View comments by: Most Recent - first / last | Most Popular - first / last | Replies - hide / show

Scrap the Sovereign Grant?

The monarchy has never been funded like other public bodies, which are usually set an annual budget based on what they actually need to spend. What do you think?


Created By on 08/11/2020

Not a member?

You need to be a member to interact with Silversurfers. Joining is free and simple to do. Click the button below to join today!

TeresaC53 Original Poster
8th Nov 2020 13:58:02 (Last activity: 30th Nov 2020 12:31:40)
2
Thanks for voting!
There has been a massive increase in the grant over the past ten years, while public services are cut and jobs lost. The monarchy should be funded on the basis of need and budgets should be scrutinised and set annually, as they are for other institutions.

Would you vote for a fairer set annual budget for them? A petition
Response from Lionel made on 8th Nov 2020 22:20:12
Would you vote for a fairer set annual budget for them?

Quite frankly, no!

I'm a professed Royalist, and a very proud Briton who is entirely satisfied with our Royal family as it stands. I would brook no changes whatsoever, indeed, joining an anti-republican campaign would seem well worth the effort.

Further, I see no tangible future for republicanism in Great Britain, generally viewing it as symptomatic of the EU malaise which seems to have infected us temporarily. Mercifully, the EU will be consigned to our history in mere weeks.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 9th Nov 2020 08:39:11 > @Lionel
You are a royalist I am a republican so probably won't agree. The sovereign grant is 80 million can never go down always up, 100 million on security for 19 homes. Local councils bear the cost of RF days out. 20 million each PC and Queen from Duchies, no tax paid. Its the principle it's unaccountable. With a democratically Elected Head of State you get to choose could be a doctor etc many good people to chose from or just the offspring of one family the Windsors.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 9th Nov 2020 11:59:34
Agree elgin52 Excellent tongue-in-cheek response, love it Thank you.
Response from Len45 made on 9th Nov 2020 12:56:34 > @TeresaC53
I, too, have always been a royalist but when you put costs like that in front of people, you have to question what we get for our money. Add a similar amount for the House of Lords and suddenly our Health Service could look in very good shape.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 9th Nov 2020 16:03:23
We don't get anything for the money they do. Proven RF don't bring in tourists, do not work hard and Johnson and his government when and if broke the law Queen can't intervene has to do what PM asks. RF spend public money as if it's their own and with transport for their own private interests Who else could get away with that? Yes agree our NHS would be better served with that money as well as other public services doctors teachers police

And we don't have a written down constitution people could read including school children what our constitution stands for. Agree House of Lords not fit for purpose.
Response from jeanmark made on 10th Nov 2020 14:43:15 > @TeresaC53
Like Lionel I am a staunch royalist and have always seen the benefit to the country in having the Queen. She works incredible hard and does actual pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis. She works for the benefit of the country and thus should be paid for her service.

At present the US is a good example of why a democratically elected Head of State may not be in the best interest of the country!
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 10th Nov 2020 16:21:45
I am a staunch republican and could never see the benefit of this one family being given so much money,power and privilege. The RF do not work hard everything is literally handed to them on a plate, the queens words are scripted, They don't bring in tourists and cannot step in if the government does wrong so what is the point of monarchy? The Duchy of Cornwall dispite being run like a corporation pays no corporation tax or capital gains tax giving Charles an unfair advantage. They don't pay hereditary tax see how much they would have accumulated jewels art etc. They are secretive, exempt from freedom of information act, corrupt, they don't give all expenditure costs in their financial report, and unaccountable they are above the law. When has Queen spoken to the people in times of triumph or tragedy in all her long reign her job is to keep quiet,

Monarchists always say to defend their position Oh we don't want a president Trump or Blair etc. Our president would be someone like in Ireland a well respected man.

we would have a democratically Elected Head of State Who could be a doctor etc, someone worthy there are plenty of good people to choose from. Instead we only have a choice from the Windsors not a lot of choice there .
Response from Lionel made on 10th Nov 2020 17:32:20 > @TeresaC53
Just for the record on your point about Ireland. I lived and worked in Eire for two years in the Eighties. There was no one more reviled, more hated and despised than the then President, a political shoe-in to reinforce Charlie Haughey's pro-IRA stance.

