.
          Also, a large part of the palace is open for visitors. Would you open up your house so thousands of strangers walk in and out every day? I didn’t think so…

          • dixiedoesit

            Amazing. You “know” what I think even though we’ve never met. Er…except you don’t. Yours is a feeble defence of this arrangement. Are you seriously suggesting that foreign companies wouldn’t want to invest here if the Monarch made more of a contribution to the upkeep? Do you really believe that getting her to live elsewhere would mean foreign companies wouldn’t be inclined to invest in the UK? Get real.

          • Tom H

            I was replying to your false statement that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace. They do.
            And Lizzie pays more taxes every year than I will earn in my whole life. It is a tad stupid to be saying she has to pay even more.

          • dixiedoesit

            No you didn’t. You suggested you KNOW how I would feel about opening my house up to thousands of visitors every day but as I’ve never made a comment on the subject it’s impossible for you to know. Further, I suggest you re-read my post because I DIDN’T make any mention of “the people” and whether they profit from the use of the palace. Please try to keep up.

          • The Slayer

            You literally said “Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.”

          • dixiedoesit

            Do you have a meaningful point to make or are you merely demonstrating you can read?

          • JK

            except that its owned by the crown estate… which is owned by the currently reigning monarch… which is Queen Elizabeth the second… which would mean that she owns it… and uses it… and then gives 85% of its income to the treasury… did you even read the article? or are you just here to fail at arguing?

          • dixiedoesit

            Oh dear, here is another determined to show themselves up in public. “… and then gives 85% of its income to the treasury…” No, that isn’t what happens. The Treasury gets 85% of the annual profit NOT 85% of income, which is very different. (I guess you’re feeling pretty stupid now?) Your point about ownership of the Crown Estate isn’t much better as it belongs to the monarch “in right of the Crown” so it is not her private property in the way you suggest and she cannot sell it, for instance (you’re still feeling stupid, right?) Come back at me when you’ve grasped the basic facts, and maybe you could check out a children’s book on grammar so you can capitalise sentences properly next time. I won’t hold my breath.

          • Jonny Storm

            So long as she is making a net contribution to the economy why is there an issue with some old woman hosting tea parties in her garden?

          • dixiedoesit

            Fair question Jonny Storm, and well done for asking in a civil fashion (if only other posters were capable of addressing the issues instead of resorting to name calling). There’s no problem with old women hosting tea parties in itself, but the difficulty arises due to the inherently unfair way it gets to be this particular old lady in that particular garden. I believe it is unhealthy for our society to have such inherited privilege and influence at the heart of things as it is not only an impediment to good government but it also says that birth status is more important than talent, industriousness or endeavour. As for the money, there is precious little evidence that the Monarchy does provide a net contribution (although apologists for this system trot it out often in the absence of supporting facts). Plenty of things might make money, it doesn’t make them OK. (Should society support child pornography just because it’s lucrative, for example?)

          • Jonny Storm

            Name calling really does nothing to further a discussion, see the recent US elections for reference.
            Regarding inherited privilege/wealth/etc, I have mixed feeling on this. There are some people ‘from money’ who will never contribute anything worthwhile to the country and won’t work either through laziness or a sense of entitlement. This obviously irritates me. However I also consider that my father worked hard to get us above the UK poverty line when I was growing up and now does quite well for himself. I managed to get a sponsorship for University that comes with a well paid job at then end, I now find myself asking “how much of what I earn is a stranger entitled to?” especially when I don’t want any children I might have to repeat my childhood.
            There always seems to be conflicting figures regarding the crowns net contribution, I’ve never found any that say she’s a drain on the taxpayer though. Do you have a source?
            Child pornography? No. There are other things though, for example the Lib Dems recent proposal of decriminalising cannabis and their suggestions that it could raise upwards of £1 billion plus reduced policing costs. I personally don’t see a problem with that if people choose that kind of lifestyle, I believe thats more than the crown contributes on a good year.

          • Tom H

            The Crown Estate is not owned by the crown, it is owned by a holding, in hands of Parliament. the Queen merely uses the property. 15% of the income generated by the Crown Estate goes to the Queen, 85% goes to the country. With that 15% she pays for upkeeping and personnel of the properties.

          • Tom H

            You were insulting me claiming you did not say what The Slayer literally copied from your own text. You are nothing but a troll…

          • dixiedoesit

            I didn’t insult you; you managed that all on your own. You said that I made a statement that “people do not profit from the use of the Palace” and if you read the thread properly you will see that I have NEVER said that. Slayer misunderstood what I was referring to, obviously. Repeat – I NEVER made the statement you accused me of making. (I did point that out to Slayer but s/he didn’t get back to me). You really need to do better than copy and paste a DIFFERENT statement and hide behind that. If you want to have a grown up debate on the issues and facts then that’s fine; if that’s beyond you and you you just want childish tantrums and name-calling then jog on.

          • Tom H

            Stop trolling us and get a life… I will not discuss further with someone who refuses to accept his/her mistakes and even plainly lies about what he/she wrote.

          • James McIntosh

            Now who is resorting to abusive text or insult, instead of reasoned argument. I think that is summed up as “hoist on your own petard”

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. No name-calling or anything like it. Just a sensible observation on JK’s likely state of mind at appearing so foolish (re-read how JK addressed me in the first place, incidentally, assuming that is the post to which you refer).

          • Tom H

            I was just going to reply that to him/her…

          • dixiedoesit

            That wasn’t the statement I was referring to. Please try to keep up.

          • Tom H

            It is the statement we are all referring to. If you want to change the subject all the time, that is your problem. Not ours. Don’t troll us for your own mistakes.

          • Tom H

            If you would love to have thousands of people walk into your living room to visit your house, you would be even weirder than I thought.
            Troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            Either way, you’re still presuming to “know” what I think which betrays an arrogance that does you little credit. Just how “weird” did you think I was, given that the only previous dealings between us were me pointing out that I DIDN’T say something you claimed I said. Correcting people on a point of fact makes someone “weird” now? I think we know who the troll really is, huh?

          • Tom H

            I presume to know because that is how 7 billion people on this planet would think. If you are different than the rest of the world, than yes, you are weird.

            And I have elaborately established that you in fact DID say what I claimed you said and that you are spraying one lie after the other. Troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            As I suspected, you aren’t capable of reasoned discussion. You have established no such thing – only I would know which statement I was referring to when I wrote the post so it is impossible for you to “establish” which one I meant. (You’ve made only one reference to it, and I subsequently corrected you – read the thread, why don’t you?) Similarly, you must be pretty deluded to not only presume to know how I feel but the entire planet now? Wow, you are one funny guy. I will assume your inability to engage on the issues and resort to childish name-calling means you know you don’t have an argument.

          • Tom H

            You are HILARIOUS. I – as well as others – have copy-pasted what you wrote, and you still try to tell us you didn’t write it. It’s there, baby, black on white. Deal with it. And stop lying. Troll. (and that’s not childish name-calling, it’s merely stating a factual observation)

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. Wrong again Tom H. That IS NOT the comment I was referring to when I said I didn’t say it. It really is pretty straightforward. I was referring to a DIFFERENT comment and only I would know that. Jeez. The Slayer has had the decency to recognise s/he was mistaken and you keep digging a deeper hole. And continue with the childish name calling. It’s there, baby, black on white. Deal with it.

          • Tom H

            Let me tell you again, in short steps. Apparently you are too pig headed to admit you are telling complete nonsense.

            1) you say the British people can’t use the palace
            2) I say they can, though inirectly; many of the happenings are beneficial to the country’s economy
            3) you claim you never said the people can’t use the palace
            4) we copy your exact lines
            5) you still claim you never said it

            I don’t care what you are referring to. What matters it what everyone else was referring to. Stopp trolling us. Troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. Still wrong Tom. Let me fix this for you.

            1) You claimed I said (and I quote) “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”
            2) I denied ever writing those words and invited you to show me where I had said such words.
            3) You fave failed to do this (because those are words I did NOT write) and have merely relied upon someone else’s copy and paste of a different set of words to support your hopeless position.
            4) End of.

            It’s there baby, in black and white. Deal with it. (No amount of name-calling and blubbing about being trolled will change that).

          • Tom H

            You started by saying that the people can’t use the palace. You wrote it, it is there, black on white. You wrote it, I copy pasted it, so did others. By claiming you didn’t write that you are only making a fool out if yourself. And I still think you are very much aware that you did write it, and you just contradict us to be a troll and keep going on…

          • dixiedoesit

            So that’s it then. You’re back-tracking on your claim that I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” (your very own words, remember) which is what I have been telling you all along.

            That’ll be game, set and and match to me then. Now who’s the pig-headed one? Now who’s been trolling? Pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            I am not backtracking on anything. I said you said the people can’t use the palace, you said you didn’t, and I copied your own text several times. And you still say you didn’t write it, while it is there black on white? You are incredible… How old are you? You seem to be both blind and suffering from dementia…

          • dixiedoesit

            Still wrong Tom. I set it out in points 1) to 4) above. You claim I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” and we now agree I NEVER said those words.

            It’s there baby, in black and white. Deal with it.

            What you having for supper, Tom? Big portion of Humble Pie, I guess?

          • Tom H

            We? There is no we, baby. You are claiming and deciding things all on your own.
            In your point 1) through 4) you conveniently left out what should gave been the first point: the fact that you did write what we have copied several times. But you didn’t include that. You skipped it and immediately jumped to my reply to your comment. Because it would show you are wrong. And of course a troll like you would never admit that. I am actually surprised that you just leave it there for everyone to see. I thought you would try to hide your mistake by editing your comment and taking out the thing you claim you never said.

            Going to bed now, have fun trolling by yourself. I’ll reply in the morning.

          • dixiedoesit

            Me too, Tom, baby. Sleep well.

            I tried to help you, I mean I REALLY advised you to re-read the thread so you would understand what was being referred to. Obviously, The Slayer did that and realised his/her misunderstanding (no problem at all with that, by the way) but once you were in that hole you just had to keep digging, didn’t you?

            And instead of admitting that I never said “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” as you claimed, you just went in for name calling and blubbing about trolling. And now you feel pretty stupid, right? Hope all that Humble Pie doesn’t give you indigestion, Tom, baby.

          • Tom H

            I really don’t understand how and why you keep on denying you wrote something which is there black on white. Several times: once from your hand and then some copies by me and others.

            The Slayer stopped responding because he/she knows a troll like you will never stop and it is lost energy trying to talk to you. But I don’t care about that. I won’t stop until you admit you did write “Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.” and apologise to us for your obnoxious behaviour.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. The reason you won’t stop is because you are pig-headed. And a troll. That’s what pig-headed trolls do. You claimed I said (and I quote) “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”. I denied saying this. You have failed to show where I did say it, and you never will. End of.

            Or rather, it should be end of. But it’s not, because you have the gall to copy and paste some DIFFERENT words and think that no-one will notice the difference. Jeez, you couldn’t MAKE IT UP!

            Stop trolling me in such a pig-headed way. Pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            You’re the troll. You keep on saying you never wrote something which is there, black on white.
            I have not failed, I have copied your text several times, as well as others. You are just trolling us by saying you never wrote it, even if we point out in detail what and when you did write it.

            I am not copy-pasting different words, I am copy-pasting the exact words you wrote yourself, the words we are all talking about, and which you refuse to admit you wrote. I didn’t change a thing, I just selected, copied, and pasted *your* comment.

            The only troll here is you, trying to contradict and deny something which is visible for all…

            Let me tell you again:

            You claimed that we cannot use the palace (“Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.”).
            I replied that this is not correct.
            To which you replied you never said that in the first place.

            You DID say it. I have copied it again. As I have several times already. You DID say we cannot use the palace. And nothing is going to change the fact you wrote it.

          • dixiedoesit

            So we agree then.

            I did NOT say “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” even though you claimed I did.

            You have now back-tracked and admit I did not say those words.

            It’s there in black and white, baby. Deal with it.

            So now you’ve got plenty of egg your face to go with that Humble Pie. You really should have gone to bed like to you said you would so you wouldn’t look so stupid. I guess we just add that statement to the catalogue of bull***t from Tom H, the pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            No we don’t agree… You are still trolling along… Look at your first comment above, dated “3 days ago”.

            “Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.”

