Oh Dear, Now The Queen can't learn to stick to a budget

Royal Estate Overspend Leaves £50m Repair Bill
Overspending leaves Royal cash reserves at an all-time low and a backlog of repairs at buildings including Buckingham Palace.

Financial mismanagement within the Royal household is putting the future of some of our finest buildings at risk, according to the parliamentary watchdog responsible for scrutinising Royal finances.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) believes over a third of the Royal estate, which includes both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, is in disrepair and has put the cost of fixing it at around £50m.

Margaret Hodge MP, who chairs the committee, told Sky News: "Forty per cent of it needs something doing to it.

"The boilers at Buckingham Palace haven't been replaced for 60 years.

"Windsor Castle has problems with the bedrooms and the Royal Picture Gallery has buckets to catch the water coming through."

It is the first time that Parliament has scrutinised the Sovereign Grant given to the Queen to support her public duties.

Since the Civil List was abolished in 2013, the Royal household has been given a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate and is meant to be more accountable to the taxpayer.

But the committee has criticised the household for spending over its means.

According to the committee report, in 2012/13 it received £31m from the taxpayer, but spent £33.3m, raiding its reserves.

That has left a contingency of only £1m - a historic low - with no plan drawn up to pay for the backlog of repairs.

The report demands that the household "must get a much firmer grip on how it plans to address its maintenance backlog", adding "it has not even costed the repair work".

It also calls on the Palace to do more with less.

In a financial climate where many public institutions have had to make dramatic cuts the Royal household has only managed to reduce its expenditure by 5% in the last six years.
The Queen And The Duke Of Edinburgh Visit Manchester The Queen receives the Sovereign Grant to support her public duties

The committee believes there is scope to generate more income and reduce costs - possibly by opening Buckingham Palace to the public for more than just one month a year.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "The Royal household was charged by the PAC in 2009 to generate more income to supplement the funding it receives from Government.

"This has been done successfully. In 2012-13 the household generated £11.6m in comparison with £6.7m in 2007-8. Work on income generation continues.

"A significant financial priority for the Royal household is to reduce the backlog in essential maintenance across the occupied Royal palaces.

"Recent examples of work include the renewal of a lead roof over the royal library at Windsor and the removal of asbestos from the basement of Buckingham Palace."

http://news.sky.com/story/1202049/royal-estate-overspend-leaves-50m-repair-bill

Now come on Queenie, this just ain't good enough, you have a duty to look after those buildings for the nation, and after all, you are given enough dosh.   And there you were the other day, advertising for someone to run the Royal baths.   It's just not good enough you know, people who get their benefits taken and have no money are chastised for being profligate when they have to use food banks.   Now Queenie, you really need to set an example.   Put your own toothpaste on your toothbrush and run your own bath FGS!!!!!! Because we all know who will end up coughing up for this, don't we!

Put Camila on the game.... no wait a minute we need to make money.

Sassy wrote:Royal Estate Overspend Leaves £50m Repair Bill
Overspending leaves Royal cash reserves at an all-time low and a backlog of repairs at buildings including Buckingham Palace.

Financial mismanagement within the Royal household is putting the future of some of our finest buildings at risk, according to the parliamentary watchdog responsible for scrutinising Royal finances.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) believes over a third of the Royal estate, which includes both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, is in disrepair and has put the cost of fixing it at around £50m.

Margaret Hodge MP, who chairs the committee, told Sky News: "Forty per cent of it needs something doing to it.

"The boilers at Buckingham Palace haven't been replaced for 60 years.

"Windsor Castle has problems with the bedrooms and the Royal Picture Gallery has buckets to catch the water coming through."

It is the first time that Parliament has scrutinised the Sovereign Grant given to the Queen to support her public duties.

Since the Civil List was abolished in 2013, the Royal household has been given a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate and is meant to be more accountable to the taxpayer.

But the committee has criticised the household for spending over its means.

According to the committee report, in 2012/13 it received £31m from the taxpayer, but spent £33.3m, raiding its reserves.

That has left a contingency of only £1m - a historic low - with no plan drawn up to pay for the backlog of repairs.