No one in GB has yet been able to offer me sufficient assurances a President here would be anything less than a political appointee.
Response from jeanmark made on 10th Nov 2020 17:59:16 > @TeresaC53
TeresaC53, I believe we have to agree to disagree, We appear to have different views and experiences of the work of the immediate Royal Family and I for one am happy to have the Queen as a figure head for our country. I do accept that we will eventually have an elected Head of State, but fortunately not during my life time.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 10th Nov 2020 18:02:46 > @Lionel
No in a written constitution a president would not get involved in politics.

*represent the nation
*defend our democracy
*act as referee in the political process
*offer a non-political voice at times of crisis and celebration

The job would not simply be ceremonial, our new head of state would have very clear and limited
powers. Those powers would be non-political, which means that they can only be exercised according to certain official criteria. Our elected head of state would not be allowed to make decisions based on their own political opinions (much like a judge uses their power according to the law and the facts of the case, not letting their personal politics get in the way).

What sort of powers would the head of state have?
In a republic all our politicians would have to obey a set of rules that are decided by the people (written down in a constitution and voted on by the public). The head of state would be able to stop the politicians from doing something if they are breaking the rules - but not just because they disagree with the politicians.

When Britain becomes a republic we will at last make sure that our nation's democratic values go right to the top. We will change the political culture and our relationship with those in power. Ordinary citizens will be able to take part in the process of choosing our head of state and even put themselves forward for the job.
Becoming a republic will put a stop to the royals' routine abuses of public money and their daily interference in our country's politics. In a republic the Windsor family will be equal citizens too, with the same rights to take part in the political process as the rest of us, but no special access or privileged status.
A move to a republic will give us the chance to re-balance power between government, parliament and the people. By getting rid of the Crown we can put limits on what our government can do without the support of parliament - and put limits on what parliament can do without the clear support of the people.
A republic will give us an effective head of state, someone chosen by us to referee the political process and champion the interests of the British people.
A democratic Britain will also give a huge boost to 'brand Britain'. Our nation's image abroad will be of the modern, confident and forward looking country we really are. As VisitBritain says in their guide to promoting Britain, we can avoid the cliché-ridden imagery of the past and promote our heritage as a living part of a dynamic, positive and modern nation.
Response from Len45 made on 10th Nov 2020 19:06:50
Listening to the points of view and assessing things, there are a number of royals who work exceptionally hard, it would be nice to be able 'defund' the time wasters. I don't think I would want to be without our history and identity and I do feel they contribute to trade and tourism.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 10th Nov 2020 21:05:55
None of the Royals work hard We have our history to look back on britains many achievements How can anyone identify with a Royal Family that don't live in the real world. It's been proven by Visit Britain that RF don't encourage tourism What do they do for trade Look? at P Andrew trade envoy enough said. There are on Republic U.K. YouTube channel many interesting videos that explain why we should become a republic
Response from Lionel made on 10th Nov 2020 22:22:02 > @jeanmark
Well, Jeanmark, we've known each other quite a long time, and that without many disagreements. Here, however, I must disagree. I do not believe the monarchy will be replaced by an elected head of state. To do so would require so much more than a Bill of Rights, it would need a complete change of heart of the British people, and that I do not see happening.

We're an ancient people, a most successful people which prospered magnificently under a monarchy. Times may change, but somethings do not.
Response from Lionel made on 10th Nov 2020 22:33:42 > @TeresaC53
Teresa, if the above is your true belief then I may only say you live in a dream world.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 11th Nov 2020 08:07:13
We prospered not because of a monarchy in spite of they had nothing to do with our prosperity how could they
Response from jeanmark made on 11th Nov 2020 19:40:06
Lionel, I hate the idea of losing our Royal Family, that is why I am glad I will never see their demise in my life time. It is sad that there are those who can not see their value other than in monetary terms, rather than what they represent as part of our countries history.
Response from Lionel made on 11th Nov 2020 20:54:48 > @jeanmark
The House Of Windsor Knows How To Survive! That was the tag line of a series of three one hour programmes broadcast last year. They gave a broad view of how that family had sacrificed their own for the greater good of the House of Windsor.

I stand convinced and very happy, there will be a descendant of Elizabeth on the throne of England in a hundred years time. They will it and so do the majority of Britons.

God Save The Queen.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 12th Nov 2020 10:38:02 > @Lionel
The Queen is 94 so she has already been saved.

The hunting-shooting-fishing-palace-living-multi-millionaire royals use homeless charities, wildlife charities and Concern-Face Enviromental events to try to make them look sympathetic.