            “Whilst THE PEOPLE who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.”

            THE PEOPLE

            It is still there, black on white. I even took a picture of it with a big blue arrow, but apparently I can’t post pictures here. Everyone reading this page can clearly see that you did write that, word for word, every single letter of it.
            So stop trolling us and just admit that you wrote it. You are making a fool of yourself.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nnnnoooooo…please…nnooo!! Not the Big Blue Arrow! Anything except the Big Blue Arrow!

            Jesus wept! This is too funny for words. I’ve conjured a fabulous image of a little saddo hunched over his laptop cursing away at a big blue arrow while tucking in to his Humble Pie. Brilliant. I know you’ve been trolling me, which is pretty shabby, and you’re the last word in pig-headedness but I can almost forgive all this for the laughs you’ve given me. Even if you continue as a keyboard warrior for the rest of your days you will never, ever say anything as eye-wateringly, cringeingly funny as this. It’s absolutely priceless!

            Tell you what Tom H – let’s make it simple for you. You say I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” and I say I did not write those words. Why don’t you just copy and paste where I supposedly said those words? Then we’ll know. (Don’t bother with the Big Blue Arrow as I know it’s tricky lol)

            Saddo pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            So sad… you don’t only suffer from memory loss (as you don’t remember what you wrote) but you seem to be either blind or illiterate since you can’t even see/read what you wrote… I hope you are very old, because your condition would be really sad for someone young.

          • dixiedoesit

            All that trolling, when you could simply have copied and pasted where I supposedly wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” as per your allegation.

            I guess we have our answer then. Game, set and match to me.

          • Tom H

            Lol look who’s talking. You are the pure definition of trolling: writing arrogant and insulting messages, denying absolute truths and being contrary just for the sake of it.
            You can see just as well as anyone else here that you actually did write it. And yet you insist in denying what is there black on white. So sad, being a troll like you.

            I have copied the phrase 4 or 5 times, others have as well, and your original comment is still there. Yet you insist on denying it all. Sad, sad, sad little troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            Phew! I was scared you might use the Big Blue Arrow on me and I was really worried. Gee, was I worried lol.

            And another post comes and goes from the saddo pig-headed troll without proving that I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”. I guess it is finally, FINALLY dawning on you that I didn’t write those words as you alleged. Have you finished the Humble Pie yet? There’s plenty of egg left, I gather.

            As I said before, I politely pointed out where you had misunderstood things, and all I got in return was name-calling and trolling. And now, you’re blubbing because someone gave you a taste of your own medicine. Lesson learnt, huh? You’re welcome.

          • Tom H

            Nothing’s dawning babe, you still wrote those words and they are still there for everyone to see.
            I did not misunderstand anything. You claimed not to have written something you did write (it is still there, copied by me and others several times) and ever since you realised you actually did write it you troll us in the most obnoxious way trying to hide your own mistake.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. Firstly, there weren’t “several” others. There was one other, on ONE occasion who had the good grace to recognise they had misunderstood things when I pointed it out. No shame in that – shows a level of decency that seems to have eluded you.

            Nope again. I claimed not to have written “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” as you claimed. And now we BOTH know I didn’t write that (if I had, you would have copied and pasted it by now with or without the scary Big Blue Arrow).

            And nope again. You are the saddo pig-headed troll who made the mistake and continues in denial (and who STILL cannot copy and paste where I said “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”) as you alleged. Now THAT’S what I call obnoxious.

            Now, you run along and line up some reading lessons so it doesn’t happen again. After you finish your Humble Pie and eggs, of course.

          • Tom H

            Nope, he/she did not recognise he/she was wrong, he/she merely didn’t want to get involved in an endless and pointless discussion with a troll like you.

            I know you did write that. You know it too. You are just trolling away by claiming you didn’t. But you know you wrote it. As we all do. Everyone who can read can see that.

            I know you can read. If you can read your own comment and still deny it is there, clearly on purpose, well… you’re just a troll. There’s no other word for it.

          • dixiedoesit

            So…now you admit it was only ONE person on ONE occasion. (Not several and not many times). Feeling stupid, are you?

            Nope. As previously established if I had written “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” you would have pointed it out by now. You haven’t. Because I didn’t say it.

            Third para actually makes no grammatical sense. Like I advised, you ought to go and get some reading lessons. You’re welcome.

            It’s a pity you’re feeling bad at getting your butt kicked, as it really didn’t need come to that. All you needed to do was re-read things as I suggested (and as The Slayer duly did). You live and learn, huh? You’re welcome.

          • Tom H

            You should be the one feeling stupid, denying things which are there for everyone to see…

            I have pointed out on several occasions, by copying your exact text, that you DID say it. You are just trolling on and pretending you didn’t write it ad you missed my – how many? 4? 5? – copies of your exact words.

            It makes enough sense. If you can read it but you refuse to admit it, you’re a troll. It’s as simple as that.

            My but is far from being kicked. There is a difference between kicking one’s but and just being an arrogant obnoxious troll lying away for the past 3 days.

            I am not even going to tell you to re-read your own comment. I know you know well enough what it says, you just deny it to keep on trolling.

          • dixiedoesit

            Let me think about that for a bit. Nah…I don’t feel stupid. Actually, I feel pretty good now you mention it.

            Tellingly, you HAVEN’T copied the only text that matters. Namely; “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” I wonder why that might be? Doh, if only I had a scary Big Blue Arrow.

            Equally tellingly, you didn’t address the many “others” on several occasions point. I wonder why that might be? It was only you who wanted to carry on flogging a dead horse – and what a feeble job you did of it too. Bit embarrassed, huh? Still, at least you got some Humble Pie and egg to show for it. And a brief lesson on how to debate in public properly. You’re welcome.

            On the plus side you gave me such a huge laugh about the Big Blue Arrow (I still get the giggles thinking about it, even now, you saddo) that I decided to go easy on you. You’re welcome.

            You take care now, and pick your battles more carefully in future,

          • Tom H

            I have copied it several times. No editing involved, merely copy and paste of the exact words, letter after letter, which you wrote. Select, Ctrl-c, Ctrl-v.

            I do not need lessons from you. In a debate you would expect people to be honest and civilised. You are neither, hence your promotion to the “troll” level.

            I did not pick out a battle, I just pointed out a mistake you made. And ever since you are denying you made it, while everyone can still see it’s there, black on white.

            You are nothing but an arrogant, self-absorbed, lying, sad little troll. And you can write what you want, nothing will change that. Your error and the following obnoxious behaviour is there to see for all. You don’t need me to point it out.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. Copying the WRONG thing several times doesn’t make you right. Just makes you look stupid, as has happened here. If you had copied “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” which was your original allegation then you wouldn’t have brought all this upon yourself. But wait…you couldn’t! Because I didn’t say it! Oh no…if only you hadn’t gone round making false allegations. Too late, huh?

            OK, maybe you don’t need lessons from me. Or maybe you do? What is for sure is that you need lessons from somebody – otherwise you’ll keep getting your butt kicked. (I did it politely; others might not be so nice. You’re welcome).

            You picked a battle the second you made your false allegation about what I had said (which, to remind you, was “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” as I NEVER said it as you now – sort of – admit).

            Can I remind you who started the name-calling and the abuse, in what I thought would be a cerebral discussion. And now you’re blubbing. My advice would be, if you can’t take it, then don’t dish it out first. You’re welcome.

            Well…the football’s over, the beer is finished up, and I now want to have some grown-up conversation so I’ll call it a day with you. Thanks again for the laughs about the scary Big Blue Arrow – it really will live n the memory.

          • Tom H

            I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. You said the people can’t use the palace, I replied that they can – though indirectly – after which you suddenly say you never said they can’t use it. Your exact words were (and I copy-paste AGAIN) :

            “Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.”

            This is the one and only phrase I am talking about. Which other phrase you mean is a coplete riddle to me, and frankly, I don’t care. This is what you wrote, this is what I contradicted, and this is what you said you never wrote.

            I am curious to hear what the hell you have been talking about this whole time if not this phrase. There were only two sentences in your comment, and I’m sure it wasn’t the second one.

            I repeat – *again*:

            1) you say the people can’t use the palace
            2) I say your claim is shortsighted and that they indirectly can use it: they profit from it, they visit it, the things happening in the palace are for the benefit of the people

            3) you suddenly claim you never said nr 1)

            Are you done trolling now?

          • dixiedoesit

            I think we might be getting somewhere. It has been blindingly obvious from the start, and I simply think you got the wrong end of the stick from the outset.

            You saw a post of mine and you replied by writing that I had said “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”. That is EXACTLY what you what you wrote. (However, I did not ever say that).

            Around about the same time, I wrote another post or two. Separately, I also pointed out politely, respectfully and courteously that you were mistaken as I did NOT say “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”. (Which is true – I didn’t). Regrettably, you replied with abuse and name-calling.

            I denied saying it at the time, I have denied saying it throughout this thread and I deny saying it now.

            Somehow (and it really doesn’t matter how) you got it into your head that I was denying having said something else. In other words, what I denied saying and you you thought I denied saying were two different things.

            I realised this and politely, respectfully and courteously told you I thought we were discussing two different statements. This was met with more name-calling and abuse from you.

            I politely, respectfully and courteously asked you to re-read the thread so you could see I was denying having said “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” as you accused me of, rather than anything else. This was a genuine attempt to get you to see where you had misunderstood things. (Incidentally, there’s nothing wrong with this – plenty of people misunderstand plenty of things all the time). Unfortunately, you responded with more name-calling.

            I asked you to show where I had said “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” (knowing of course, that you couldn’t). Uncharacteristically for me, I began to address you the same way you had been addressing me, but this is hardly surprising in light of what I had put up with.

            So that’s it. I’ve done my best to explain what I believe has got us to this point. It is a genuine, hand-on-heart summary of what has gone before. I’ve done it without insults or name-calling. How you respond is up to you. If you’re OK with that we can move on. If you’re going to carry on as before then I’ll give as good as I get. Your call.

          • Tom H

            We obviously have another view on what “politely, respectfully and courteously” means. When I read your posts, to me and to others, I find them arrogant, demeaning and deliberately lying. Characteristics of a troll, which is why I immediately jumpe into defensive mode.

            And I still claim you said it, in your first post of this thread, as I have told you or copied at least a dozen times. The fact that you *still* deny it, is just sad for you.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. Don’t attempt to excuse your shameful name-calling and abuse by reference to my posts. You were obnoxious from the outset and tried to adopt a superior tone which soon fell apart. And then when you get a taste of your own medicine you start your grizzling. If you can’t take it then don’t dish it out.

            And yes, I STILL deny it because it STILL isn’t true. If I had written the words “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” then I am quite sure you would have copied and pasted them by now. But haven’t. Because you can’t. Because I didn’t write those words. Because no amount of your lies will change the facts.

          • Tom H

            Lol I thought you’d finally given up.

            Don’t try to project your own faults onto others. Your messages throughout this thread are arrogant and full of lies. Don’t go about telling people it is their mistake while you know it us yours.
            You know you wrote it, you can still read it. It is there. I copied it several times, and not only me. Stop denying, you look ridiculous.

          • dixiedoesit

            Lol. Give up? That’s just wishful thinking on your part.

            I haven’t projected my faults onto you. You’ve managed perfectly well on your own. You wrote a lie on my post that I said “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” (It’s there, Baby. Black on white. Deal with it). And yet we both know those are NOT the words I wrote.

            Instead, the best you are able to do is copy and paste several times some different words. Guess what saddo? It hasn’t gone unnoticed.

            Either you’re incapable of following the thread back and seeing that what you said I wrote is DIFFERENT to what I deny, or you are are deliberately acting like a fool. Either way, that is very demeaning for you. And, that is not me demeaning you – it is you demeaning yourself.

          • Tom H

            I have always copied the exact same words. The words you wrote. I selected *your* words, copied and pasted. I didn’t even type them, just Ctrl-c and Ctrl-v. The exact same words, your words.
            You are too pigheaded to admit, but that’s your problem not mine. Everyone can see what you wrote, everyone can see what I copied, so everyone can see what a lier you are. Not only you claim you never wrote those words, now you claim I copied the words you never wrote differently? Come on… get a life, troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. You tried that lie before, and it didn’t work then. And won’t work now. I wrote several things around about the same time as you wrote that I had said “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”. However, that was NOT among the things I wrote. And you seriously think that copying and pasting something else will fool anybody into thinking that I ever wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”. Guess what saddo? You’re fooling no-one but yourself. All you need do is find the post where I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” and you win. But you can’t do that, because it didn’t happen. So I win.

