King Charles' monarchy gets a $60M pay rise as the U.K. grapples with a cost of living crisis

😂😂😂 Silly Brits, how's your economy doing? 😂😂😂

Absolutely shameful, for a Labour government.

Charles doesn't get any dollars and the money is used to fund the head of state, maintain state properties and employ hundreds of people, it doesn't go to Charles personally.

Off-shore wind farms are doing great, r1, hence the rising profits from the Crown Estate.

R2's another one who doesn't know what the fuck he's on about.

$475 million to "refurbish" Buckingham Palace? That sounds like a stupid expense considering the state of the country, but I'm sure R3 can defend that as well.

It seems to me that if half a billion dollars is going toward gussying up the palace where the king lives part of the time (when not flouncing to some other palace or castle), then yes, the money is indirectly going to Charles. Who else lives in Buckingham Palace but him and his gorgeous wife, and their servants and other retainers?

Nice.

Did Charles ever formally move from of Clarence House to Buckingham Palace? None of the family really like living at BP.

If the family "doesn't like" BP, why the bloody fuck are they spending a half-billion dollars to refurbish it?

Image what half-billion would do if it was given to the commoners instead of the king's palace.

R2, the head of the Labour party is a Blairite globalist puppy with ties to the MI6, who deliberately targeted Julian Assange while he was the Director of Public Prosecutions and sabotaged the investigation into Jimmy Saville's decades of child abuse due to that evil bastard's tied to the royal family.

Starmer is a blander, less charismatic and more mediocre Tony Blair and he has already reneged on most of his electoral promises: increase tax for the rich, the abolition of tuition fees, nationalizing basic services (public transport, mail, energy and water), supporting poor families, removing the tax exempt charity status for public schools, support for Palestine, the Green Prosperity Plan, abolishing the awful Universal Credit system... Shall I continue? He is a corporate and 1% puppet and he's only won the premiership because everyone is tired of the Tories' scandalous and shameless corruption.

As for the Windsors, they have a spectacular fortune of their own. Why should taxpayers have to share the burden of the royals' lavish lifestyles, when they could use their own money to pay for what they want? Charles is rumoured to have a personal 2 billion fortune, so he could EASILY afford to pay for most things. It's outrageous that they are being given even more money at a time when 4.2 million children suffer from food insecurity in the UK.

Time to DUMP the monarchy.

No doubt they’ll all resign in shame tonight because DL has spoken.

Not at all, R12. We all know the Brits love their grifting royals and will always support them.

I think they're burying the lede, as the kids say:

[quote]The Sovereign Grant is funded by the taxpayer in exchange for the king’s surrender of the revenue from the Crown Estate.

This is very poorly written. No, British taxpayers aren't "paying for" the royals to live a lavish lifestyle on their dime. The Crown Estate *already* contributes over $1 billion into British coffers; the Windsors merely extract a percentage – of money THEY generated in the first place, mind you – to cover their expenses.

And you bitches are seriously whining about renovating one of the most historically significant buildings on the planet? Again, it's *not* because King Charles is some sort of spendthrift. It's a draughty old pile, and has a fuckload of deferred maintenance that the late queen never got around to repairing. Charles & Camilla are rarely there, and if anything they may be planning to open up more of the castle to the general public, meaning they can further recoup the investment via charging higher admission prices.

[quote] one of the most historically significant buildings on the planet

Sure, R14, it's right up there with the Taj Mahal. A birt ironic, that the "most historically significant buildings on the planet" is such a dump that not even the royals want to spend time in it, but yet a half-billion dollars should go to sprucing it up.

The whole thing is absurd, but keep fucking that chicken that this is not an extravagant waste of money thrown at this family.

OP and R1 through R6 are all the usual uninformed idiots who reflexively opt for an insincere social-warrior stance even though they demand full value from their governments for themselves and never actually do anything for anyone else.

If one wishes to change a fixed national structure and the processes by which it is sustained, doing something may be a better start than scrawling one's poop with lazy fingers around the DL. It indicates too explicitly what substance such people use for their wallowing.

The First Baptist Church of Houston (Texas) has spent over $500 million on their "worship center" (aka fundraising, entertainment, corporate and other facilities) in recent times. Howl at that, rather than the costs of maintaining historical structures, art treasures, legacy trades and crafts. gardens and supportive ventures. The monarchy provides superb returns on its investments. Recognize if someone is called a king the circumstances are not going to lean towards a wee caravan parked off the road outside Inverness and the throne residing in the portable loo where the ground is always soggy.

[quote] The First Baptist Church of Houston (Texas) has spent over $500 million on their "worship center" (aka fundraising, entertainment, corporate and other facilities) in recent times.