When the 'work' is done, they TallyHo off with their Rich Pals & not care.

Today The Duke of Cambridge has become Patron of two wildlife conservation charities, @FaunaFloraInt and @_BTO
Hey members @_BTO do you REALLY want a toff who blasts wee birds for fun as patron?

Stephen Beer
I have been teaching Biology for over 30 years and I am completely and utterly disappointed that the UK powers that be, including the Royals have a mind-set towards biodiversity that is Victorian. If this grouse shooting land were re-wilded, Scotland could have National Parks as famous as Yellowstone Park with iconic birds of prey such as Golden Eagles, Fish Eagles, Hen Harriers and perhaps even wolves...... but probably not in my lifetime.


Yeah, both these charities have had #Royal patrons for years.
BTO has had just two Royal engagements in the last *ten years*; FFI not even that - it's had just one.
Methinks most Royal #charity patronages are not really a thing:
https://royal.uk/new-wildlife-conservation-patr


Every day the BBC & papers are packed with sycophantic drivel about these tedious dullards.

Every lame remark is celebrated, every hypocrisy is ignored.

Poor children can't have 20 million Prince Charles gets 22 million.

The hunting-shooting-fishing-palace-living-multi-millionaire royals use homeless charities, wildlife charities and Concern-Face Enviromental events to try to make them look sympathetic.

When the 'work' is done, they TallyHo off with their Rich Pals & not care.

Today The Duke of Cambridge has become Patron of two wildlife conservation charities, @FaunaFloraInt and @_BTO
Hey members @_BTO do you REALLY want a toff who blasts wee birds for fun as patron?

Stephen Beer
I have been teaching Biology for over 30 years and I am completely and utterly disappointed that the UK powers that be, including the Royals have a mind-set towards biodiversity that is Victorian. If this grouse shooting land were re-wilded, Scotland could have National Parks as famous as Yellowstone Park with iconic birds of prey such as Golden Eagles, Fish Eagles, Hen Harriers and perhaps even wolves...... but probably not in my lifetime.


Yeah, both these charities have had #Royal patrons for years.
BTO has had just two Royal engagements in the last *ten years*; FFI not even that - it's had just one.
Methinks most Royal #charity patronages are not really a thing:
https://royal.uk/new-wildlife-conservation-patr


Every day the BBC & papers are packed with sycophantic drivel about these tedious dullards.

Every lame remark is celebrated, every hypocrisy is ignored.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 12th Nov 2020 12:51:08
HaHa Oh Wow elgin52 Yippee What ever will they come up with next
Response from jeanmark made on 12th Nov 2020 13:04:07 > @TeresaC53
Well TeresaC53, having just read your piece from today, I'm sorry but the term 'bigot' comes to mind in this discussion. I am curious as to why you view all members of the royal family with such contempt.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 12th Nov 2020 13:56:16
Well Jeanmark I don't agree with a monarchy it's undemoratic secretive corrupt unaccountable This one family is given such a lot of money and what do the people get for their money nothing. The younger generation aren't in favour of them at all.
Response from Len45 made on 12th Nov 2020 17:22:58
I have to admit, I look around the world and truly thank my lucky stars I've had seven and a half decades in a very stable country. I tend to think that stability is largely due to our tradition and history. There are too many people trying to rewrite our history at the moment and I think it will only result in a bigger surge of patriotism.
Response from Lionel made on 12th Nov 2020 17:30:38 > @TeresaC53
Oh dear, a comprehensive school history.
Response from Lionel made on 12th Nov 2020 17:38:04 > @Len45
Absolutey Len and a man speaking a truth. Change for change sake; haven't we seen too much of that?

Yes, there will be an upsurge in patriotism and I for one would welcome it. From my point of view far too many people want to change something - particularly our politicians - and when their changes fail the instigators scurry away with a fat pension and a knighthood.

We've enough trouble in this nation now; poverty for the many looms, unemployment, poor medical services, old aged poverty ... I could go on. How many, and who, will benefit by throwing off our monarchy? No one! It's just a kind of inverted greed - I want to deny others what I can't myself have. Silly, don't you think?

Let's leave things alone. There's other battles to fight, other wars to win and they too are within our own country.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 12th Nov 2020 19:20:38 > @Len45
There are countries with monarchies and countries who have stability. A country is not dependent on a monarchy for its stability.