            You’re already in deep so stop digging. Saddo pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            I copy pasted your exact words and they are there for anyone to see. And I am not the only one who copied them.

            Let me copy it AGAIN, just for the fun of proving you are an obnoxious lying troll:

            “Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.”

            Your words, simply copy pasted, every letter coming from your own hand.

          • dixiedoesit

            Exactly – thanks for proving my point for me. Because what you originally said I wrote was:

            “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace”

            Have a look at those two sentences side by side and you will see they are different. That’s why I was within my rights to deny having said what you claimed. Pretty simple really.

            Separately, well done for climbing down on your earlier lie about those words being copied and pasted by you and others (plural) as there was only one other, who only posted once and then no longer posted it. Pretty simple really.

          • Tom H

            That’s the exact same thing! That’s what this discussion is all about! You saying we can’t use the palace, me saying you shouldn’t be shortsighted and we can use the palace – though indirectly. You are trolling on about semantics while it is the exact same thing. Which you still deny apparently, just for the sake of trolling. Troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            Hallelujah! You have finally, grugdingly admitted they are DIFFERENT words. Thank you. And thanks for the laughs along the way (I’ll never forget the Big Blue Arrow).

          • Tom H

            Different word(s), same meaning. You are still wrong babe…

          • dixiedoesit

            Oh brilliant! The shame you must feeling! I’ve lost count of the number of times I told you they were different words and you finally got there. Praise be. Another helping of Humble Pie, babe!

          • Tom H

            You are the only one who should be feeling any shame… You know those words don’t change a thing to the meaning of it, so your ranting was completely irrational and thus a fine example of trolling.

          • dixiedoesit

            Mmmm. Do I feel any shame? Now, let me think about that for a moment.

            Nah – you have the monopoly on that one Babe. Now you ask, I’m actually feeling the serene contentment of someone savouring a sweet victory (whilst picturing a troll eating a big helping of Humble Pie).

            Now that your humiliation is complete I am intrigued as to what happened, and can only imagine you finally asked a grown-up for some help. Now you hurry along and finish up that Humble Pie like a good chap.

          • Tom H

            I didn’t say you feel shame, I said you should. I am very well aware that trolls like you don’t feel shame. They probably don’t feel anything except arrogance and disparagement.

            FYI there has been no humiliation whatsoever on my side. I still stand firmly by all I said: you *did* claim we can’t use the palace, I *did* copy-paste it several times and you *did* spawn one lie after the other. They are there for anyone to see. I know you don’t feel shame, but I am glad the rest of the world can see what a troll you are.

          • dixiedoesit

            Oh dear. It looks like all that Humble Pie has left a bitter taste. How sad.

            All those days of denying they were different words only to cave in this morning and acknowledge what I have been telling you all along (and what has been obvious to everyone) must stick in the throat. You poor little snowflake, my heart bleeds.

            Just think, if only you had had the sense and decency to re-read the thread at the start you would have saved yourself all this embarrassment. A lesson learnt, huh?

            As for the “rest of the world” you can’t seriously suppose the whole world cares enough to have read this can you – that’s a bit of a stretch even by your deluded standards. Anyway, I do hope you’re right as they’ll be laughing at you almost as much as I am.

            I’m off out now for a nice meal to celebrate my victory; you stop in and do your customary response within moments (you ought to get more, you saddo, then maybe you would learn how to conduct yourself properly). Oh, I forgot – you have all that Humble Pie to eat up. Saddo pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            All those days of denying you said exactly what I copied over and over and over again. Don’t you get tired of all those lies and the trolling?

            I haven’t acknowledged anything, I am still waiting for your apologies for trolling for days in a row, refusing to admit you did actually write what we said you did.

            You are the one who needs to re-read all. You did write exactly what I copied – word for word – it is there for everyone to admire, and yet you persist in your denial…
            The only embarassement here is yours, darling, for trolling away and showing to the world what a pityful arrogant shameless little person you are.

            My conduct is triggered by one thing only: your arrogance and lies. But I wouldn’t expect you to admit that either, since you seem to be denying everything anyone says just for the sake of it. Another characteristic of a real troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            Yep. All those days of you embarrassing yourself, only to admit they were DIFFERENT words all along. You finally did so, just this time yesterday and I’m still smiling about it. Like I said some days ago, it’s game, set and match to me. Loser.

            You done yet with your saddo, pig-headed trolling? Saddo, pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            Haha you really have a vivid imagination. Do you really think for one second that this has been embarrassing for anyone other than yourself? Lol 🙂
            I have copied your exact words over and over and over again and they were *not* different, they were an exact copy of what you originally wrote, letter by letter. And you still claim they were different words. How pig-headed can a troll be?

            there was *one* word different in *one* of the replies at thye very start, but the meaning did *not* change a bit soeven those were *the same* words.

            Are you done now with your lying, you sad arrogant big-headed troll?

          • dixiedoesit

            I see. The old “ha-ha” introduction. Standard approach of the troll who knows they lost. It’s funny.

            And we’ve already established they were different words to those you originally claimed I said. You admitted it yourself yesterday, and now you just did it again (get a grown-up to check your numeracy skills as well as your English, by the way). And now you’re feeling humiliated. And great shame. It’s funny.

            Saddo, pig-headed troll.

            You carry on gorging on the Humble Pie (or alternatively get a life – your call).

          • Tom H

            I was genuinely laughing with the nonsense in your post, so I thought it quite appropriate to actually show you I was laughing.
            They were not different words. Whenever I copied your words, I did actually copy your words, every letter of them. While you kept on lying, saying that the words I litterally copied from you were not the words you wrote. They were, 100%.

            On top of your lying you seem to think you know what or how I feel? Now that’s another thing to laugh at out loud. What an arrogance. I’ve never come across a troll as big-headed as you. Watch out, your ego will explode at some point. Which would actually be a relief for the world. Every troll less is a step forward for humanity.

            About my English… I am not a native speaker. English is just one of the 5 languages I learned rather fluent (Dutch, French, English, Swedish, Spanish), on top of the 4 or 5 others I have basic skills in (Italian, German, Norwegian, Catalan and some very basic Greek).
            My English is way better than your Dutch or French will ever be. So talking about humble pies, try eating some from time to time. It would suit you.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. You weren’t. You were using “ha-ha” in the way trolls customarily use it i.e. to make a snark in lieu of a having a worthwhile point to make. Besides which, you have nothing to laugh about based on this exchange (I hope the rest of your life – what there is of it, that is – is going better than this). You were caught out lying about what I had written, and after several days of blustering were finally forced to admit it.

            Nope. Not presuming to know what or how you feel but simply drawing the obvious conclusion that any rational person would had they read this thread. And anyway, I wouldn’t encourage anybody to try to figure the workings of your mind unless they were both professionally qualified AND well paid to do so. And on this subject, I would remind you that you have previously commented on what I supposedly thought (despite me never having given any indication) and I had to pick you up on it. And you also do it here with your presumed knowledge regarding my Dutch or French (which you have no clue about). The pot is calling the kettle black, I see.

            Next!

            Saddo, pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            And again that disgusting arrogance. Now you are going to tell me what I mean when I write something? You are unbelievable. Never seen someone as horrific as you. Are you sure you’re not American? Most Brits I know are nice, such arrogance and bluntness are usually more present in Americans, Turks and Russians.

            I do have a lot to laugh about. Your behaviour is so silly and sad that it becomes a joke. You are a caricature of yourself. And that’s funny. At first I was angry at your stupid replies, but now I’m just laughing at it. Laughing at you and how sad and frustrated you must be, doing nothing else but trolling on the net. Poor you. Not.

            Anyone who reads this thread (which is probably nobody) can clearly see that I was right all along, and that you are just picking fights and trolling, by selling lies, insults, arrogant language and semantic blabber.

          • dixiedoesit

            Oh dear. Someone’s not a very good loser are they Tom H? Poor little snowflake.

            Oh, the irony. You getting upset by thinking I presume to know what you mean when in the earliest of these exchanges YOU were the one who insisted he knew what I meant when I wrote to tell you I was referring to a different post. The pot calling the kettle black, again.

            (I’ll ignore your silly nationalistic generalisations – you got beaten because you lied and thought you could lie your way out, not because of where I’m from. Any reflections on my race or colour, incidentally?)

            If this thread gives you a lot to laugh about then you are even sadder than I thought. And THAT is saying something! And the irony of you suggesting I have “nothing better to do…” Oh, the irony. This is coming from the guy who replies to every post of mine instantaneously night or day, who reviews my posts to other people, who tries to suck up to another poster by addressing them directly about me (and is sensibly ignored by the other poster). The pot calling the kettle black, again.

            And anyone who reads this thread (I see you’ve changed your tune from “the world” to “probably nobody”) will see that you lied at the outset and simply got caught. It’s not me picking fights, it’s you. I honestly thought that if you had shown I had written “that “the people” do not profit from the use of the palace” then I would apologise and leave it there; whilst if you could not show that is what I wrote then you would apologise and leave it there. Instead, neither happened – you have accepted that I did NOT write “that “the people” do not profit from the use of the palace” and yet you carry on picking a fight. (Good job I’m enjoying it so much, huh?) I guess that’s what saddo pig-headed trolls do.

            Saddo pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            Still yapping? You really have nothing else to do with your life than trolling us? So sad.

            Your problem is that we were all referring to the same post, the one you wrote, and you are the only one who was referring to something else – we still don’t know what since the post we were referring to was at that point the only thing you had written. You kept on whinge about referring to something else, but you fail to point out what you were referring to. Probably because it was either a lie or your imagination, in both cases abused to find a reason to troll us.

            I have better things to do than replying to your posts. But I will not let such an arrogance go without reply. I do not want to give you the slightest impression that I “give up” and just let you troll us. That would be your goal, and therefore inacceptable from my side. I will go on until you either shut up or apologise, even if replying to such an arrogant creature as you is annoying and a complete waste of time.

            Then you are telling me to improve my English, while you yourself can’t even understand the difference between can and will. The whole world CAN read what is here, but nobody WILL because it is tedious and way too much text.

            Let me give you a recap of your mistake:

            1) you claim the people can’t use the palace
            2) I reply they indirectly can, they profit from it indirectly and they can visit it
            3) you claim you never said 1)
            4) I copied 1) to show you that you did write it
            5) you keep on lying and denying

            Now if you would just admit that you did write it and apologise for your obnoxious behaviour, we can let this go. If not… well… I can go on for a very long time so buckle up.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. Not yapping – just calling you out for your lies and hypocrisy, which you seem not to like. I destroyed your last feeble effort so effectively you haven’t even bothered coming back on most of it. (Apart from some pathetic point about “will” and “can” and even that doesn’t stand up as you were using the words “are/is” until now.

            And now you see you yourself as some kind of martyr (delusional or what?) I’ve already kicked your butt once and you humiliated yourself in the process but if you really want another go then be my guest.

            Why don’t you get the ball rolling by pointing out where I wrote “that “the people” do not profit from the use of the palace” and we’ll go from there? Feel free to copy and paste from where I wrote it, or use a scary Big Blue Arrow (still cringing over that one!)

            I won’t hold my breath, but good luck anyway

            Saddo, pig-headed troll.

          • Tom H

            And (s)he’s there again… Don’t you ever sleep? Or don’t trolls need sleep?
            You didn’t destroy anything baby, but please, keep on dreaming. If lying to yourself helps you feel better than go ahead. Go live in your little bubble. The rest of the world can see the truth (and per definition the opposite of what you are blabbing on about).

            Let me copy/paste it again, just for the fun of it. I will even copy/past the full thing, and not only the phrase. No blue arrows though, sadly enough.

            dixiedoesit –> Tom H
            10 days ago

            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use
            it. Great system, that is. I imagine they are still laughing their
            royal heads off at that scam.

            See? I copied it *again*, just for you. Woohoo!

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. You’re the saddo pig-headed troll with the instantaneous response every time. It’s as if you no work-life, no social-life or anything except trolling. Goose. Gander. Sauce, baby.