The American taxpayers are not footing the bill for it, R16.

[quote] The monarchy provides superb returns on its investments.

Always the excuse--and the only one ever offered.

Welfare queens!

The "superb return" seems to be the one the royals are getting from their "subjects." What does it say about a country in which its figurehead advertises himself/herself as essentially better than the rest of their own people, where they swan about in huge, jewel-encrusted crowns and tiaras in gold carriages, flounce from one palace or castle to another, all while making personal appearances and signing onto their favorite charities?

It's a good racket they've managed to keep going all these hundreds of years.

Well they are cheaper than the Pentagon, as far as burning tax money goes.

You can dump the monarchy, but BP will still need maintenance.

The monarchy has been obsolete since Betty was crowned, BUT it is the focal point of all British Tourism.

British tourism is a major UK Industry.

Does that church pay taxes r17?

Oh, and I forgot--their "subjects" are expected to bow and curtsy to them. All because the royals are just better than the common folk.

Absurd. No amount of attempting to justify them makes it any less so.

I guess the Baptist church in Texas and the Windsors have something in common, R23.

Yeah, both full of queens.

[quote] the Windsors merely extract a percentage – of money THEY generated in the first place, mind you – to cover their expenses.

The Windors are not responsible for the earnings of the crown estate. The estate belongs to the public and is run by independent managers.

Don't allow a red pence to go to Markle.

Does that palace not bring in enough in admission fees to fund building maintenance?

The palace requires entirely new guts—electric, plumbing, HVAC. But half a billion? They could tear it down and build something better for that. It’s got some history, but it’s not architecturally distinguished. The royals don’t even like it.

A bunch of Americans banging on about a subject about which they know nothing? What a shocker.

R4, Buckingham Palace is a state building, it's where the head of state welcomes foreign signatories, e.g. state dinners for visiting heads of state, and is also used for events to honour British and Commonwealth citizens who are being honoured for their work. It employs many people and also has exhibition rooms. The public can visit parts of it.

Moreover, the taxpayer is paying nothing for any of this, or only a tiny fraction, because even the bit that comes from the Sovereign Grant is ultimately recycled from the Crown Estate.

The idea that taxpayers are paying nothing is a fallacy. The crown estate belongs to the people. It is inherited by the monarch as the embodiment of the state, not in his personal capacity. Its income could be used for other purposes. Indeed, it could be sold.

It says our country has a long history, r20, and the Crown embodies the state (a concept I am aware you fail to grasp). That's all it says. We like our opening of parliament ceremonies and we like our King's Speech. They help to keep our political culture civilised. What do all the horrendous things that happen in American politics say about the American people? How about all the billionaire donors who think they own political parities and universities and can dictate what they do - and that's just talking about Democrats and supposedly progressive institutions. The country where wealth and power corrupt social and political life, where wealth inequalities are extreme, where social exclusion is rife is the US, not the UK.

Americans talking about a country they only know from watching The Crown is always hilarious.

That’s RICH, R34. You are a true patriot. The snobs of the US are worse than the UK’s?

If you're genuinely interested in the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace you can read about the work to be done and costs at link.

The website for the reservicing of Buckingham Palace, outlining the various works that will be done.

The palace hasn't been properly maintained since the 1940s. It is a Grade I listed building. That dictates how the work gets done. It was full of asbestos and rubber encased wiring.

Seems short sighted R33. If you've got assets generating a billion a year, why sell those assets? Other than to satisfy your Jacobin crankiness.

Eugh, the report clearly states that the monarch relinquishes 88% of the profits their estates earn each year to the Government. What they receive in return is a fraction of that and has only risen so much due to record returns from said estates.

Typical of the media to make it seem they are randomly getting a huge handout.

It's like you giving over your earnings to your mom and your pocket money increases because your salary went up.

R34–Your condescending assumption that r20 and other critics don’t understand the purpose of the monarchy is likely wrong. It’s not hard to grasp at all. However, there are alternative means of embodying a non-political head of state that do not involve elevating a single family above all others and ensconcing them in a life of luxury and privilege.

R40–if you sell assets generating a billion a year, you are paid a multiple of that income and the proceeds can be used to fund public needs. The crown estate is a historical anachronism. The government does not need to be in the business of owning real estate and jewels and whatever else the royals had accumulated at public expense over the centuries.

Frankly, the display of wealth and glitter appropriate for a global empire by a small, relatively poor country seems a bit sad.

The crown estates are not the property of the Windsor family. They are not “relinquishing” anything. They are taking.

There aren’t even any hot princes. Low entertainment value!