I found this comment and have to agree

In the entire history of life on earth, royal families must be the most successful parasites to have ever evolved.
Response from jeanmark made on 12th Nov 2020 19:24:04 > @TeresaC53
TeresaC53, I'm unclear as to why you believe all royals are secretive and corrupt, I'm not aware of any sound evidence to support this.

As to the younger generation, I accept that a survey held in 2018 identified that 25% of 18-24 year olds opposed them along with 23% of 25-34 year olds. However, of those supporting the monarchy, 77% were in the over 55 year olds. Maybe the older generation have lived long enough to recognise the Royal Families worth!
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 12th Nov 2020 19:31:52 > @Lionel
The Queen's Platinum Anniversary

Am I the only one thinking this is premature and actually insensitive?
It is quite possible it will not happen and how many 100’s of 1000’s of pounds will be spent in the meantime.

Makes up for all the deaths, suffering, ruined lives and businesses celebrating wealth, entitlement, privilege, and longevity, people dying without the comfort of their families, thousands in care homes lost and disoriented denied the comfort of a loving child.? Yeah right . Well some of us aren’t so easily fooled or distracted

It will be forced on us and using our money . And why bring it up now - we’ve still got the highest death toll in Europe., a Brexit disaster facing us And utter corruption at the hear of Government. But hey let’s have a party - but a pity the hundreds dying this week won’t be able to enjoy it.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 12th Nov 2020 19:41:30 > @jeanmark
Secretive exempt from the freedom of information act.
Corrupt not giving a full financial annual account of their expenses leave out 100 million security on their 19 homes, Their days out with local councils picking up the bill for their visits.
Response from Lionel made on 12th Nov 2020 20:20:14
Please do justify that rather silly remark or else withdraw it.
Response from Lionel made on 12th Nov 2020 20:24:01 > @TeresaC53
I bet you're a real treasure to live with. Milk would turn sour in your fridge.
Response from Lionel made on 12th Nov 2020 20:26:45
What? You too, you do surprise me.
Response from BarbaraEW made on 13th Nov 2020 13:12:12 > @jeanmark
I agree with you. The royal family does pay its own taxes. They are very conscious of public opinion of them and all the senior royals clearly do not fritter money away on unnecessary things. I think Diana and Sarah Ferguson did the royal family a great disservice when they started their silly shenanigans and Diana's clothes budget was clearly exorbitant. The royals themselves have always been quite frugal. One thing I do believe is that they do bring in a lot of tourism revenue which would be totally lost if we had an elected Head of State, ie a President. The Royals are paid about 10% I believe from the tourism revenue and I saw the figure of less than £2 per head per annum for their allowances, which have to pay for all business expenses (it is a business!), staff salaries etc. I don't think it is too much. But if we had a President we would have the lavish cost of a four or five yearly election, all the security costs (Look at the US!) and who chooses to go to a republic to see the President driving by in blacked out limo's? NO ONE! a President would cost us far more yet we'd get far less for it! The black hole in the Treasury would have to be filled with increased taxes! I'd rather have a Royal Family and lower taxes than a lavish Presidential entourage no one really sees and higher taxes too!!
Response from BarbaraEW made on 13th Nov 2020 13:16:20 > @Lionel
I agree, we have enough trouble and cost electing a Prime Minister every 4 or 5 years, I personally would be heartily sick if we had to go through Presidential elections every 4 or 5 years too! The cost would be ridiculous and all we'd have is division in the country over the President too! Look at the Trump fiasco! At least our Royal Family have centuries old traditions, pageantry, rules, regulations and the best part is NO INTERFERENCE IN POLITICS, which is a godsend. A President would be unseen, attract no tourism therefore would reduce any financial benefits the Royals draw but he would cost us far more in security, elections etc. I think it will be a very sad day, if we ever lose our Monarch.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 13th Nov 2020 13:51:33 > @BarbaraEW
The Royal Family pays some of its taxes voluntarily Charles doesn't pay corporation tax on the Duchy of Cornwall even though it's run like a business nor capital gains tax giving him an unfair advantage. They don't pay hereditary tax. They do abuse public money, use it as if its their own on various transports, helicopter their favourite, The queen awards all her family medals though not deserving of them, everyone so used to this nobody says anything this is called nepotism. The Queen does not want to involve herself in the constitution as Head of State though that is her job she takes all that goes with the job though. We deserve so much better when the Queen goes. A democratically elected Head of State that represents the people. You can find out much more https://www.republic.org.uk this would give you a more balanced of the monarchy
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 13th Nov 2020 14:01:17 > @BarbaraEW
By the way Barbar EW the monarchy cost us 345 million a year. 82 million that can never go down always up. That's 100 million round the clock security on their 19 homes paid for by metropolitan police. All transport costs below £15,000 are not recorded on their annual financial report. The Queen and prince Charles gets over 20 million each on the two duchies. And our local councils bare the costs of their days out which run into a few million.