            It would be even more fun if you were to copy and paste where I wrote “that “the people” don’t get to profit from the use of the palace”. Then you might have something to woohoo about. Until then, I think you had better leave the woohoo-ing to me.

            Woohoo!

          • Tom H

            No you are the one bothering others with your arrogant replies. You obviously don’t know how to stop. Don’t worry, I won’t either. Whether this continues for long is totally up to you. As I said: the only way to end this is for you to either shut up or apologise for your behaviour. It’s as simple as that.

            Let me copy it again for you:

            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use
            it.

            There, copied for the umpteenth time. Black on white. It is there, baby. You wrote it, I copied it. Now stop lying about it. Troll.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. You could have ended this long ago when your lie was exposed.

            Why don’t you once – just ONCE – copy and paste where I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace. (With or without the scary Big Blue Arrow!) Then I’ll happily apologise. Of course, the quid-pro-quo is that if you don’t then you can apologise. Simple, huh?

            Woohoo! Woohoo! Woohoo!

          • Tom H

            Not at all, the only one who can end this is you, by either stopping to troll us, or admitting you were wrong and apologising for your behaviour.

            I have copy-pasted it a gazillion times, you ar just trolling on about it.
            Let me copy-paste it *again*, another 5 times or so:

            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.

            Now go take your pills, you obviously forgot them for about 10 days now.

          • dixiedoesit

            Oh bejeezuz! That is funny. Really funny. Not as funny as the scary Big Blue Arrow of course (nothing ever will be) but this is excrutiatingly pathetic even by your standards. You are determined to heap further ridicule upon yourself.

            Now try copy-pasting where I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” like I told you. Oh wait…

            Woohoo! Woohoo! Woohoo!

          • dixiedoesit

            Bejeezuz. This is funny. This is just too funny. Not as funny as the scary Big Blue Arrow of course (that will take some beating) but still funny that you’ve been reduced to this.

            Now copy-paste where I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” like I told you, there’s a good chap. Oh wait…

            Woohoo! Woohoo! Woohoo!

          • Tom H

            It is funny, you seem to think I am not woohoo-ing. I am, trolly-wolly, I am. It is so sad to see you try to persist in your lies and arrogance. But because you ask so nicely, I will copy-paste it again. Especially for you.

            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.

            Your words, not mine. Yours, by your own hand. 10 days ago. Memory loss? Or just trolling?

          • dixiedoesit

            You’re not woohoo-ing. You’re just deluding yourself. (Again). You have nothing to woohoo about. I know it, you know it, the dogs in the street know it.

            You’ve been battered on every count over the last 10 days and you just can’t take it. It’s been a delicious victory and with every post you make the margin gets wider.

            No joy with finding where I wrote “the “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” yet, I take it? Keep looking saddo. Or keep trolling. But you only do the latter because you can’t do the former.

          • Tom H

            No trolly-wolly, I am standing straight in my shoes. I am woohoo-ing and you know very well why. You know that you are wrong, you know that all you do is trolling and you know at one point you will have to either stop with your arrogant comments, or apologise for your behaviour and admit you did write what I have copied over a dozen times already.

            I have not been battered at all. You ask me 100x to copy-paste what you wrote, I did, and you fake not seeing it. That is not being battered, that is just you being an obnoxious lying twat.

            Let’s copy it again, because you still refuse to admit you did write it:

            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.
            Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.

          • dixiedoesit

            Is that it? Is that seriously the best you could come up with? Things are looking bad, huh, Tom H? Still, I suppose when you have subjected yourself to that much ridicule then you may as well just carry on, huh?

            And, sure, I’ll apologise when you say something that vaguely warrants a valid point or resembles something I need to apologise for. But, based on your lame efforts at landing a blow so far, I think hell will freeze over before you’re capable of that.

            And you *still* didn’t manage to find where I wrote “that “the people” don’t profit from the use of the palace” I presume? Ho hum. (Maybe you’ll have better luck trying to figure the flag on my avatar since it bothers you lol).

            You battered saddo pig-headed troll, you.

            Woohoo! Woohoo! Woohoo!

          • Tom H

            I don’t need to “come up” with anything, all I need to do is point out your endless lies, and copy-paste the truth. Easy, isn’t it? You put so much energy in writing long texts full of lies, arrogant attacks, insults and other trolling things. Don’t you get tired? Wouldn’t it be so much easier just to accept your mistake?

            How many times have I copied your text? 30? 40? But you still refuse to admit you wrote it. This means you are either blind, illiterate, stupid or – most likely – just a troll who will do anything to find excuses to continue trolling.

            I know you have Atatürk on your avatar, which is one of the reasons I will not give up. As I said before, I am sure you are not British. Your behaviour is either American, Russian or Turkish. Three of the most arrogant and loathsome nations in the world. My hopes came true anyway, Turkey will *never* be part of Europe. But that is not the subject here. The subject is you denying you wrote “Whilst the people who own it (and get to fund the repairs) cannot use it.” while you most certainly did, as the whole world can see.

          • dixiedoesit

            Oh, you DO need to come up with something. Believe me, you really need to come up with something. This isn’t going at all well for you, is it? And it will need to be somewhat better than silly nationalistic generalisations, or getting worked up about my avatar. And using the t**t word at me won’t help you much either (a new low for you, saddo pig-headed troll).

            Let me help a little by sharing [you see, I can copy-paste too, unfortunately for you] what you wrote a couple of says ago:

            “There was *one* word different in *one* of the replies at the very start…”

            Now, as you probably know “different” means “different”. So, copying the thing you KNOW to be different really is a pretty lame idea if you think about it. (By the way, did you ever get that grown-up to help you count the true number of different words? Probably a good idea).

            Try finding where I wrote “that “the people” do not profit from the use of the palace” whilst you finish up that Humble Pie. Meanwhile, you’ll be pleased to know Hell doesn’t look like freezing over any time soon.

            Woohoo! Woohoo! Woohoo!

          • Tom H

            So, let’s resume… You are one of those people who, in the following hypothetical situation, would react like this:

            You: I don’t eat pig meat.
            Me: Oh, why don’t you eat pork?
            You: I never said I didn’t eat pork! Show me where I said that!
            Me: You said “I don’t eat pig meat.”
            You: You fail to tell me where I said I don’t eat pork!

            Different word, same thing. That’s exactly what you’re doing here. Whining about semantics while the content is still 100% the same.
            An an extremely childish reaction, in your case topped off with arrogant use of language (which I can’t replicate since I simply don’t have that kind of despicable language “in me”). A text book case of trolling.

            You still refuse to admit you said it, while I copied your words over and over and over again. Just to keep on trolling. So sad. For you.

          • dixiedoesit

            You still yapping? I’m going to take this as your acceptance that I didn’t say those words.

            Can I make the following suggestion, which is I promise you is absolutely genuine and written in peace:

            Given that this has gone on for a little while, and we’ve now gone full circle how about calling a halt? This has been my first encounter in an online forum and I can’t say I’ve enjoyed it – and I imagine you haven’t either. I do a fair bit of debating and public speaking, where it is customary to take great care with words and correct those with whom we’re discussing things where necessary. It rarely descends into trading insults as we have. Please accept I was being sincere when saying “I didn’t say that” (and was a little taken aback at being called an unpleasant name when I did so, if I’m honest). For my part, I am happy to accept you see the different form of words we’ve been arguing about as sufficiently similar to amount to the same thing. I’ll take it on good faith that you were being sincere in your view that they are the same thing (personally speaking, I do think there is a distinction between the phrases but this is only my opinion and I respect you have a different one).

            I even had to look up what a “troll” is (and learnt about snarking and other things in the process) which opened my eyes to a world with which I am not familiar. Please understand I wasn’t looking for a fight, but am prepared to (as I see it) fight fire with fire. I like to think I’m a decent chap with a wide circle of friends and diverse interests; and I imagine you feel the same. So how about we leave the “despicable words” behind us.

            OK – so there’s the Olive Branch, which I hope is accepted in the spirit it is offered.

          • Tom H

            I gladly accept your olive branch, and kiss and make up with you. This has been going on way too long.

            This is not my first encounter on an internet forum, positive or negative, but it has been one of the most “deranged” (with which I am referring to the discussion as a whole, also my comments, not to you as a person). Usually when people are contradicted, they do not start denying they ever said whatever has been contradicted. I do give you credit for not editing the part we spoke about so it staid there for everyone to see. Most people who would be described as “trolls” would have edited their remark or even deleted it so all proof is gone.

            I believe you were sincere when you claimed you didn’t say that. But I was sincere too when I told you that was a lie. Since as you noticed, for me you really *did* say it, as I have shown you over and over and over again. Which is why I had the greatest difficulty believing you were actually sincere. It was, and is, there, black on white in front of all our eyes. If you say it isn’t, to me that means you are deliberately lying to provoke a discussion deliberately – which brings us back to the definition of troll (this is not another attack, just explaining what is/was going on in my mind).

            Anyway, I admit I went a bit too far as well, and I am sorry for calling you names. I hope you understand where the defensive attitude came from. Hope to see you on another forum in more friendly circumstances 🙂

          • dixiedoesit

            OK, that’s fine with me. Thanks. There never was any trolling, intended or otherwise, here. I’m sorry if that’s how it looked. Take care 🙂

          • Daisy Chain

            I would if it was that big, that lucrative and rent free. She cannot lose.

        • James McIntosh

          Pretty much the way it is with all rented property.

    • NP

      Most families have marauding despotic ancestors…should the sins of the fathers be visited on the sons for generations ever after?

      • dixiedoesit

        No they shouldn’t. But neither should inestimable wealth and privilege either, which is what is happening here.

        • James McIntosh

          Ah, so it IS envy about the money and privilege after all.

          • dixiedoesit

            Nope. (I had thought I had dealt with this point already but I’ll go over it again if it helps). It is possible to desire a fairer society for sake of decency WITHOUT it being prompted by jealousy, as is the case here. Now, it may be the case that you personally only seek things to be fairer when you are jealous, but please don’t assume that to be the case for all others.

          • James McIntosh

            If the world were to go equitable tomorrow and share out the world wealth, society as we know it would cease to operate. Nobody would do the necessary dirty work, because they would see it as beneath their financial status and would wish to pay employees to do it but if one is rich why would any other wish to shovel dung. Subsequently, within a very few years the world order would gravitate back to somewhere like it is now. Many people could not or can not handle wealth of that amount and would waste or gamble much of it away as has been proven by past big, life changing, money winners.

          • Jonny Storm

            I think I’m going with dixie on this. I have no problem with the Queen or her role in our society but generally when someone is able to amass enough money / power / etc that no one ever has to work a day in their lives ever again, and therefore doesn’t really contribute to society, we’re starting to get into ridiculous territory.
            The queen may not be an issue for me due to charity work etc but her family does set a dangerous precedent for other absurdly wealthy families.

          • James McIntosh

            Jonny Storm. Where do you draw the line as to when someone is at the point of being “absurdly wealthy” and may not then profit more, or “cease to contribute to society”. Rich people pay taxes at a high rate and generally purchase the high end goods that generate lots of VAT, which I believe is a contribution to society.

          • Jonny Storm

            I tried to post a reply earlier with references for these figures but it wouldn’t accept it so this is from my phone. The figures might no longer be exact and referenced, I can find them later if you like.

            I find it pretty easy to draw a personal line on the matter James. I have no problem with people who have hundreds of millions of pounds that they’ve earned / won / inherited and pay / have paid taxes on. It only began to irritate me when I realised we have estimated tax evasion costs of £85 billion per year and unpaid taxes of £18 billion per year. I’m excluding tax avoidance as this is considered legal for the most part.
            Considering the huge fuss people made over the “£150m a week” going to the EU, of which we received large amounts back, everything that had been going to Brussels could be considered pocket change in comparison to where the country actually ‘looses’ money.
            Going onto a global level for absurd amounts of wealth, something along the lines of 62 people on the planet, so roughly a single bus of people, hold more wealth than the combined population totals of N&S America, Europe and Africa.
            I think that going “equitable” as you put it in a different post, is a terrible idea for all the reasons you mentioned and more. That being said though I don’t think an individual or company should be able to wriggle out of paying their due when it amounts to more than the current deficit.