R33 wrong. Crown Estates belongs to whoever is currently Monarch "In Right Of The Crown", not by the people. It cannot be sold.

[quote] We like our opening of parliament ceremonies and we like our King's Speech. They help to keep our political culture civilised.

Do you know what a Mary you sound like, R34?

[quote] The country where wealth and power corrupt social and political life, where wealth inequalities are extreme, where social exclusion is rife is the US, not the UK.

Really, R34? The UK has sold a vast amount in London to Russian oligarchs, and if you want to talk corruption, while the US had Trump, you've had Bojo and your own clown show of revolving PMs.

And what R32/R33 are describing sounds like nothing less than a shell game of moving money around, three-card monte style, and lo and behold, it still always benefits the royals.

R43 who owns them then, smartass? It's property of the Crown (Monarchy). If the RF was abolished peacefully the estates would recert to their personal ownership. Look it up

[quote] Imagine what half-billion would do if it was given to the commoners instead of the king's palace.

$475 million divided among 67 million people in the UK would be like $7.08 per person.

Two years ago, a Full English Breakfast cost £6.90 at Kathy's Cafe on EastEnders (that would be about $8.90).

*The UK has sold a vast amount of real estate in London to Russian oligarchs

R48 prices 'av gone up love, after some tit burned down my caff!

The crown estate is owned by the monarch as an embodiment of the state, not as an individual. That is, in effect, public property. Do you suppose if the monarchy were abolished, the crown estates would be kept by the Windsors? No.

[quote] The crown estate is owned by the monarch as an embodiment of the state, not as an individual.

But who gets to live there, R51? The monarch.

The crown estate sounds like it should be a time-share--the king gets it a few months, and then the "state" gets it the rest of the time.

More diamonds and rubies and sapphires for me!

Not to mention BIG emeralds!

The crown estate is a huge portfolio of assets, including a big chunk of London. Lots of people live on its properties.

How old are the Brits on this thread? Younger? Older?

The "Royals" is such a stupid, archaic concept. Kick them all to the curb and be done with your stupid tradition.

I guess the UK feels it now claim a moral superiority after having invaded virtually every country on the earth, has stolen and plundered for millennia, ending in decaying splendor in India, before becoming what it is today.

So in other words, the Royal Family is the last vestige of the good old days.

Considering how often one of you trots out “we fought a war to get rid of the monarchy” in these discussions, it has always puzzled me how many of you feel the need to get involved in these threads about the BRF.

It’s almost as if you can’t let go.

Well, R60, we're not taking the side of the monarchy here, are we?

I'd say the people who can't let go are the people who still have a king.

Crown Estates do not belong to the state.

Actually, we fought a war to get rid of the lot of you. George III was just a symbol.

[quote] Crown Estates do not belong to the state.

They pretty much do. There’s an elaborate legal fiction and a sui generous legal status, but that’s just camouflage necessary to get the royal family to consent without the need for anything unseemly.

And then you came back in 1812 because you just couldn't quit us, R63.

[quote] They pretty much do. There’s an elaborate legal fiction and a sui generous legal status, but that’s just camouflage necessary to get the royal family to consent without the need for anything unseemly.

Yeah--a shell game.

How did the US “come back” in 1812? You tried to bully us and we repelled you.

R64 legally they do not. Of course the Monarchy was compelled to turn over most if its profits to the state but that doesn't mean the state has ownership

The state has ownership when push comes to shove.

R67, I was joking--I meant "They came back in 1812," meaning our dear British ex-overlords.

“The Crown” has a lot to answer for.

The titled aristocracy are the scum of the Earth.

I'm just glad that we could give you, dear UK, a second opportunistic American divorcee to seduce the dim bulbs in your stupid royal family and cause chaos.

Those in favour of a monarchy, sit on the right side of the room. Those in favour of a republic -even if that means electing a convicted felon- may sit on the left.

Hissing is allowed, discussing and fighting is not, as you'll never get to agree on anything anyway.

From the Atlantic article in r6:

[Quote] After World War II, Britain’s economy grew slower than those of much of continental Europe. By the 1970s, the Brits were having a national debate about why they were falling behind and how the former empire had become a relatively insular and sleepy economy.

Gee I wonder why that happened? One of life’s great mysteries.

I’m sure it didn’t have a thing to do with the unceremonious collapse of the empire after the Japanese had walked all over the British in the East and showed the empire to be a paper tiger. Now with the war over and the British paupers, they might have to spend a fortune in money and lives to keep their ill-gotten gains and they just couldn’t do it, so bye bye empire, empire bye bye.

