The Cambridges News and Updates ( Prince William, Kate Middleton, George, Charlotte and Louis)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

Comparing France to Britain is apples to oranges. Tourists aren't only visiting Versailles and palaces, they are visiting the beaches, mountains, wine making regions, medieval villages and markets, as well as Paris and all it has to offer. Britain doesn't have half of those things pretty much all it has are the castles, ruins, villages. If you take the Royals out, the tourism would suffer.

DP. Idk. People still visit Vienna to see all the Habsburg palaces. Also the UK has a lot of other attractions and when people do visit it’s not like they are seeing or interacting with any of the royals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

Comparing France to Britain is apples to oranges. Tourists aren't only visiting Versailles and palaces, they are visiting the beaches, mountains, wine making regions, medieval villages and markets, as well as Paris and all it has to offer. Britain doesn't have half of those things pretty much all it has are the castles, ruins, villages. If you take the Royals out, the tourism would suffer.

DP. Idk. People still visit Vienna to see all the Habsburg palaces. Also the UK has a lot of other attractions and when people do visit it’s not like they are seeing or interacting with any of the royals.

Both Kate and Meghan's weddings made a ton of money for the UK. Etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

Comparing France to Britain is apples to oranges. Tourists aren't only visiting Versailles and palaces, they are visiting the beaches, mountains, wine making regions, medieval villages and markets, as well as Paris and all it has to offer. Britain doesn't have half of those things pretty much all it has are the castles, ruins, villages. If you take the Royals out, the tourism would suffer.

DP. Idk. People still visit Vienna to see all the Habsburg palaces. Also the UK has a lot of other attractions and when people do visit it’s not like they are seeing or interacting with any of the royals.

It is known that the royals drive tourism. Its not really a debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

Comparing France to Britain is apples to oranges. Tourists aren't only visiting Versailles and palaces, they are visiting the beaches, mountains, wine making regions, medieval villages and markets, as well as Paris and all it has to offer. Britain doesn't have half of those things pretty much all it has are the castles, ruins, villages. If you take the Royals out, the tourism would suffer.

DP. Idk. People still visit Vienna to see all the Habsburg palaces. Also the UK has a lot of other attractions and when people do visit it’s not like they are seeing or interacting with any of the royals.

It is known that the royals drive tourism. Its not really a debate.

DP. I don't agree they DRIVE tourism; they are more like a sideshow tent at a circus. And this certainly doesn't apply to any other royal family, either.

Can't think of a single tourist who primarily went to Amsterdam or The Hague so they could glimpse King Willem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

Comparing France to Britain is apples to oranges. Tourists aren't only visiting Versailles and palaces, they are visiting the beaches, mountains, wine making regions, medieval villages and markets, as well as Paris and all it has to offer. Britain doesn't have half of those things pretty much all it has are the castles, ruins, villages. If you take the Royals out, the tourism would suffer.

DP. Idk. People still visit Vienna to see all the Habsburg palaces. Also the UK has a lot of other attractions and when people do visit it’s not like they are seeing or interacting with any of the royals.

It is known that the royals drive tourism. Its not really a debate.

DP. I don't agree they DRIVE tourism; they are more like a sideshow tent at a circus. And this certainly doesn't apply to any other royal family, either.

Can't think of a single tourist who primarily went to Amsterdam or The Hague so they could glimpse King Willem.

Maybe you need to do more research on this topic.

[Anonymous]

What the heck happened to this thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

Says the moron railing about the royal family. Touche.

No one’s railing. What kind of dumba$$ says touché after their own comment?

Ok. Says the fools whining in here about the royal family in a country they don't live in and don't pay for. You're probably some moron who has never even left the US.

Says the idiot who makes baseless assumptions about strangers on a forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

Says the moron railing about the royal family. Touche.

No one’s railing. What kind of dumba$$ says touché after their own comment?

Ok. Says the fools whining in here about the royal family in a country they don't live in and don't pay for. You're probably some moron who has never even left the US.

Says the idiot who makes baseless assumptions about strangers on a forum.

Yawn. Try using facts instead of emotions to make a point. Do you even have a point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

Says the moron railing about the royal family. Touche.

No one’s railing. What kind of dumba$$ says touché after their own comment?

Ok. Says the fools whining in here about the royal family in a country they don't live in and don't pay for. You're probably some moron who has never even left the US.

Says the idiot who makes baseless assumptions about strangers on a forum.

Yawn. Try using facts instead of emotions to make a point. Do you even have a point?

Do you? It’s all word salad from you at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

Well, that's royalty in the 21st century. They try their hardest not to reveal just how stupid they are (can't look like an idiot and still be chosen by the divine right of god) and they look for ways to squirrel away money. But no matter how much you squirrel away - success generations with no jobs have problems paying for the costs of 50-bedroom homes without some way to finance them.