A president would be much cheaper he would have an office and a official residence.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 13th Nov 2020 14:09:24 > @BarbaraEW
Yes they do interfere in politics They get a say on and lobby on laws, and those affect their own private interests. Remember the spider hand letters Charles wrote after 10 years they were made public lots of lobbying positions.

And did you know the Queen was a involved in the sacking the Australian prime minister Geoff Whitman in the 70s A historian had to spend money go to the highest court to win her case as the Queen wanted them kept secret The Palace papers
Response from jeanmark made on 13th Nov 2020 14:57:37 > @TeresaC53
TeresaC53, I actual agree on the first part of your comment regarding the Platinum Anniversary, but also recognise that in these desperate times people do have to have something that is positive to look forward to.

However, please do not blame the Royal Family for the present situation with regard to the pandemic, that problem lies mainly with the Government. and not the amount of money paid for the work the Royals do. Yes, we are facing a disastrous future with Brexit on top of a pandemic but that doesn't mean all future celebrations must be avoided. Whether we have a party in 2 years time will not stop the hundreds dying each week until everyone recognises we all have a responsibility in stemming the flow of this virus, money alone will not solve the problem.

Also never assume that we do not understand the heartbreak of not being able to be with loved ones at their time of need, or when a lock down prevents you from collecting a loved ones ashes. This situation has nothing to do with the present debate on whether we should abolish the monarchy in favour of a Republican system.

You have strong beliefs regarding the purpose of the monarchy but please also understand that many of us do recognise the cost to the country but believe that cost is worth the benefit we, as a country, get from them. The fact you disagree doesn't necessarily mean you must be right on all counts.
Response from djl277 made on 13th Nov 2020 18:38:07 > @TeresaC53
I have been following this with great interest and absolutely agree with everything you say.

That £345m would cover the starting salaries of roughly 14,000 nurses or 14,400 police officers or 13,400 teachers or 15,000 trainee firefighters for a year. Or entirely fund Children in Need, The Salvation Army and The Trussell Trust each and every year and still leave change.

I know where I would prefer my taxes to go and it isn't on a privileged, undemocratic, relic of the past.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 14th Nov 2020 09:36:53 > @jeanmark
Bit more

Jeanmark
I agree that most people respect the Queen in all her long reign she hasn't put a foot wrong, unlike most of the rest of her family, I understand that in her role as Head of State. However with all the luxury, servants, dressers private secretaries nannies top chefs best food castles palaces various homes hundreds of acres, Balmoral with their own supply of salmon (including sadly the awful grouse shooting) Yacht they had for a good while was more like an ocean liner refurbished at considerable cost, Royal train cars helicopters you couldn't really go wrong. The queen doesn't speak for herself everything is scripted. She hasn't had the struggles many other people regularly face. She is the first monarch where her whole family benefits from her role as Head of State by millions. I am not being churlish. I think it's all very unfair. The Queen has an off shore account in tax haven The Paradise Papers where she has millions free from tax.

All their homes are publicly funded or heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

The monarchy does not work it's not fit for purpose The Royals do not work hard they hardly work at all.

The RF do not bring in tourists look at Visit Britain

The French Palace of Versailles brings in more tourists and they do not have a monarchy.

Palaces and castles attract interest because of their history, not because of today’s royals. Get rid of the monarchy and Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle can be fully opened up to tourists all year, funding their own upkeep through ticket sales and offering a unique glimpse into Britain’s past.