With all those raw materials looted from the third world now dried up, the UK became what it had been in the Middle Ages before the Hundred Years’ War — a dismal rainy island nation full of sheep and surly locals, which the French kings of the country couldn’t get away from fast enough.

That wasn’t it — must have been something else entirely. Socialism! Yes that’s it.

R3 still a HUGE waste of money. And the pure stupidity of the monarch in 2024 is actually hilarious. Brits are dumb

From the article:

"For years, Britain has been plagued by a spiraling cost-of-living crisis, with real wages flatlining for a decade, leaving the U.K.'s average salary at just £29,669, or $38,000, as prices for utilities and food have soared."

Yikes. At least the American economy is killing it.

England is the cause of so much of the worlds current problems. They deserve 500 years of hell. They’re hell began in the 70’s and were currently seeing the beginning of the end. And it’s glorious.

[Quote] They’re hell began in the 70’s

Oh dear.

[quote] The palace requires entirely new guts—electric, plumbing, HVAC. But half a billion? They could tear it down and build something better for that. It’s got some history, but it’s not architecturally distinguished. The royals don’t even like it.

Buckingham Palace hasn’t been renovated for many decades and it is the London home of the Head of State. These representative buildings cost a fortune, but no country tears them down and starts anew. The Palace of Westminster itself is at the start of a renovation process predicted to cost up to £22 billion and to last up to 76 years.

And the cost of The british heads of government and head of state pales into comparison compared to the cost of the US presidency. Airforce One alone costs over $5 billion dollars (for 2 planes), with running costs of over $200,000 dollars per flying hour. In 2018, Donald Trump spent $17million on travel costs in just 4 months.

Are the American people chumps too?

R80, how do you suggest the president and vice-president of the United States go all over the world?

When the Corporation has increasing profits, the stakeholders can, and should, expect to see their dividends increase to some measurement.

Air Force One is a mobile command center for an actual global empire. Buckingham Palace is a set for a pageant.

But my point was not that the British monarchy doesn’t need a grand set. It was this particular pike of stone is ugly and unloved and perhaps should have been torn down in favor of building something decent.

[quote] When the Corporation has increasing profits, the stakeholders can, and should, expect to see their dividends increase to some measurement.

Bad metaphor.

R78 being a perfect example of the level of discourse to be found on these threads.

Well done, R78! You’ve tapped into the DL zeitgeist!

Exactly, R84--the fact that the family is called "The Firm," and referred above as "stakeholders" in a "corporation," tells you all you need to know about the Royal Family.

Royal grifters.

How long until "We saved your asses in WW2!" makes an appearance?

It’s all his money and he’s morally entitled to take as much as he likes.

And meanwhile, read the article attached:

[quote]Councils spending half their budgets on homelessness as problem hits record high, damning report finds.

[quote]Local authorities are spending as much as half their budgets tackling the UK’s homelessness crisis in the UK, a damning new report has found. In 2022/23, £2.4 billion was been spent on homelessness services, more than twice the amount spent in 2010/11, including £1.6 billion on temporary accommodation alone. The huge sums are putting a massive strain on local authority finances, according to the report published by the National Audit Office (NAO) on Tuesday.

But of course, the royal family need and additional £60 million every year because, poor things, they need to refurbish their incredibly luxurious palace. Fucking unbelievable.

R90, the councils spend their money and the king spends his.

Nowhere, R88, though we know you like to cling to that.

Now, back to the Royal Grifters...

Drag is pricey luv.

R80 You thick culty dolts never comprehend the difference between an elected head of state and a scrounger accident of birth. Royalass make Trumptards seem brilliant.

[quote] we fought a war to get rid of the monarchy

No less than 20% the Colonists remained loyal to the king, while just over 30% were "Patriots." The greatest percentage were the undecided "fence sitters." .. And of course, France had something to do with fighting the war.

It’s not his money. It’s the Crown’s money. He wears the crown, he doesn’t own it.

But he's the only one allowed to wear the crown, R96--not the "owners."

Bloody hell even the Pope is elected.

For the Americans who replied on this thread (i.e. the majority of people who replied on this thread):

Why do you care?

and;

Why do you think that your opinion matters?

We can't have an opinion, R99? Where exactly do you think you are?

No one said any one opinion matters. Again, where exactly do you think you are?

R96 you must be a thick Brit. The Duchy of Cornwall is OWNED personally by Charlie Windsor. All revenue generated within it's borders goes into his bank account. Sill clot.

Actually, William is the Duke of Cornwall now. Charles owns the Duchy of Lancaster.