That’s why the tax payer pays instead.

You say this but that's not exactly how the BRF works. They have a tremendous amount of wealth and, decades ago when other countries were getting rid of their monarchies, the BRF "gave" their wealth to the state and gets "paid by the taxpayer" all the interest every year.

They bring in lots of money in tourism and live off of interest. They don't really cost the taxpayer anything. Without the BRF, taxpayers would lose out on direct and indirect revenue.

You say that but France has the largest tourism market in Europe - primarily due to the palaces they've opened to the public and guess what? No royals.

The tourists come regardless to see Versailles. I don't recall any dates the Queen stands outside of Buckingham Palace and shakes hands with thousands of people.

You may be ready to get out the guillotine and start the beheadings. I don't think there's a large amount of people in the UK who will join you though.

No one's beheading anyone. Just pointing out the fact that the royals aren't net positives to the economy like you seem to think.

The majority of the people aren't looking to abolish the monarchy. Do you know any Brits at all? You sound like an out of touch American. You're just pissy about the Meghan and Harry situation and want to burn it all down. You don't speak for the British people with your rants.

You’re the only one on here ranting. Beheadings, really?

I'm not that PP. You're just butt hurt about the Harry and Megan drama. Your opinions about the future of the royal family aren't based on any logic or reasoning. You sound like a nut.

Take your meds. Lashing out at strangers isn’t healthy.

Says the moron railing about the royal family. Touche.

No one’s railing. What kind of dumba$$ says touché after their own comment?

Ok. Says the fools whining in here about the royal family in a country they don't live in and don't pay for. You're probably some moron who has never even left the US.

Says the idiot who makes baseless assumptions about strangers on a forum.

Yawn. Try using facts instead of emotions to make a point. Do you even have a point?

Do you? It’s all word salad from you at this point.

If you think the royal family is on their death bed why don't you post something that backs up your opinion? Instead its been pages and pages of boring shit about tax codes, fantasies about George, Louis and Charlotte in exile, wondering who the queen would be without her jewels, and why Harry and Meghan should have been the stars. It's perfectly obvious this is about Harry and Meghan bitterness and not rooted in actual fact about the future of the royal family. If Harry and Meghan can't be the stars then their fans want it all to go down in flames.

[Anonymous]

Can I just say the royals are idiots? Like...publicly acknowledging you want free serfs is a look. To garden for you no less, while your heir's heir looks for his 3rd 10-bedroom house to sit in.

Royal couple are scoping out facilities and homes amid a possible move to Berkshire
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1451926/prince-george-kate-middleton-prince-william-berkshire-school

[Anonymous]

Not to mention the fact their regular servants are paid less than minimum wage and the ones who would be considered 'white collar' get paid half a salary that anyone in government or the private sector would. I remember reading once that the Queen's kitchen staff get paid 12,000 pounds a year to work in London and I just laughed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention the fact their regular servants are paid less than minimum wage and the ones who would be considered 'white collar' get paid half a salary that anyone in government or the private sector would. I remember reading once that the Queen's kitchen staff get paid 12,000 pounds a year to work in London and I just laughed.

Wow. This truly makes the royal family look terrible. Why on earth can’t they pay their staff a living wage?

This is sick. The whole institution is rotten to the core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention the fact their regular servants are paid less than minimum wage and the ones who would be considered 'white collar' get paid half a salary that anyone in government or the private sector would. I remember reading once that the Queen's kitchen staff get paid 12,000 pounds a year to work in London and I just laughed.

Wow. This truly makes the royal family look terrible. Why on earth can’t they pay their staff a living wage?

This is sick. The whole institution is rotten to the core.

I would not be surprised if UK Labour/Fair Wage laws don't apply for royal estates or jobs. I mean the BRF literally are not required by UK law to follow anti-discrimination hiring standards in regards to race and sex. So it stands to reason that they have been quietly opted out of pay requirements.

The documents also shed light on how Buckingham Palace negotiated controversial clauses – that remain in place to this day – exempting the Queen and her household from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jun/02/buckingham-palace-banned-ethnic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention the fact their regular servants are paid less than minimum wage and the ones who would be considered 'white collar' get paid half a salary that anyone in government or the private sector would. I remember reading once that the Queen's kitchen staff get paid 12,000 pounds a year to work in London and I just laughed.

Wow. This truly makes the royal family look terrible. Why on earth can’t they pay their staff a living wage?

This is sick. The whole institution is rotten to the core.

Were you all born yesterday? A royal job on the CV can lead to better oppportunities down the road for many of these people. Does it say that they are being press-ganged into service? Look at Diana’s butler now. SMH at Meghan’s stans.