The report demands that the household "must get a much firmer grip on how it plans to address its maintenance backlog", adding "it has not even costed the repair work".

It also calls on the Palace to do more with less.

In a financial climate where many public institutions have had to make dramatic cuts the Royal household has only managed to reduce its expenditure by 5% in the last six years.
The Queen And The Duke Of Edinburgh Visit Manchester The Queen receives the Sovereign Grant to support her public duties

The committee believes there is scope to generate more income and reduce costs - possibly by opening Buckingham Palace to the public for more than just one month a year.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "The Royal household was charged by the PAC in 2009 to generate more income to supplement the funding it receives from Government.

"This has been done successfully. In 2012-13 the household generated £11.6m in comparison with £6.7m in 2007-8. Work on income generation continues.

"A significant financial priority for the Royal household is to reduce the backlog in essential maintenance across the occupied Royal palaces.

"Recent examples of work include the renewal of a lead roof over the royal library at Windsor and the removal of asbestos from the basement of Buckingham Palace."

http://news.sky.com/story/1202049/royal-estate-overspend-leaves-50m-repair-bill

Now come on Queenie, this just ain't good enough, you have a duty to look after those buildings for the nation, and after all, you are given enough dosh.   And there you were the other day, advertising for someone to run the Royal baths.   It's just not good enough you know, people who get their benefits taken and have no money are chastised for being profligate when they have to use food banks.   Now Queenie, you really need to set an example.   Put your own toothpaste on your toothbrush and run your own bath FGS!!!!!!   Because we all know who will end up coughing up for this, don't we!

Sell Balmoral!

Give it back to the Scots!

    

Has Phil, Liz, Andy, Charlie and Anne been to see ATOS yet. The receive our money to not work so should treated like everyone else.

Warren Moon wrote:Has Phil, Liz, Andy, Charlie and Anne been to see ATOS yet.  The receive our money to not work so should treated like everyone else.

Don't forget the Bedroom Tax.

Irn Bru wrote:

Warren Moon wrote:Has Phil, Liz, Andy, Charlie and Anne been to see ATOS yet.  The receive our money to not work so should treated like everyone else.

Don't forget the Bedroom Tax.

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Christ, she'd end up paying us lol

Sassy wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Don't forget the Bedroom Tax.

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Christ, she'd end up paying us lol

75 bedrooms at the palace!

So much for austerity.  ://?roflmao?/: 

 

SINCE WHEN has the Queen ever had to pay any bills...

ALL it will take is for one of Chukka's royal hangers-on ("By appointment..") to send off a cheque..

    >>     >>   

:D 

THOSE long gone "founding fathers" who decided to establish England's capital city on a mosquito-ridden riverside market town weren't exactly doing their citizenry any favours, either...

ESPECIALLY not when they somehow, in their collective wisdom, then elected to build such public accoutrements as Buckingham Palace, your buildings of Parliament, and a couple of Cathedrals, on to a foundation of constantly shifting and sinking MUD..

THEREBY ensuring that the British public will be forever paying for the never-ending repair, maintenance and upkeep of those public treasures for thousands of years to come !  ::dunno:: 

Ahhh...the Palace at Pimlico. Drafty old place, too.

Ah, Pimlico:

At Pimlico's heart is a highly disciplined grid of residential streets laid down by the planner Thomas Cubitt beginning in 1825 and now protected as the Pimlico Conservation Area. Pimlico is also home to the pre-World War II Dolphin Square development and the pioneering Churchill Gardens and Lillington and Longmoore Gardens estates, now designated conservation areas in their own right. The area has over 350 Grade II listed buildings and several Grade II* listed Churches.

Notable residents have included politician Winston Churchill, designer Laura Ashley, philosopher Swami Vivekananda, actor Laurence Olivier, illustrator and author Aubrey Beardsley, Kenyan nationalist Jomo Kenyatta and inventor of lawn tennis Major Walter Wingfield.

They are wonderful buildings, bring in thousands of tourists and should receive all the money that is needed.

As for those who say the buildings will still be there, get rid of the Royal Family - that wouldn't work. People come here because of the Royals, not because of the buildings.

