Evil Sid Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 and as for alternative uses; what alternative use would Buckingham Palace have? "Affordable" housing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Just a thought. 1.5 days membership fees to the EUSSR = 1 Royal Yacht. Hmmm, decisions, decisions :unsure: :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 and lets face it, apart from potatoes Boyzone, BONO and pikeys, what have the Southern Irish ever done for the world anyway? A bit uncalled for Baz. :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 A bit uncalled for Baz. :angry: OK,I admit.... Boyzone were rubbish.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Who's rattled your cage Baz? You don't seem to be your normal happy go lucky self today <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 OK,I admit.... Boyzone were rubbish.... I've got some Boyzone CD's if you want to borrow them Baz... you never know they may grow on you again as they weren't that bad but they are nowhere near as good as Westlife Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 17, 2012 Report Share Posted January 17, 2012 Who's rattled your cage Baz? You don't seem to be your normal happy go lucky self today <_< I am perfectly calm and in my comfort zone.... just browsing the ancestry site and doing my WW1 family reasearch!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 OK,I admit.... Boyzone were rubbish.... Boyzone were not rubbish! At least one other person agrees with me and that is the thing who burgled our house in the uk because, amongst other things, it took my collection of Boyzone cds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 It wasn't me Cleo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'll take your word for it Dizzy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 and also. if our Monarchy is 112 pounds more expensive than the Irish presidency I would pay the extra myself.... and as for alternative uses; what alternative use would Buckingham Palace have? To clarify - that's 112 times the cost (further details available via Republic's website) As for alternative uses for Buck House examples include Government offices and apartments for non-london MPs (cut down on expense fiddles) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 If the Government wanted to use Buckingham Palace they would have to buy it first. It isn't owned by the government, it is part of the Crown Estate. Should the monarchy be terminated then the property managed on behalf of the nation by the Crown Estate would revert back to its owner, and in the case of Buckingham Palace that would be the (ex)sovereign. Back to the drawing board Nick :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 I am perfectly calm and in my comfort zone.... just browsing the ancestry site and doing my WW1 family reasearch!! Going through my Mum's stuff, I have found loads of photo's but nobody to ask who is on them. But I have found out when my Grandparents were born, so maybe I will venture onto the Family Tree bit again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 18, 2012 Report Share Posted January 18, 2012 Going through my Mum's stuff, I have found loads of photo's but nobody to ask who is on them. But I have found out when my Grandparents were born, so maybe I will venture onto the Family Tree bit again. I'm loving doing the research Peter.... My dads dad was on board the battleship Canada at the battle of Jutland (as was the brother of his future wife as that is how they were introduced!!).... he also was entered into the VC ballot for his part in the raid on Zeebrugge in 1918 and then in 1919 he went on the archangel river expedition to sort out the Bolsheviks after the Russian Revolution!! Mums dad did his service in the trenches in Belgium near to Ypres..... Maybe we should have a family history section!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 If the Government wanted to use Buckingham Palace they would have to buy it first. It isn't owned by the government, it is part of the Crown Estate. Should the monarchy be terminated then the property managed on behalf of the nation by the Crown Estate would revert back to its owner, and in the case of Buckingham Palace that would be the (ex)sovereign. Back to the drawing board Nick :wink: Why buy what the state already owns? The Crown estate isn't the personal property of Elizabeth Windsor (that is confirmed by the Crown Estate website) and never has been - the crown can be seen as a synonym of the state and the Government can treat it as any other piece of state property. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Wrong. The Sovereign handed over Crown Property to be managed by the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List payments. If you get rid of the Sovereign there is no Civil List, no Crown Estate and all the property would be returned to the (ex)Sovereign. The Treasury receives any monies made by the Crown Estate and part of this money is used to pay for the Civil List, so in effect the Royal Family, far from being a cost to the country, actually makes money for the Treasury. Even an anti-Royalist like you should welcome this Nick <_< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 This: The Civil List Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 19, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Wrong. The Sovereign handed over Crown Property to be managed by the Crown Estate in return for the Civil List payments. <_< Merely an administartive nicety Crown property i.e. not personally owned by the individual holding the position of soverign - (anymore than Cameron owns 10 Downing Street) As I said before, crown = synonym for state ,so without soverign can be used for whatever purpose the elected government chooses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Crown is not a synonym for State and the Crown Estates are not owned by the State. The State benefits from any surplus profit after payment of the Civil List, but that is the limit of the State's interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 The Crown estates are public land.The Government, under the statute of 1961 and indeed under the Civil List Act 1952, get the revenue of the Crown Estate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 19, 2012 Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 Which is exactly what I said Wolfie. And out of the revenue the Government pays the Civil List. This arrangement is changing next year. I don't know why I'm bothering trying to educate you English - I'm Irish!! :grin: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted January 23, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Crown is not a synonym for State It certainly has been seen as such - one precedent being in the extent of Crown Immunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 You mean, when joining the Army and swearing allegiance to HRH, it wasn't for "the State" but for the Queen's private Army?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 when it comes to having a President; I have but two words of warning: "Bush" "Sarkozy" ......nuff said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted January 23, 2012 Report Share Posted January 23, 2012 Observer, you have posted many inane comments on here but that one has to take first prize. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. "The Queen's private army"? I shouldn't have to tell someone (you) that the Queen is the figurehead of the state and has no power beyond that which is granted by the present government (more's the pity as she probably has more savvy than all the six hundred odd (odd?) people in Parliament put together). :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.