          • James McIntosh

            That is of course the fault of the politicians who make laws with get out clauses built in, either by design or accident, and accountants who make advantage of these loopholes to enrich their friends, by tax favours and special rates. There should be one schedule of tax and ALL should pay it.

          • Jonny Storm

            Could you expand on that a little? It sounds like an interesting idea.

          • Jonny Storm

            I swear this site keeps deleting my replies…

            That sounds interesting, could you expand on the idea please?

          • James McIntosh

            This is a bit off thread but you asked.
            The rules governing taxation are set by law of the land, hence politicians debate and draft these laws. There always seems to be a “leg up” for the already rich people built into these laws, to gain an advantage over the ordinary working taxpayer, whose tax burden is deducted at pay source. Exceptions are made to the rich businesses, tax breaks are introduced. Clever, high fee accountants find ways to circumvent the rich from paying the same rates of tax that everyday employees cannot have access to. Big business is allowed to select more favourable havens in other countries, to declare their taxable income, etc etc. The law should simply state that where you earn the income is where you pay your taxes and the rates of taxable schedule should be the same for all, according to the law of the country.

          • Jonny Storm

            I completely agree with that. The only conceivable way I could agree with a tax break is if there was an equal or greater gain for the country overall.
            Everyone should be contributing and neither companies nor individuals should be allowed to divert money overseas for the sole purpose of avoiding this.

          • Tom H

            Don’t contribute to society… They pay more taxes each year than I will earn in my life. That is an enormous contribution.

    • Desmond McMurtry

      Yes Barry, up the revolution, turn the crown estate into collective farms and start a ten year plan to give back all the robbed land to the people. The only problem is Russia and China have been along this route and they soon found out that they could’nt manage the land any better than those that they disposessed. Fact is, our monarchy works and you do’nt replace a winning team. Long may she reign.

    • Heeb

      What do you do for a living Barry? What do you contribute to society?

    • Einar Ofsteng

      If the land and property would be taken over by the Government, then it would be sold of by the Con men when they are in power, like Osborne have sold of all he could. It will then be no income for the tax payers/Government, and more deficit/higher taxes for us……. the Queen pays 85% tax on the profit, and profiteers that would buy these “investments” would pay anywhere from 0% tax and upwards.

    • Ian Perry

      The Monarch does not “own” the Crown Estate. Perhaps you should do a little research?

    • Peter Haistead-Stockwell

      Buckingham House as it then was was bought by George III from the Duke of Buckingham in 1761 for £28,000 the equivalent of £5 million today. Hardly commandeered was it!

    • Peter Broom

      Barry. You poor uneducated ingrate, please keep your poorly informed opinions for you left wing Corbin gatherings. It is apparent that you don’t listen and learn or take the time to try and understand what is actually happening around you. I can guarantee our Queen, makes more of a contribution to our country than all the politicians of any political persuasion put together. I do however have a suggestion for you and I believe you will actually understand it. Eat S–t and die.

    • Nicola

      No… It holds true whether you ‘believe’ the Royal family should own the Crown Estate or not. They do own it, your opinion has no bearing on whether or not this is true.

    • Mrs Williams

      I’m visiting Belarus at the moment. A country once part of the Soviet Union now a left wing dictatorship. I’m glad we have a monarchy which pays for itself. Here many businesses are under the thumb of the ruling party which makes sure they succeed. I ‘m sick of our media criticising our way of life. We should be more positive.

    • Caroline Hill

      She doesn’t own it. It’s held in Trust for the Monarchy.

    • Kim Eooding

      That one way to look at it. But doubt it will be handed back regardless ho it was aquired intbd first place.,,

    • Julian

      That’s not strictly true since all lands owned by the king were taken by Oliver Cromwell and parliament when he ruled as Lord Protector during the parliamentary period. That land which the Queen now “owns” was given back to the crown by parliament when the monarchy was re-established.
      In addition, presumably anyone of French descent at all has no right to property in the UK – since the Norman conquest? nor perhaps people of Scandinavian descent? (Vikings), Italian descent? (Romans), Central European descent? (Saxons & Angles) – when we get down to it we are all descended from “marauding, despotic” people!
      And presumably if the manner of gaining wealth and property is an issue, then anyone who has become rich and gained assets and property from immoral practices, dishonesty in business, trampling over employee rights and so on should give that back too?

    • Ian

      You don’t have to live in the UK

  • Dan Laskey

    Given the fact that Buck house and all the other palaces are owned by the state in other words us, means we are in fact the landlords and as such we are getting off lightly!

  • Captain Smurf

    Maybe the maths is true; I don’t have the time to delve into it. But the maths matters not if you believe, as I do, that we are a grown up nation who should no longer be kneeling before a bunch of inbreds living the high life on the proceeds of the banditry of their ancestors. Time to end the fairy tale.

    • Annem

      Well said Captain! 🙂

    • Ruairidh Morrison

      Yes, because the masses of tourists who visit Britain because of traditions like this don’t bring any money at all. Try thinking with your brain and not your moronic left wing politics next time.

      • Captain Smurf

        You do not have to be left wing to be a republican (just look at the USA); being left wing does not make you a moron (and if it did, how could you implore me to use my brain). And the masses of tourists come to visit the buildings, not the queen – they can’t visit the queen – there are armed guards, paid for through our taxes, preventing them from meeting the queen). I did not resort to insulting people on here, and I still haven’t. Perhaps you could do me the courtesy of not insulting me?

  • Jessica

    This is incorrect. The Queen doesn’t own the Crown Estate and has nothing to do with its management. I agree that the funds should go to BP but this is directly taking money which should go the taxpayer and giving it to the palace. It isn’t her private money and if she was removed from being queen she wouldn’t keep the crown estate.

  • Jessica

    This is incorrect. The Queen doesn’t own the Crown Estate and has nothing to do with its management. I agree that the funds should go to BP but this is directly taking money which would go to the taxpayer and giving it to the palace. It isn’t her private money and if she was removed from being queen she wouldn’t keep the crown estate at all

    • Tim Lockett

      Ha Ha Ha! And HOW would she be ” Removed from being Queen”? And the Palace is not her Private residence, it is her place of work, The same as the Houses of Parliament are the place of work for MP’s and exactly the same PUBLIC building!

      • Sguest

        Although many on the left would like to ‘remove the Queen’, it isn’t going to happen. Even that socialist entity, the Fabian Society, in a rare moment of common sense, said a few years ago that the monarchy will not be deposed because it would take 25 years to make the change and would cost countless billions of pounds.

        In any case a YouGov poll asked “Do you think Britain will have a hereditary monarchy in 100 years’ time?”. 62% answered “yes”.

        • tb303

          It is inevitable in the future that it will end, the queen is the one holding this together, few people see Charles as a credible successor and the younger royals are seen more as celebrities.

        • dixiedoesit

          This is a poor argument for retention of the Monarchy (although it does illustrate what a great job they have done to inveigle their way into every strand of political and administrative influence). As for the YouGov poll it merely illustrates people’s attachment to the status quo – obviously people aren’t able to comprehend such a shift. Hence, if you were to poll the citizens of France, Germany or USA whether they would still be a republic in 100 years the figure would be every bit as high and probably a lot higher.

      • Jessica

        By a referendum of the people. She’s not a dictator! For the fiftieth and hopefully last time, I am completely in favour of her receiving this money and believe it should be spent on BP. But I am also in favour of people knowing how royals are funded and this post is untrue. That should be pointed out

      • Roddy Williams

        If it is not her private residence then how does she have the power to refuse to allow it to opened for tourism, which would have at least funded the refurb if she’d allowed it. If it doesn’t belong to her, and she only uses a small section of it, where was the problem? You can’t have it both ways.

        • dixiedoesit

          If you’re a senior Royal you obviously CAN have it both ways. You get unlimited access (with lifts that the servants are prohibited from using!) without any of the cost. As soon as repairs are needed, or there’s a fire then miraculously it becomes someone else’s problem. It’s a wonderful arrangement if you can get away with it.

        • Pete

          Most of it is open to tourism.

    • Aaron

      The queen DOES own the crown estate, but no she doesn’t have anything to do with the management

      • Jessica

        No she doesn’t. From their website: (the Estate) “is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.” It is not hers. She holds it in trust but she doesn’t own it. She owns it as much as she owns Buckingham Palace or the Duchy of Lancaster. They are not her property and are simply things we allow her to benefit from due to her position as monarch and her need for a home/income fitting her position. The royals and the government deliberately make the funding of the royals as difficult as possible but the Crown Estate is not owned by either the Queen or the Government. It essentially floats around under the management of the independent board, the money belongs to the Treasury, and then they decide how much the queen is allowed to get. She cannot make decisions about it or benefit from it. It isn’t hers.

  • John_Twiss

    The only issue I have with the situation is that the press who choose to mislead the public, and this is far from the first time, are not held accountable and face no penalties. It is time that when they choose to do so, that they pay a serious penalty and not just a small fine.

  • Tai

    Regardless of my stance on royalty, I am with you on this matter. The repairs are necessary and I do not want this or any beautiful building to fall into disrepair.

    • Mark Flett

      it’s an architecturally weak building with few merits

  • CP

    Thats how I read it!

  • Judergn

    The first voice of reason heard for most of 2016! Well said and pointed out. We would be such a poorer nation without our heritage and the Royal Family are only there through and accident of birth in effect. I don’t begrudge their positions but feel sorry for them. Those who voted BREXIT shouldn’t whinge as this is what they supposedly voted to preserve though I don’t personally think it was the right way to go about it.

  • Tzanetos

    As a tax payer myself I feel enriched that when I need to repair my home I can now apply for a tax rebate from the government. Can you publish more details on how to apply please? Also, I am generally happy to pay the same tax percentage as the royal family if I can get £40,000,000 a year for doing my job (which I assure you does more good for the UK than any member of that onerous family).

    • James McIntosh

      Poppycock, your business interests will NEVER match that of inward investment and tourism revenue that the Royal Family connection can do. Happy thoughts to you though, for if your business is as prosperous as you claim then why are you so unhappy about another’s wealth. I will bet that you have crushed and broken a few individuals and competitors along the way and saw it as “just business”.

  • Emma

    Makes perfect sense. Anyone saying otherwise in my eyes is commuting treason.

  • Alan Fowler

    This article is nonsense. It’s just different terminology referring to money being shifted around that would end up being used by the state. In this instance it is public money being given back to the Crown. It isn’t the Crown’s money though. Let’s be honest about that.

  • phdutton

    That’s not quite how it works. Everything the queen makes money from is essentially a state operation, she doesn’t rightfully own anything. She has not grown a business, which she runs. She is a figurehead, paid for by “her” public.
    If the money being used to renovate Buck House should have gone to the treasury, then it is public money.

  • Chris Lock

    Leave Liz alone

  • Sguest

    In the unlikely event that the spiteful Left with their willful ignorance get their way and we have a republic, would they expect the president to pay for the repairs of his official residence, which would undoubtedly be Buckingham Palace itself? Do they think that President Hollande (currently on an approval rating hovering around 12%) pays for the repairs of the Élysée Palace?

    After 65 years as Head of State the Queen deserves better than the thoughtless ignoramuses who believe the disingenuous rubbish that they read in the gutter press. Her approval rating, currently around 70%, reaching 90% during the Diamond Jubilee, far outreaches that of any of her elected representatives.

    One of the reasons for the high cost of the repairs is that successive governments, especially the Blair government, constantly put off the need to repair Buckingham Palace – which is a national monument and where the Queen lives only when she has to perform her duties as Head of State, receiving around 50,000 invited visitors each year.

    Contrary to popular myth, the funds received by the Queen from the Sovereign Grant, which is used to pay for salaries and the numerous official functions incurred in the performance of her duties, is not her personal income – she doesn’t even receive a salary herself from the state! The funding of all members of the Royal Family, including the Queen, is private and they all pay tax with only one exception, as far as I am aware, namely that the legacies of one monarch to the next monarch are not subject to IHT.

    Our monarchy is excellent value, respected around the world, in a way that no republic would be, and long may it continue!

  • Symon

    “and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury”

    So if the Crown Estates is assumed to be a business and it owns Buckingham Palace, then it should pay for it repairs and it would have less income because of that expenditure? So less tax to pay.