If they are allowed to stay, then they had better learn to run their own baths!

I agree with Andy on this, the Royals are currently England's biggest cultural export, and undoubtable bring many tourists. I think people would still come to see the buildings but more will come with a reigning monarch.     

As a history buff I hope you keep them in good repair either way, Imagine if some of the ancient empires monuments/palaces had been kept in good condition....      

People are flippin weird, putting other people on pedestals, thinking they are better than anyone else and flocking to see them like going to the zoo.

veya_victaous wrote:I agree with Andy on this, the Royals are currently England's biggest cultural export, and undoubtable bring many tourists. I think people would still come to see the buildings but more will come with a reigning monarch.     

As a history buff I hope you keep them in good repair either way, Imagine if some of the ancient empires monuments/palaces had been kept in good condition....      

The one thing people hope for when they go to Buckingham Palace is that they get a glimpse of a Royal, their car rushing past them or the changing of the guard.

Very few people go to see our museums or stately homes.

They do however do well in school visits...

Sassy wrote:Royal Estate Overspend Leaves £50m Repair Bill
Overspending leaves Royal cash reserves at an all-time low and a backlog of repairs at buildings including Buckingham Palace.

Financial mismanagement within the Royal household is putting the future of some of our finest buildings at risk, according to the parliamentary watchdog responsible for scrutinising Royal finances.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) believes over a third of the Royal estate, which includes both Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, is in disrepair and has put the cost of fixing it at around £50m.

Margaret Hodge MP, who chairs the committee, told Sky News: "Forty per cent of it needs something doing to it.

"The boilers at Buckingham Palace haven't been replaced for 60 years.

"Windsor Castle has problems with the bedrooms and the Royal Picture Gallery has buckets to catch the water coming through."

It is the first time that Parliament has scrutinised the Sovereign Grant given to the Queen to support her public duties.

Since the Civil List was abolished in 2013, the Royal household has been given a percentage of revenue from the Crown Estate and is meant to be more accountable to the taxpayer.

But the committee has criticised the household for spending over its means.

According to the committee report, in 2012/13 it received £31m from the taxpayer, but spent £33.3m, raiding its reserves.

That has left a contingency of only £1m - a historic low - with no plan drawn up to pay for the backlog of repairs.

The report demands that the household "must get a much firmer grip on how it plans to address its maintenance backlog", adding "it has not even costed the repair work".

It also calls on the Palace to do more with less.

In a financial climate where many public institutions have had to make dramatic cuts the Royal household has only managed to reduce its expenditure by 5% in the last six years.
The Queen And The Duke Of Edinburgh Visit Manchester The Queen receives the Sovereign Grant to support her public duties

The committee believes there is scope to generate more income and reduce costs - possibly by opening Buckingham Palace to the public for more than just one month a year.

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: "The Royal household was charged by the PAC in 2009 to generate more income to supplement the funding it receives from Government.

"This has been done successfully. In 2012-13 the household generated £11.6m in comparison with £6.7m in 2007-8. Work on income generation continues.

"A significant financial priority for the Royal household is to reduce the backlog in essential maintenance across the occupied Royal palaces.

"Recent examples of work include the renewal of a lead roof over the royal library at Windsor and the removal of asbestos from the basement of Buckingham Palace."

http://news.sky.com/story/1202049/royal-estate-overspend-leaves-50m-repair-bill

Now come on Queenie, this just ain't good enough, you have a duty to look after those buildings for the nation, and after all, you are given enough dosh.   And there you were the other day, advertising for someone to run the Royal baths.   It's just not good enough you know, people who get their benefits taken and have no money are chastised for being profligate when they have to use food banks.   Now Queenie, you really need to set an example.   Put your own toothpaste on your toothbrush and run your own bath FGS!!!!!!   Because we all know who will end up coughing up for this, don't we!

I cannot think of anyone in the modern era who has conducted themselves with such dignity, respect and duty as our Queenie, god bless her,,,, she's worth every penny!

scrat?

Do you love me and everything I say?

BigAndy9 wrote:scrat?

Do you love me and everything I say?

Yes, Andy chap! Just put it in my mouth,,,,,no I'm not put off by the cheese!

scrat wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:scrat?