Neither Duchy is part of the Crown Estate

R100 Royalass think only those "born in our sacred realm" have any right to post an opinion on their " holy family". Hence their inane comeback "You must be American". They are the definition of doltish cultists.

Anyone who can balance a check book can see that the Sovereign Grant is nothing more than a money laundering scheme. The idea that these self indulgent grifters are "profitable" and "give back" more taxpayers money then they filch is hilarious.

In response to the non-American at r99:

Why do you care what Americans think?

and;

Why do you think that your opinion matters?

and;

Fuck off.

r99 is the infamous American-hating Troll. he always appears on BRF threads who is filled with venom and bile. He loves to put words in other people's mouths. Here are his posts on this thread so far--they are very typical of what he usually posts in these threadsw:

[quote]A bunch of Americans banging on about a subject about which they know nothing? What a shocker.

[quote]Considering how often one of you trots out “we fought a war to get rid of the monarchy” in these discussions, it has always puzzled me how many of you feel the need to get involved in these threads about the BRF.

[quote]It’s almost as if you can’t let go.

[quote]“The Crown” has a lot to answer for.

[quote]R78 being a perfect example of the level of discourse to be found on these threads.

[quote]Well done, R78! You’ve tapped into the DL zeitgeist!

[quote]How long until "We saved your asses in WW2!" makes an appearance?

[quote]For the Americans who replied on this thread (i.e. the majority of people who replied on this thread): Why do you care? and;Why do you think that your opinion matters?

Donald Trump. Mitch McConnell. Lindsay Graham. Richard Nixon. George Bush. Go fuck yourselves, you rank, rube hypocrites.

BoJo, R107. Thatcher. Jacob Rees-Mogg. Anyone can spout off the names of shit politicians.

Not again!

[quote] you rank, rube hypocrites.

You're not part of the Raj anymore, R107.

R106 Like American Trumpers Brit's have their Windsortards too. They are just as racist,ethnocentric and dumb. The lilly white British royal family personifies their version of make Great Britain Great Again.

Those ermine for coats don't pay for themselves, bitch

And they let BoJo lead them out of the EU.

Their deluded assumption that only "foreigners" or "communists" would dare question the "by the Grace of God" right of their cosplay clowns to exist ? How can a rational person look at this lot with a straight face much less pay for it?

British taxpayers paid for this one until recently. They probably still do.

R107 at least if we think we're not getting our monies worth we can trade out . You Brits get this and for life..

Fur coats damn you

[Quote] [R106] Like American Trumpers Brit's have their Windsortards too. They are just as racist,ethnocentric and dumb. The lilly white British royal family personifies their version of make Great Britain Great Again.

To be fair though the Brits don’t have rightwing extremism normalized in their government the way we do. The BNP is a fringe party. Meanwhile, it’s quite likely that Donald fucking Trump is going to be reelected president.

[quote] it’s quite likely that Donald fucking Trump is going to be reelected president.

No, it's not quite likely, R118. It's a possibility.

[Quote] For the Americans who replied on this thread (i.e. the majority of people who replied on this thread):

[Quote] Why do you care?

[Quote] and;

[Quote] Why do you think that your opinion matters?

The UK is basically a client state if the US at this point. We’re just concerned about our possessions.

^^^ of

How are things in the echo chamber, r119?

Fine--how is it in MAGAland, R122?

If you’re going to have a monarchy there’s no point in doing it on the cheap. Go big or go republic.

The most inane statement I heard was when some ancient Oxford Don was asked "Why does 21st century Britain need a monarchy? Methuselah opined "Why to keep an eye on the (elected) politicians." If that doesn't make you pee your knickers you're too stupid to live.

[quote]The First Baptist Church of Houston (Texas) has spent over $500 million on their "worship center"

LOL you don't know the first thing about America, churches are funded by donations, NOT tax payer dollars. All the usual uninformed idiots from across the pond that want to throw stones but lack the knowledge to do so while exuding all the pompous attitude one can take.

This is insane.

People in glass houses, R126.

By the way, it’s “who”, not “that” - seeing as you’re calling other people “uninformed idiots”.

Thanks for proving my point for me, r123. Sure, anyone who sees that Trump has an edge right now is a MAGA.

You’re basing what passes for your argument on the (admittedly dodgy) fashion choices of two people at a wedding thirteen years ago, R114?

Oh, you sound highly informed and intelligent! Case closed.

R124 "If you’re going to have a monarchy there’s no point in doing it on the cheap"

American's do it for half the cost, twice the profit and with a better looking cast.

“Amercan’s” what, R131?

I thought tourism was supposed to pay for all of this.

Wrong, R133.

You made no point, R129. Stop pretending you did.