Buckingham Palace is thought to contain one of the largest and most valuable art collections in the world, including the largest collection of Van Gogh paintings - yet it’s all hidden away. The palace has the potential in a republic to become a world class museum and gallery open all year round.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 14th Nov 2020 09:39:10 > @djl277
Thank you djL277 Yes I agree too about money spent Time for a republic after Queen goes.
Response from jeanmark made on 14th Nov 2020 19:22:26 > @TeresaC53
TeresaC52, we will never agree on this subject, fortunately I'm not blinkered and can see both sides of the argument but I continue to favour the Monarchy. I agree they have a large number of staff, but many are in ordinary jobs and thus in employment. You can argue this comes out of the public purse but so does the cost of unemployment.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 14th Nov 2020 21:54:57 > @jeanmark
Jeanmark Yes they have a lot of staff one family doesn't need all this money spent on them. Money could be better spent elsewhere also the palace they could become tourists attraction that would really bring in the money. The palace has the potential in a republic to become a world class museum and gallery open all year round. It has been said the RF are spending more on travel and it was suggested to Johnson to cut the budget a little but he wouldn't. Now there is an honest petition asking would you like the monarchy to have a costed annual budget in line with other public bodies and other Heads of States.

Here https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/552304 It's up to anyone to sign you have a choice
And here is Republic https://www.republic.org.uk gives you another side of the argument.

I will finish with this

Tony Benn

Five Essential questions of democracy

"What power have you got?"

"Where did you get it from?"

"In whose interests do you use it?"

"To whom are you accountable?"

"How do we get rid of you?"

I don't think people realise
how the Establishment
became established.
They simply stole land and property
from the poor, surrounded
themselves with weak minded sycophants
for protection, gave themselves titles
and have been wielding power ever since!
Response from jeanmark made on 15th Nov 2020 14:58:43 > @TeresaC53
TeresaC53, I appreciate that Tony Benn renounced the title he inherited from his father and was a staunch believer in a Republican State. He was certainly strong left wing. However, I was never influenced by his beliefs but admired his principled approach.

I remain a supporter of the Monarchy.
Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 15th Nov 2020 15:47:25 > @jeanmark
Jeanmark Yes Tony Benn I admired his many principled stances.. You are entitled to believe in and support the monarchy as is your right. I believe in democracy the choice to choose an Elected Head of State thanks
Response from AdaB made on 29th Nov 2020 21:18:29 > @TeresaC53
Teresa I have just joined the site, inspired mostly by your comments, the intelligent and sensible argument you put forward.. I have been an anti-monarchist since I was old enough to understand that citizenship was preferable to subjugation.
A very long time.
It will be left to the young to demand a reckoning and create a democracy..
It won't be in my lifetime,
Will my grandchildren see the purpose in Kings, Queens, Thrones, Palaces, Princes, Princesses, Earl's, Dukes Duchesses, on and on. I doubt it.
Response from Sally - Silversurfer's Editor made on 29th Nov 2020 21:38:50 > @AdaB
Hi AdaB,

Welcome and many thanks for your first comment in our Forum.

If you already know your way around, then we will leave you to it.

If you are looking for some lively discussions, head on over to the Forum homepage to see what's trending right now and feel free to join in the discussions, with all our friendly members, perhaps ask a question or even start your own post.

Response from TeresaC53 Original Poster made on 30th Nov 2020 12:31:40 > @AdaB
Hi Ada and thank you for your nice comments and welcome to Silversurfers. I did join here quite a while ago and have recently come back again. I think it's good Barbados wants to become a republic and Australia wants to choose their own Head of State after the Queen goes So that's something I will hopefully see in my lifetime. Republic UK will start again in the new year with new campaigns, different ways of doing things, talk of BillBoards put up etc Like I said people do respect the queen never put a foot wrong in her role. But could be a different matter when if Charles becomes king or not. Well Ada nice to hear your views and that they are the same as mine that's something we have in common ha on SilverSurfers. Regards, Teresa
TeresaC53 Original Poster
8th Nov 2020 13:18:18
1
Thanks for voting!
I would like to see

the following simple reforms, to improve accountability, transparency and fairness in royal finances and to appropriately assign public funds to the Treasury.

Parliament to set an annual fixed budget for the monarchy - including an annual salary for the Queen - to be managed and reported on by a government department, not Buckingham Palace.

All security costs to be made transparent and accountable.

All costs of royal visits around the country to be incorporated into the monarchy's budget, not met by local authorities.

The institution of the monarchy, and all members of the royal household, to be required to abide by the same tax laws and rules as all other public bodies and private individuals.

Community Terms & Conditions

Content standards

These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.

You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.

Contributions must:

be accurate (where they state facts); be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.

Contributions must not:

contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or promote sexually explicit material; or promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or be likely to deceive any person; or be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or promote any illegal activity; or be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.

Nurturing a safe environment

Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.

We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!