Do you love me and everything I say?

Yes, Andy chap! Just put it in my mouth,,,,,no I'm not put off by the cheese!

I like this scrat.

Maybe he's got a job or something and realised it's hard, working.

BigAndy9 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I agree with Andy on this, the Royals are currently England's biggest cultural export, and undoubtable bring many tourists. I think people would still come to see the buildings but more will come with a reigning monarch.     

As a history buff I hope you keep them in good repair either way, Imagine if some of the ancient empires monuments/palaces had been kept in good condition....      

The one thing people hope for when they go to Buckingham Palace is that they get a glimpse of a Royal, their car rushing past them or the changing of the guard.

Very few people go to see our museums or stately homes.

They do however do well in school visits...

Tourists do visit the Museums          not sure about the stately homes, but many people report the London Museums to be worth the visit alone... But a 'vivid' history it one thing we lack in Australia.... and you and the French stole heaps of other peoples too    But at least it is protected.


AND
 :-:cawg:-:  :-:cawg:-:  :-:cawg:-:  :-:cawg:-:  :-:cawg:-:  you and scrat had me laughing

Sassy wrote:If they are allowed to stay, then they had better learn to run their own baths!

...and not get out to have a pee!   

They would have to run their own baths if Sassy stayed she would be unable to operate the taps.

Anyone knows a lefty can't run a bath.

As for the Queen she is a priceless asset to this country those who thin otherwise are deluded. She will more than cover the cost in tourism alone and given we would have to have state banquets when visiting heads of state come here she is probably a good deal less expensive than a President.

Remove some costs for her duties as Head of State which would be borne by the foreign office factor in her contribution to tourism an all the extra revenue that brings even a staunch bitter lefty republican couldn't find fault with the figures.

Finally as to the Palaces these are extremely costly buildings. The Scots spent hundreds of millions on Holyrood yet we begrudge anything to maintain these buildings with considerable heritage. If it s a govt office down he road expense isn't spared be real.

Irn Bru wrote:

Warren Moon wrote:Has Phil, Liz, Andy, Charlie and Anne been to see ATOS yet.  The receive our money to not work so should treated like everyone else.

Don't forget the Bedroom Tax.

Why would the Queen need to pay Bedroom Tax?

Interested to see how you figure that out


Bless the Queen, the Royal family is something may of the world is very envious of, it is something to be very proud of our Royal family

This is one where I side with veya and the RW'ers.  Of course, as a teacher of history, I would.  I love the Palace at Pimlico because I once read a history of it, Edna Healey, The Queen's House: A social History of Buckingham Palace (1997).  Great read...and I grew quite fond of the place.

But logically, sassy makes a good point.  If you can't afford benefits and help for your people, you shouldn't be shelling out for glass slippers and such.

@quill
I think they have plenty of other places they can find cuts too.

Actually the Royals would be more profitable (for themselves) if they didn't do so much for charities. Kate and Will have copyrighted their image and things like that can bring in serious money BUT they are donating it to Charity. You can’t say that is a bad thing but maybe they do need to put more aside to cover the maintenance        

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Warren Moon wrote:Has Phil, Liz, Andy, Charlie and Anne been to see ATOS yet.  The receive our money to not work so should treated like everyone else.

Don't forget the Bedroom Tax.

Why would the Queen need to pay Bedroom Tax?

Interested to see how you figure that out


Bless the Queen, the Royal family is something may of the world is very envious of, it is something to be very proud of our Royal family

Ok, call it under occupancy supplement then. She can't sleep in all of them can she?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Why would the Queen need to pay Bedroom Tax?

Interested to see how you figure that out


Bless the Queen, the Royal family is something may of the world is very envious of, it is something to be very proud of our Royal family

Ok, call it under occupancy supplement then. She can't sleep in all of them can she?

Again why?

Because she is getting our taxes, and if it applies to everyone else getting benefits (because what she gets is a very large benefit) then it should apply to her as well. Expecially when she advertises for people to run the baths, who are going to be paid with that money as well.