  • tim21

    Whatever the legalities, the evidence of a monarch who has inherited vast amounts of property and wealth when there are so many living in poverty in the fifth richest state in the world is the substance of the matter. However the Queen’s ‘tax’ affairs are dressed up the system is open to subversion to keep the wealth in the hands of the few while so many can’t even get a decent roof over their heads. Paying £300+ million on this and more on the Westminster Parliament building is all very well if the basic needs of so many were really being prioritised to provide working people with affordable homes rather than continually failing to address this and propping up a corrupt system now in the hands of landlords who screw the tax payer for high rents and on maintaining a system of inflated property prices that ‘benefits’ those who own property.

  • george

    one word .. Baloney……. I wish I could afford to renovate my home with over 369 million …. no excuses…we pay taxes ..queen gets my money…and therfor./.. we as tax payers renovate her palace…

  • Enoch Powell

    The media failing to tell the truth?

    I’m shocked. Shocked I tell yuz.

  • Alaric W

    Despite the fact that I find the religious basis of the monarchy totally repugnant (along with the bishops who automatically get to sit in the house of Lords, and other aspects of the establishment still controlled by the church), I can easily see the advantage of the monarchy to the UK. It is worth more to us than the whole of the Foreign Office. So this politics of envy about how much needs to be paid for the palace is both trivial, petty and uninformed.

  • Ben Lee

    Thankyou so much for posting this. Finally a concise explanation I can show to all the whingeing idiots at work, who unfortunately put so much effort into complaining that they are left with little time for actual research into anything they complain about!

  • David Purdue

    Amazing. I love our system and do not want another elected politician… Look at the US!

  • Ashley baylis

    The Queen only owns the Crown Estate in right of the Crown. It does not belong to her personally and The Crown being the Embodiment of the state therefore means the Crown Estate is owned by the State. George the 3rd surrendered the Crown Lands because every year he was accruing personal debt trying to fund the civil government because the income from these Crown Lands was not enough (I.e. Judges wages, Civil Services, Government Ministers etc) every monarch since has surrendered these lands in a purely formal arrangement because unable to raise taxation without parliamentary consent they have no where near enough money to fund the government of the day or the country in any form. If the Palace is so desperately in need – open it up 100% like many other stately homes and make it earn its keep. The Crown Estate belongs to the nation – this argument is moot!

  • John Anderson

    Well well. Seventy-two comments thus far, many republican in nature, and many rather obviously jealous. I really can’t understand why you people who hate the idea of royalty so much don’t emigrate.
    I suppose we should be grateful that nobody has mentioned a certain religious group (so far).

  • Tim Clarke

    Good Article. The beeb misreported this. Then when corrected, continued to say that tax payers were going to be charged. i didn’t know the full story, but just enough to see hoe the beeb were spinning and distorting it.

  • Sheila L

    I am entirely happy with the repairs to Buckingham Palace. This is a National monument and one which foreign visitors flock to by the thousands, bringing in an enormous amount of venue to our country. The Queen and Royal family are responsible for a great deal of foreign income and I don’t begrudge a penny.

  • Sheila L

    I am entirely happy with the repairs to Buckingham Palace. This is a National monument and one which foreign visitors flock to by the thousands, bringing in an enormous amount of venue to our country. The Queen and Royal family are responsible for a great deal of foreign income and I don’t begrudge a penny.

  • Linda Meroney

    I seem to recall that the reason the monarch did not pay taxes until recently was due to a previous monarch donating his money to bring the country out of bankruptcy. (That may or may not be true) Regardless, the Queen, Buckingham Palace, and all of the pomp and circumstance is most surely the most famous tourist attraction, If the British public doesn’t care if it is falling apart and is still proud to show a Palace that looks less and less like a Palace, so be it.
    See what a draw it will be after the Queen is gone…they cannot refurbish Charles enough to be a tourist attraction!

  • JR Ryan

    So, in other words, a multi-millionaire with a trust worth tens of billions will have their palatial home (also part of the trust) renovated, not from their own accrued wealth, but from a special tax break organized just for them by the government. Seems legit.

    • lbassom

      How many multi millionaires do you know paying 85% income tax?

      • JR Ryan

        Not enough.

  • DT

    There will always be the haters of The Queen & any member of the Royal Family but I’m so pleased that for once, there is detailed information to counter the rants and negativity.
    In fact, this doesn’t go far enough and I’d like to see more articles like this regarding how much comes into the UK because of the monarchy.
    Blair’s government decided not to replace the Royal Yacht Britannia in 1997, then years later apologised.

  • arnapuck

    Here we go again with the f-ing media. Make believe is the new slogan.

  • Peter Charles

    For me, the issue is how the Sovereign Grant has been managed. Raising the grant from 15% to 25% suggests that the Royals’ accountants have taken a rather cavalier attitude to budgeting. If my roof is leaking and I haven’t got the money to pay for it, I have to use a credit card and pay interest on it. I don’t have a pot of money to go dipping into. If the Royal Family need more cash to pay for repairs, fine. But when those repairs are complete, the grant should be reduced below 15% to offset the rise.

  • Karen ‘Tink’ Prince

    Can I just point out that this is an informative piece of literature and not a place to gang up on folk for having a different opinion. Not everyone is everyone’s cup of tea, so therefore we don’t have to agree with all points of view. There are far better ways to address what you would like to say by turning that “!” into an “?” , so less harsh don’t you think? Please have a good day despite the gloomy weather.

  • Daniel James

    “In
    2012, George Osborne reorganised this system, creating the Sovereign
    Grant. This effectively meant that The Queen paid an 85% tax on our
    income from these assets. From our assets she receives a massive 15% of
    these profits from our businesses, an incredible disretionary £40
    million.”

    Fixed that for you.

  • Roddy Williams

    Mmm…. Having waded through this sycophantic drivel, I conclude that the money would otherwise have gone to the government, to be spent on non-essential things such as hospitals. Essentially then we are still paying for this. ‘Britain’s most generous taxpayer’? You make it sound as if taxes are being paid voluntarily. She is extraordinarily rich. Paying tax should come as part and parcel of that. It’s not generosity. It’s what people do. Maybe you’d like to explain why Prince Charles pays no tax on his income from The Duchy of Lancaster which, backdated, would no doubt fund the entire refurbishment.

    • Sguest

      Prince Charles has nothing to do with the Duchy of Lancaster which provides a private income for the Sovereign of the day. The Duchy of Lancaster is not legally subject to tax, but the Queen has voluntarily paid both income and capital gains tax thereon since 1993.

      In any case, perhaps you are referring to the Duchy of Cornwall on which Prince Charles does pay income tax as can be confirmed by its audited financial statements, published online.

      So much for the drivel about which you seem to know quite a lot!

  • david

    Your numbers look wonky. If £40 million is 15% of the Crown Estate’s annual profits then then 10% = £27 million. If the repairs are to be paid for from that 10% extra, then if they cost £369 million, it will take almost 14 years to pay for the repairs.
    Does that not mean that either the repairs are going to have to be staggered over the next 14 years or someone is going to have to stump up a lump sum to cover them until it can be repaid from the 10% extra Sovereign Grant?

  • BigBabyJesus67

    What a revolting sycophant. How are you able to even use a keyboard when you have no spine? Do you dictate?

  • John Durr

    The treasury gets the surplus profits from the Crown estates therefore the fact the cost of renovations are being paid from the Crown Estate means that we are paying for it. The surplus profits are not tax. Therefore the Queen is not the “highest tax payer on earth” She only started paying tax in 1993. The Royals live a stress free lifestyle most can only dream of with the best food, best healthcare etc beyond the means of us mere mortals.

  • Paul

    The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.
    From Crown Estates.co.uk

    It would seem we are taxing ourself, then giving some away?

  • Jane Pryor

    Oh for god sake the Queen and her family generate more income for the Uk than can be measured ,, leave the wonderful hard working 90 year old lady alone ,, and be grateful for what her family brings to the uk

  • Ian Mason

    Totally agree and value for money

  • Arthur Rusdell-Wilson

    What is not revealed is that before the agreement between Parliament and George III, the monarch used to pay for the upkeep of the armed forces from his/her own income.

  • Cosmin Burian

    GOOD SAVE THE QUEEN

  • Cosmin Burian

    GOOD SAVE THE QUEEN

  • lilly

    could benjamin king be informed that the houses of parliament did not spend “$2 billion” as we don’t have dollars in the united kingdom – we have £ stirling – i wonder how many other errors are hiding in this piece?

  • lol

    I’m sorry but the writer of this article is absolutely asinine.

    Regardless of whether you want to believe they make that much money so it’s coming out of their contribution to the pot or not, you can’t deny the fact that during this period of austerity and the current financial climate with Brexit lowering the value of the £, benefits being cut left, right and center and of course the slow grueling privatization of the NHS this is not something that should be on our countries priority list and is something the general population have the right to be ticked off with.

  • Do the Right Thing

    Think beyond the propaganda put out by the royals at the expense of taxpayers! The only reason the Crown estates have made a profit is they have WHOPPING tax breaks that regular working Brits do not have. Remember Prince Charles pays a lower tax rate than the lowest paid groomers at his estates?
    Let the royals get away with paying next to no taxes compared to what an ordinary citizen would have to pay and then the ordinary taxpayers have to cough up twice as much to meet annual national expenses. So YES, TAXPAYERS are really funding the massive improvements.

  • Wayne Gregory

    It’s good to read that the queen is funding the repairs. I can take or leave the royals but I do believe they bring a lot of tourists to the country helping or economy.

    However can I ask this just to gauge opinion, the queen doesn’t own the palace it belongs to the nation I guess you could say she and the family are posh lodgers and the nation is her landlord, so based on that fact the nation as a landlord should make the repairs and foot some of the bill.

    Just a thought.

  • Preacher

    Unfortunately, this guy’s opinion is based on a series of misunderstandings (translation – he’s talking rubbish). Historically the crown estate properties belong to the government, rather than the monarch. The word “crown” tends to result in a misapprehension of the true ownership, but you see it in lots of places, where things are said to be property of the crown, but it really means they belong to the state. All taxes are property of the crown. All military property belongs to the crown. All government and civil service property belong to the crown. All salvageable wrecks in British waters belong to the crown. All treasure found and dug up on British land belongs to the crown. And so on and so on. But none of it is the property of the sitting monarch, it belongs to the nation and the treasury. The writer cites George III as the origin of this – that’s because George III was mad as a bag of otters. His son took power in all but name, declaring himself regent. But his son was also a lazy git who delegated all but ceremonial duties to the government. The government was given powers to take over the crown estate and it never gave them back. Now the idea that the Queen pays taxes is ridiculous, because all taxes are the property of the crown. It is “Her/his Majesty’s Revenue & Customs”. You only have to look at the wording too of how George Osborne reorganised the system of funding the royal family – it’s a grant. It is not a tax. In the past the government was under no obligation to give the royal family anything from the proceeds of the crown estate. All of that money went into the national budget and the royals had to cost trips and the running of their palaces and castles and their food budgets etc and apply to government for that cash. It was generally given to them as a matter of course. But they only got what they theoretically needed. Now though they get £40million every year whether they need it or not – and it’s not just paying for the queen, it pays for all the royal dependents. Those silly hats Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are so fond of? Paid for out of that. Along with everything else they own, as they’re basically unemployable. In the past they had to work though… but they were awful at it, and nobody would hire them any more, and they’re too incompetent to run their own businesses. They’ve tried and failed. So after Osborne changed the system their father Prince Andrew had a word with his mum the Queen and got her to fund them out of that £40million. In the past all the minor royals had to work. They don’t now. They’re basically being subsidised by government and the treasury. That was money that used to be part of the national budget, that the monarchy would never dare fill out a request form for (the royals are quite big on popularity, and it wouldn’t be popular if it ever became public – they don’t want what happened in Imperial Russia or Prussia or Germany or France etc happening here), that was used instead to fund the military and the police and the NHS etc. Now they’re increasing the size of the grant to fund the restoration of Buck House. Taking no account of how the original £40million is actually used, or how much of it is left at the end of the year. So that’s another £30million a year that would otherwise be spent on public services, going to the royal family. It might not be taxpayer’s money, but it is the money of the state, not the monarch. To say that the Queen is taxed or that she’s somehow paying for the repairs herself is idiotic. Even if she were being taxed, though, it’s a moronic argument – what do you suppose would happen if next year you or I needed to replace the roof of our house and said to the taxman “I’m taking the cost of that out of the tax I would have paid you”. Do you seriously think that would fly? Even if you live in a Grade I listed property, they’d take you to court and demand the money. It doesn’t work the way the guy who wrote this seems to think.