[quote="Sassy"]Because she is getting our taxes, and if it applies to everyone else getting benefits (because what she gets is a very large benefit) then it should apply to her as well.   Expecially when she advertises for people to run the baths, who are going to be paid with that money as well.[/quote


So are other people getting the benefit, she does a job, which brings in mass revenue, being our Queen not only to our nation but others.
So you may be unpatriotic and you are very much a minority with your views here, but that did not answer my question

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Because she is getting our taxes, and if it applies to everyone else getting benefits (because what she gets is a very large benefit) then it should apply to her as well.   Expecially when she advertises for people to run the baths, who are going to be paid with that money as well.[/quote


So are other people getting the benefit, she does a job, which brings in mass revenue, being our Queen not only to our nation but others.
So you may be unpatriotic and you are very much a minority with your views here, but that did not answer my question

Didge, I have every respect for the Queen but others in our society also work and are expected to pay the Bedroom Tax.

And anyway, she can well afford it and it would no doubt set a very good example to the nation.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Didge, I have every respect for the Queen but others in our society also work and are expected to pay the Bedroom Tax.

And anyway, she can well afford it and it would no doubt set a very good example to the nation.

And?

I do not see many people complaining do you Irn?

She does much for our nation and is the finest ambassador you could ask for.

Worth every penny

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:Because she is getting our taxes, and if it applies to everyone else getting benefits (because what she gets is a very large benefit) then it should apply to her as well.   Expecially when she advertises for people to run the baths, who are going to be paid with that money as well.[/quote


So are other people getting the benefit, she does a job, which brings in mass revenue, being our Queen not only to our nation but others.
So you may be unpatriotic and you are very much a minority with your views here, but that did not answer my question

I think that the worm is starting to turn, and many in work, and on middle incomes, can now see that the Royals aren't worth the cash.

Time for revolution.

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:


Didge, I have every respect for the Queen but others in our society also work and are expected to pay the Bedroom Tax.

And anyway, she can well afford it and it would no doubt set a very good example to the nation.

And?

I do not see many people complaining do you Irn?

She does much for our nation and is the finest ambassador you could ask for.

Worth every penny

That is not in dispute Didge but the Bedroom Tax is the Bedroom Tax and if it is to apply to everyone who lives in houses that have more bedrooms than they need then she should pay as well. It's only fair on those that are having to pay it and as I say it would show a good example to the nation.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


And?

I do not see many people complaining do you Irn?

She does much for our nation and is the finest ambassador you could ask for.

Worth every penny

That is not in dispute Didge but the Bedroom Tax is the Bedroom Tax and if it is to apply to everyone who lives in houses that have more bedrooms than they need then she should pay as well. It's only fair on those that are having to pay it and as I say it would show a good example to the nation.

Again the bedroom tax would not apply to her for one simple reason, she is not on housing benefit, not seen the queen down the dole office lately, have you, as well as owning most of the properties.
The queen gives plenty and with much to charity also, sorry, not going to agree here Irn, as happy that she gives plenty for her role

Catman wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

I think that the worm is starting to turn, and many in work, and on middle incomes, can now see that the Royals aren't worth the cash.

Time for revolution.

Seems you are committing treason:

  


Calling for abolition of monarchy is still illegal, UK justice ministry admits
Department wrongly announced that section of law threatening people with life imprisonment had been repealed


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


And?

I do not see many people complaining do you Irn?

She does much for our nation and is the finest ambassador you could ask for.

Worth every penny

That is not in dispute Didge but the Bedroom Tax is the Bedroom Tax and if it is to apply to everyone who lives in houses that have more bedrooms than they need then she should pay as well. It's only fair on those that are having to pay it and as I say it would show a good example to the nation.

Again the bedroom tax would not apply to her for one simple reason, she is not on housing benefit, not seen the queen down the dole office lately, have you, as well as owning most of the properties.
The queen gives plenty and with much to charity also, sorry, not going to agree here Irn, as happy that she gives plenty for her role  

I don't think you have to be on benefits to pay the Bedroom Tax Didge. And she doesn't own the properties. They belong to the nation as part of the Crown Estates. Let's call them a housing association

Of course the Queen gives plenty to charity but it's not her money is it?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Again the bedroom tax would not apply to her for one simple reason, she is not on housing benefit, not seen the queen down the dole office lately, have you, as well as owning most of the properties.
The queen gives plenty and with much to charity also, sorry, not going to agree here Irn, as happy that she gives plenty for her role  

I don't think you have to be on benefits to pay the Bedroom Tax Didge. And she doesn't own the properties. They belong to the nation as part of the Crown Estates. Let's call them a housing association

Of course the Queen gives plenty to charity but it's not her money is it?

From April 2013, the Government is introducing new rules to restrict the amount of benefit you can claim for each bedroom, if you are renting your home. The amount you can claim will be based on the number of people in your household.

If you have one 'spare' bedroom your housing benefit will be cut by 14% of the rent you pay every week. If you have two or more spare bedrooms, you will lose 25%.

http://www.a2dominion.co.uk/rte.asp?id=1734

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:

Again the bedroom tax would not apply to her for one simple reason, she is not on housing benefit, not seen the queen down the dole office lately, have you, as well as owning most of the properties.
The queen gives plenty and with much to charity also, sorry, not going to agree here Irn, as happy that she gives plenty for her role  

I don't think you have to be on benefits to pay the Bedroom Tax Didge. And she doesn't own the properties. They belong to the nation as part of the Crown Estates. Let's call them a housing association

Of course the Queen gives plenty to charity but it's not her money is it?

From April 2013, the Government is introducing new rules to restrict the amount of benefit you can claim for each bedroom, if you are renting your home. The amount you can claim will be based on the number of people in your household.

If you have one 'spare' bedroom your housing benefit will be cut by 14% of the rent you pay every week. If you have two or more spare bedrooms, you will lose 25%.

http://www.a2dominion.co.uk/rte.asp?id=1734

But if the person paying the rent hasn't claimed housing benefit how does that work?

She gets more benefit than anyone.

Sassy wrote:She gets more benefit than anyone.  

Do you know how much the Queen pays back to the treasury?

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:




From April 2013, the Government is introducing new rules to restrict the amount of benefit you can claim for each bedroom, if you are renting your home. The amount you can claim will be based on the number of people in your household.

If you have one 'spare' bedroom your housing benefit will be cut by 14% of the rent you pay every week. If you have two or more spare bedrooms, you will lose 25%.

http://www.a2dominion.co.uk/rte.asp?id=1734

But if the person paying the rent hasn't claimed housing benefit how does that work?

No idea, this is about people on housing benefit

PhilDidge wrote:

Sassy wrote:She gets more benefit than anyone.  

Do you know how much the Queen pays back to the treasury?

It's the principle of the thing Didge. She has more bedrooms than she needs and it would only be right to show an example to the nation, especially pensioners like herself who are suffering because of this tax.

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Do you know how much the Queen pays back to the treasury?

It's the principle of the thing Didge. She has more bedrooms than she needs and it would only be right to show an example to the nation, especially pensioners like herself who are suffering because of this tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

PhilDidge wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


Do you know how much the Queen pays back to the treasury?

It's the principle of the thing Didge. She has more bedrooms than she needs and it would only be right to show an example to the nation, especially pensioners like herself who are suffering because of this tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

From the link...

the Crown Estate is not the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him or her

PhilDidge wrote:

Catman wrote:


I think that the worm is starting to turn, and many in work, and on middle incomes, can now see that the Royals aren't worth the cash.

Time for revolution.

Seems you are committing treason:

  


Calling for abolition of monarchy is still illegal, UK justice ministry admits
Department wrongly announced that section of law threatening people with life imprisonment had been repealed


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/13/calling-abolition-monarchy-illegal-uk-justice-ministry

Cry me a fucking river!

I think that we need a revolution in this country!

Irn Bru wrote:

PhilDidge wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

From the link...

the Crown Estate is not the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him or her

But as seen makes plenty of money does it not Irn, come on mate you are really stretching things now, and she actually pays back into the tresury

Anyway Irn have a good evening!

And a good evening to all

PhilDidge wrote:Anyway Irn have a good evening!

And a good evening to all

Ok Didge. Cya tomorrow.