    TL;DR – the man is talking royalist propaganda dribble.

    • Sguest

      Your diatribe is completely wrong in almost every respect. You say “Now though they get £40 million every year whether they need it or not – and it’s not just paying for the queen, it pays for all the royal dependents.”

      This is absolutely untrue. The amount the Queen receives is exclusively to enable her to fulfill her duties as Head of State. The funds do not go to her personally or to any other member of the Royal Family. There are several ways to confirm this, in the unlikely event that you would wish to do so.

      You take disingenuousness to a new level.

      • Preacher

        Well obviously it doesn’t go directly into her current account… I can’t imagine anyone picturing the Queen sitting there at her computer at 2am fiddling with the chip and pin security dongle to log into online banking, rubbing her hands at the prospect of her annual multi-millions payout. It is administrated on her behalf. She still has control over what happens with it though. Which actually raises another interesting point – when George Osborne changed the system one of the arguments was it would cut down on the number of civil servants involved in the process. After all, you used to have the Queen’s staff who filled out all the paperwork, and then the Treasury needed people to deal with it. Just giving the royals a lump sum should simplify this! Except it doesn’t, really, because the Treasury still has people who oversee the lump sum and the Queen still has people handling it all on her behalf. The whole thing was just a way of giving more money to the royal family, with decreased oversight.

        Living costs for royals have always been included as enabling them to fulfil their duties incidentally. They can’t very well do them if they starve to death, or freeze to death, or whatever. The minor royals have jumped on board this as well, whatever you might think. Private Eye ran the story a while ago. Yes, yes, I know, Private Eye, boo, you can’t trust the media. Well Private Eye isn’t like the tabloids and last I checked their editor is himself a royalist.

        You can accuse me of disingenuity all you like, but you’re just arguing semantics about one minor point. You don’t actually have an informed rebuttal to my argument as a whole. Because there isn’t one really.

    • Warren Celli

      The word “crown” also means to cover up something that is rotting or decaying — like a tooth corrupted by too much sugar.

      The article states that the poor Queen, the most taxed person on earth, will have the repairs paid for with a Sovereign Grant, £369 million — man, that’s a lot of sugar!

      I’d pull the whole rotten tooth, crown and all, and have a yearly national everyone’s a king and queen free sex day. Sort of an everyone hug and kiss and get along form of government called a moanarchy.

      Let the palace rot and used the money saved for condoms.

      Screw the crown, love beats all!

    • Heeb

      Utterly incorrect. ‘The crown’ is not synonymous with the government. They are entirely different holdings

  • Mrs B

    She pays way too much taxes and YES the place deserves a face lift. The councils spend much more on their regeneration activities. The British are a strange people. Buckingham Palace is the body and soul of Britain to a tourist, you should want it looking the best… shame on you.

  • geotoad

    One unfortunate fact: the crown estate doesn’t in fact ‘belong’ to the queen per se, but is part of the monarchy’s “public estate” that it does not control. So the queen isn’t paying herself, at least in any real sense.

  • Tanya Mcginty

    Typical of the Media! But to be honest I was happy to pay towards the restoration, we should look after our heritage! It is our duty to do so.

  • Elias Granqvist

    If Her Majesty owns Buckingham Palace privately, it is rightly she who should pay for its repairs.

    I always thought the palace was state owned. If that was the case, of course the tax payers would get the bill.

  • Colin Bailey

    Give the Queen back the Duchy of Lancaster and THEN let us hear the squawk!

  • andrew

    No.
    It’s the big picture that counts, not your jerrymandering of the reality and truth.

    Versaiĺe seems to balance their books without the generosity of a hereditary family.

  • Jacqueline Craddock

    Finally, someone who is prepared to stick their neck out and defend our treasured Monarch. It was obvious to anyone who had any sense that the renovations at Buckingham Palace would not fall upon the British people, but, ghat HRH queen Elizabeth II would be the one footing the bill. When will the media stop manipulating the British people and stick to the facts????

  • Katarina Strajnic

    Great article, never trusted the media much and know that the whole story is always different. Well done to the Queen! Not British but very proud of her and what she stands for

  • David Foot

    It may sell papers and good for publicity to distort the facts that not even Obama pays to repair the White House, and yet the Crown Estates more than pay for the upkeep of the palaces.
    It makes me so angry, not to tell all the truth really is telling a lie.

  • Pete Lihou

    This headline is a tad misleading! The Crown Estate will foot the bill, not the Queen from her private taxable income.

  • Matt

    Very interesting and informative article.
    A beacon of light for those who say we are misled and manipulated by the media.
    Shame on the BBC and other media for not passing on a balanced view.
    Why bother having a royal correspondent?

  • Sue Kinrade

    This over worked lady need to find a union to join it is a disgrace at her age the hours of commitment her and her hubby are expected to put in!

  • Phil Adams

    I don’t know how true all of this is, but, I do know that the media (particularly the tabloids) are a bunch of lying scum who do nothing more than insight mass hysteria and discontent. It’s nothing more than radicalisation masquerading as “News” leading people into making the world a bad place. I think it’s time the government addressed this issue. I love The Royal Family! Especially The Queen who has been the most amazing monarch the country has ever had. Long live The Queen!

  • robin cox

    What a load of self serving tripe. It completerly ignores

  • Duncan Fairhurst

    Proof? Just because you say it’s true doesn’t make it true. Show us the numbers, irrefutable proof she is the most taxed person on Earth.

  • robin cox

    What a load of self serving tripe. It completely ignores the source of the monarch’s revenue – the unearned income she derives from her extensive holdings. Going on about how much she is taxed is neither here nor there. She is essentially a glorified social security claimant who lives off the state and her net income after tax deductions is still obscenely huge by any standards. Yet she is put on pedestal while other social security claimants are the targets of sniping criticism. This ridiculous and archaic institution tat is the monarchy really ought to have been consigned to the dustbin of history decades ago

    • Sguest

      Social security claimant, my foot! You are obviously not aware that the Queen is our Head of State and of 15 other countries including Australia, Canada and New Zealand. She has an approval rating far in excess of our elected politicians.

  • I love theatre so I say “Well orchestrated”- a beautiful piece of work. I wish govts everywhere were just as thoughtful!

  • Harry

    On a separate aspect, it is not recognised that the Queen has 2 personae, 1 as an individual, 2 as our Head of State. Her responsibilities as Head of State mean that she does not benefit personally from the wealth that comes with the role as Monarch
    it follows from this that if UK was a Republic and not a Monarchy, we would have a President, as the French do. The President would need an official residence, and this too would require maintenance and repair. Who would foot the bill for this?

  • clive

    If her tax is reduced to foot the bill she is NOT paying for the repairs. Grannies up and down the country are suffering, whilst Betty Windsor is totally unaffected by austerity.

  • marlene mountain.

    I have always been aware that the Queen hands her income to the Government and receives a sum back for her needs – albeit very small – and have always spoke of this when in conversation .

  • Simon Dungate

    The crown estates don’t belong to the Monarch so the income isn’t hers for her to pay tax, We the public have owned the Crown estates since the 1700’s (this was the deal offered instead of removing the royals heads)

    As the owner of of the crown estates we generously give the Queen 15% of their income to fund the parts of the Crown estate she uses, they choose to allow a large backlog to build up and now want more money from the public at the same time 1000’s are homeless and 10,000’s threatened with homelesssness by the benefit cap

    • Sguest

      This is incorrect in many respects. For example, “we” don’t “give” the Queen 15% to fund parts of the crown estates that “she uses”. The 15% is the Sovereign Grant which enables her to perform her duties as head of state. It doesn’t go to her personally or to any other members of the Royal Family.

      The huge backlog was entirely due to politics, mostly by the Blair government which refused to allocate funds for the repairs. Buckingham Palace is the workplace of the Head of State and a national monument. It is completely disingenuous to bring the plight of the homeless into this discussion.

  • Mal Bolton

    What else do you expect from the Leftie BBC

  • Gunilla George

    I understand that the Buckingham Palace belongs to the state and not to the Queen so this seems to me a very good deal indeed

  • Gaz Kendall

    lol what a load of bullshit!

    the queen has never owned the crown estate, nor could she ever own it…the fact is that actually belongs to us more than it does her…since the people paid for it all when it was built, often with their lives.

    she has 25 million of her own wealth, if what this tosser was saying had any truth in it, she would have given that to the crown estate, but she hasnt, no, she hangs onto that!!

    and she dont pay 85% fucking tax either….she creams 15% off the top of the crown estate…she gets paid by them, not the other way round…because the crown estate is NOT HERS!

    then she gets over 12 million quid from tax payers via the civil list

    You people are idiots! How can you even begin to believe this crap?

    The crown estate is the UK’s most badly run business, we are told the royals earn their crust because of tourism and the money it brings…but they dont bring any money do they, because the visitors wing at the palace is open for less that 50 days a year…it should be open for over 300…the same with all the other ones too!

    maybe if they started managing it properly and using it to generate money, then they wouldnt be asking people who rely of fucking food banks to feed their kids to foot the bill!

    seriously, you are all fucking blind!

  • Pete Farrow

    The Queen is having her allowance from the Crown Estate increased to pay for it, money that would otherwise stay in the Crown Estates coffer to be handed to the government, so the queen is not paying for it, the UK taxpayer is by virtue of reduced income from the Crown Estate. This article, and its headline are deceptive. The
    Crown Estate is increasing her money from 15% to 25% , although they
    rather deceptively describe it as “paying less tax”. But here is the
    rub, whether you describe is as “paying less tax” or increase from 15%
    to 25% of her allowance, that means less money in the Crown Estate
    revenue to come back to the government. You can’t dress up the taxpayer for “receiving
    less” as “not paying for it”, it is the same thing. The cost is offset,
    the overall result is the government gets less money, so the taxpayer
    does end up paying. What is most definitely a fact here is the queen is most certainly not paying for it, she is having £25M a year added to her allowance to pay for it. Going up from nearly £100,000 per day to nearly £180,000 per day. (yes PER DAY).

    So…
    you
    shouldn’t be describing the Queen as paying 85% tax as that is entirely
    misleading. The Crown estate is not owned by the Monarch and neither
    by the government as you have pointed out. However the Queen and the
    former Civil list is awarded 15% of the
    revenue of the Crown estate, she is given this money, it is not hers by
    right – as she doesn’t own it. So to suggest that she should have 100%
    of the Crown Estate revenue but chooses to pay 85% in tax is entirely untrue, it is the other way around she is given 15% of it. At the same time she is residing in and consuming resources of
    assets owned by the Crown Estate for which she pays nothing – so she is
    being paid to have free use of these assets and resources, which are,
    by their very nature extravagant and decadent in the extreme, with some
    of the most lavish residences one could possibly imagine, which she gets
    almost exclusive use of to call home, for her and her familty in
    perpetuity. Now, I think, because she gets it all for free (in fact
    she is paid to have in effect), then she should directly pay for the
    repairs. Otherwise, in effect the UK tax payer is paying for it, by
    virtue of reduce income from the Crown Estate overall as result of
    funding the refurbishment of a lavish property which she has exclusive
    use of.

    Additionally you should quesion how it got so badly run down in the first place, the Queen has had more than enough money to maintain it over the years.

    Lets not beat around the bush here, the likes of ordinary people will be paying for this, you can dress it up all you like, the bottom line is the government gets less money while the repairs are funded. The Queen isn’t paying 85% tax and she isn’t paying for the repairs.

    • CJ

      Nor is the taxpayer? Are taxes being increased to cover this “shortfall”? I think we’d have heard about that. In fact, I’m sure people would be angrier were that the case. I’ll grant you have a point on the misleading issue of tax and the Crown Estate. But you are also being misleading. The estate, as has been agreed by both sides of this argument, are properties and businesses held on behalf of the crown, whatever the actual ownership may be. The income from that, which stands at over 200 million a year, goes to the treasury, with a small percentage (and 15% is a small percentage, whatever the size of the sum) being passed to the actual crown for the purpose of day to day running of an estate. Again, facts not in question. Traditionally, this has, to some extent, always been the case. Now a small percentage is being added on in order to revamp potentially dangerous systems (less than 30 million a year, and the work is to cost something near to 400 million). Now, yes, that’s more money coming out of the treasury, but lo and behold, I believe we were told not long ago that pulling out of the EU would save us hundreds of millions, if not billions, a year which we can invest back into our economy and services. Not an inconsiderable sum. Now, with this extra less than 30 million being taken out of the treasury, are we the public being asked to pay more tax? No. So how, on that score, is the public paying for it? We’re just paying for the same thing we always have been. But also, strictly speaking, the sum is being put back into the economy. Someone has to get paid to do the work, after all.

      And please note that my next comment is not aimed at Mr Farrow, as at the time I’m typing this he hasn’t commented on the matter. But people have been saying that the Royals have never done a thing. The Queen herself, as a young woman, did what uniformed service she was able to in the War. Her husband saw active military service in the same war. One of her sons saw active military service in the Falklands War. One of her grandsons saw active military service in the Middle East, and since has done an incredible amount of charity work for veterans. The other grandson, while they were still active, flew the Yellow Perils, as the RAF search and rescue helicopters were called, and carried on with the same thing when the government privatised it. I’d say that should earn them at least a little respect

  • Sian Wilcox

    Hear, hear – good to see the truth for a change – but how many people will actually read it – very few!!! The problem is a lack of Education – I mean REAL Education – the sort that equips the population to make informed decisions based on knowledge – the dearth of which is what leads to Brexit & Trump – and the belief that the Queen is a drain on the “taxpayer”

  • Jimmy Laing

    What a load of nonsense, this is a right Royal fairy tale.

  • Bloke with his own mind

    I totally agree with it, its basic fact and the media should be tried for treason due to the way they have tried to stir up anti UK rhetoric.

  • Rick McCartis

    if this is the truth then I’m all for it! sounds good to me!

  • James McMahon

    So why can’t I claim my tax back to refurb my house?

    Don’t be so naive. If I pay tax it becomes the governments money. Profits from the crown estates are also the governments money. The Queen and royal family already get a massive handout. This extra money is also government money so people have a right to be annoyed.

  • Jane Pritchard

    I wholly agree with him and fully respect and admire our beloved queen. I thank her for her long years of devoted service to her people and country

  • Kim Wooding

    I agree with every word Kevin Young has said. We all have to contend with the utter untruths and scare mongeting brought on by the media.. Time they are fined for blantant untruths and scare monggering.. even the BBC reported in same manner as media ! Why….

  • Elizabeth

    Well said Mr Benjamin Knight! Three cheers for our Queen HipHipHooray! HipHipHooray! HipHipHooray!

  • Jacqueline Walker

    I agree that the restoration will cost a lot, but if it’s coming from her own earnings and brings income to the UK via tourists, I think it’s ok. There is no great hew and cry over the 10’s of billions of pounds that the high speed railway is going to cost us tax payers. Those billions could be spent keeping our NHS alive and well.

  • David Self

    Spot on….!!

  • K Rogers

    You can’t pay tax on something you don’t own. The queen owns the Crown Estate, although not in the same sense that we own our houses. But she does not own the revenues from the Crown Estate – she, and every monarch from George III, have signed away their rights to the Crown Estates revenue to the government in return for the government doing most of their job for them – covering the costs of running the country. All of the Crown Estates revenue, not 85%. Because, for some reason, as a country we seem keen to retain the queen, we pay her a pretty generous allowance to cover her official costs – these costs include the upkeep of the royal palaces. We used to debate in parliament every 10 years and decide on an appropriate figure – the Civil List – but talking about just how much the monarchy was costing us, and the Royals complaining that they just didn’t have enough money, was in danger of boosting the republicans’ cause and so the Sovereign Grant was established in 2011, setting the payment to the monarch for her duties at 15% of Crown Estate revenues. Given that the Queen’s “pay” is likely to go up to 42.8 million next year, ignoring her massive private wealth – the Crown Estate is her public property, not private – from 29.1 million in 2012, I don’t think it’s unreasonable of her to fulfill one of few remaining duties – the upkeep of the Royal palaces – from her own pocket. I’m not expecting the government to bail me out if I need some work doing on my house just on the basis that I gave the government some money and forgot to budget for the new boiler I need – and in my case, what I’m paying IS tax. The queen’s ceremonial roles – in hosting guests and maintaining the palaces – is the reason she gets the 15% in the first place.

    The queen technically does not pay any tax at all – she is exempt. Based on the Memorandum of 1993, she voluntarily pays an amount in lieu of tax although the full details of this arrangement are not public. She pays no tax at all on the Sovereign Grant – that 15% payment she gets from the Crown Estate revenues for carrying out her job.

    This is an “opinion” piece – it’s not based on historical or legal fact and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what taxation is and what the monarchy is. Even if you support the monarchy – and I don’t – there’s no reason to bail the queen out of her financial mismanagement, at a time when just about every other government department is facing cuts.

  • David West

    it was amazing to see someone write exactly what i have been thinking!

  • running bear

    Oh give me a break, please. The Crown estates have been raping the country for decades. Whats the difference. It’s still coming out of ‘OUR’ pockets…and at a time when there are foodbanks everywhere. This is sycophantic dribble of the highest order. France had the right idea. It wouldnt cost much to refurb a few guillotines. The UK is Pathetic.

  • Merry Ann Mac

    Amen…I pray for England everyday. I am married to an Englishman and have adopted your islands as my own. You have so much to be proud of, and so much to be angry about (just like in America), but your lovely monarch and her family certainly don’t deserve to be treated like this. The press should be ashamed that they could criticize like this just for a pound. Treason to me.

  • Peter Scollan

    The royal family and the monarchy are the political equivalent or the appendix. They may have had a function a long time ago, but in this day and age the have no real function. When I hear people carp out the pathetic “what would you replace them with ” I cannot help but laugh. I had my appendix out years ago, it didn’t need replacing.
    They came to power by being nothing better than gangsters.

  • I was going to make this exact same argument about the Royal estate being taxed 85% about another story earlier in the year, but I wasn’t sure if my logic was sound and decided to scrap it. I should have more confidence in my math next time.

  • Anni

    The Royal Estate should rightly belong to the people of The four countries making up the UK not some family whose ancestors took the land by force.

  • Johnpd

    Anonymous foreign financiers manipulated & funded the English Revolution, placing the Dutchman William Stradholder on the English throne.In return they were granted a charter for the Bank of England, 1694, & the rights to recover their loans through taxation of the general public.
    Book: Pawns in the Game, William Guy Carr.

    When did we get this present bunch of Saxe-Coburg Gothas?
    The eldest & nastiest wants to come back as a virus & kill as many as possible.
    Nice.

    Are they all just front men for Rothschilds?
    Is all the anti-Queen publicity drummed up as punishment for the Queen openly wanting to leave the EU, a stepping stone toward the Rothschild/Rockefeller One World Govt project?
    A reminder that her family “firm” can be torn down through their control of our corrupt Main Slimestream Media?
    Book: The Creature from Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin.

  • Guest

    It is not her income as explained on the Crown estate website

    “Who owns The Crown Estate?
    The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.”
    Therefore it is totally wrong to consider the amounts paid to the treasury a tax on the monarch.

    The crown estate income belongs to the treasury. The Treasury give the queen an Allowance of 15% of the Crown estate income. That is to rise to 25%. That is not an increase in tax on the Queen. It is an increase on the amount that the treasury pays out and a reduction in the amount available to spend on other things.

  • Johnpd

    When Aaron of Lincoln died, 1186, he was perhaps richer than King Henry II.
    Henry seized his estate, which was so large a separate department of the exchequer had to be established to administer it.
    Book: Pawns in the Game, William Guy Carr.
    Our Queen is the beneficiary of some ancient pillage.

  • rob macormac

    As I thought media misinformation to stir up the masses and keep them from knowing the truth. Tried it with Brexit and failed so they had to find another target, one who can not answer back. I wonder how much of their vast incomes these media oligarchs pay in tax. I am thinking not a lot.

  • nooney

    Even if the taxpayer did have to pay so what, I worked in the NHS for 13 years and if you want to see a waste of taxpayers money look no further than your local hospital, I seen a £25,000 operating table thrown away, send it to the 3rd world says I, nope that would cost to much I was told, a microscope ordered £2,000, it was the wrong one, send it back, nope stayed in stores for the remainder of the hospitals life in case it was needed, the microscope was one for looking at rocks, the Palace brings tourist that pays for itself, the NHS brings parasites that bump the price of there products because they know it’s taxpayers money and no one questions it.

  • Ian

    Well said. The public should be more support of our monarchy and the contribution they make to tourism. The press need to stop taking cheap shots at our wonderful Royal family to sell papers and start reporting the correct information. The Queen and her family are the envy of other countries and are well respected around the world. Shame on the Uk press once again!!

  • Syxie

    Absolutely right. The gutter press need a serious stuffing for maliciously stirring up the less informed in society – and the ant-royalist, of course. You’d think that people would use the internet to properly research stuff, as did I on this topic, before spouting vitriol based on total crap and demonstrating how stupid they are. Hell, this furore is starting to sound like communism!

  • Simon Booth

    About time someone spoke the truth

  • Canary boy

    Surely the queen is paid by the tax payer to start with .

  • Anita Marnell

    Absolutely. Britain would be nothing without the Royal Family, the Palaces and the Heritage. It’s the Royals which make Britain great, not the people that think this modern world owes them a living and anything ancient or historical shouldn’t be bothered with.

  • Geoff Boxell

    At last someone else who knows the truth! I have been telling people about the Crown’s contribution to the tax pool for years.

  • Micky77

    Breaking it down £369m over 10 years equates to £36.9m per year, the monarchy brings this amount ten fold in tourism per year so really this isn’t a large amount and also Buckingham Palace is State owned if it was the queens private residence then I would agree we shouldn’t pay for the improvements, but the palace is a British monument owned by the state, can I remind everyone that the Queen paid out of her own pocket for the refurbishment of Windsor Castle after the awful fire damage, no ones questioning the cost of the Houses of Parliament refurb???? Which is an astronomical amount

  • Robin

    Long live the Queen. They are cheap at twice the price!

  • Alexi Trevor Malmgren

    Every second of her day is planned from when she gets up till when she goes to bed and she must do her duty no matter what . If she has to go meet some foreign president or attend some diplomatic conference or Charity event she must . It does’t matter if one of her kids or grandkids is dying she has to smile and shake hands no matter like nothing is happening . PEople who have to wrok hard physically often hate with much passion anyone who they think gets ” millions for nothing ” . In the case of Her Majesty The queen nothing could be further from the truth

  • Eloise

    To start, I think as a piece of world heritage, regardless of the money, Buckingham Palace should absolutely have all the repairs done, unquestionably… And the press quoting £369m is just scaremongering, however, the numbers in this piece don’t add up:-
    Using his figures, The queen currently keeps 15% of her income which amounts to 40m p.a. (Is this based a nett income less costs for administration & staffing etc like businesses?).
    This means she brings in £267m p.a. & the 85% she pays is £227m p.a.
    If her tax goes down to 75% it means she will be paying 202.5m p.a. This leaves her £64m p.a. for the repairs & the other things mentioned (state visits etc – £40m p.a. as quoted) so once we remove that, she has 24.5m p.a. for repairs etc. The figure the press is quoting is £369m over 10 years so £36.9m p.a. (I presume obtained from the govt?). This makes a shortfall of £12.5m p.a. for these repairs, making £125m to be covered for the full 10 years. I confess, this is £224m less than the media is reporting and they should be held to account for promulgating lies, however, I personally think the tourism industry themselves should both easily & happily cover this!

  • Juwanita

    Well the Queen & the rest of the Royals are fabulously rich. The tax payer is an ordinary citizen who has no grand life compared to the ROYALS.
    They live in sheer luxury where as the ordinary citizen goes through all the hardships in life. So why ask every thing from the ordinary tax payer? Why can’t the ROYALS LOOK AFTER THEMSELVES LIKE THE ORDINARY CITIZENS?????

More in Blog Posts