On 12/2/2025 at 11:47 PM, Burma Bill said:

 

Do not have to. For example:- (Google)

 

The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established in 1337 to provide an income for the heir to the British throne. The current Duke of Cornwall, Prince William, uses the revenue to fund his public, private, and charitable activities and those of his family. The estate includes a wide range of land, from farms to residential and commercial properties, across 19 counties in England and Wales. 

 

The Duchy of Cornwall is worth around £1.3 billion ($1.5 billion), composed of a large portfolio of land, properties, and financial assets across the UK, primarily in the south-west. This private estate provides income to the Prince of Wales (currently Prince William) and includes holdings such as farmland, commercial real estate, and holiday rentals. 

 

There are also the Royal Estates of Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral covering many thosands of acres of land. 

 

The Duchy of Lancaster provides a personal income for HM KIng Charles 111:-

 

The Duchy of Lancaster was valued at £647.6 million at the end of March 2024, with a net income of £27.4 million paid to the reigning sovereign for the 2023/24 financial year. It is an ancient private estate of land, property, and other investments that provides independent income for the monarch, rather than being funded by taxpayers. 

 

 

I would also suggest eople take into account he number of people employed by the royal family and remember that they as well as the royals all contribute to the economy through their taxes.  

 

If you get rid of the monarchy what do you do with all the buildings and the military and government employees that are there to protect them.

 

You need to also consider the fact that There are many royaql families in Europe.

 

As a CDN I am proud and was honoured on 2 different occasions to meet her majesty.  Until you have been in a country that she fisists you have no idea how much she does to promote the country. 

 

She is also there to offer a non partisan ear for the Prime minister. 

 

Look at the charities that have spawned form the royals.  EarthShot is a huge success.  Harry even when he was a real prince created the Invictus games.

 

Could you see the British parliament keeping the commonwealth together.  Personally if when I was in the military if they asked me to serve to protect the British PM I would have retired.

 

 

Military people serve to protect the King/Queen and country.  

On 12/2/2025 at 8:20 PM, georgegeorgia said:

Do we really need to pay these UK  Royal family to be the Royal family.

 

The hangers on ..the duke of Wellington etc getting paid to do what ?

 

It's time these people got a proper job 

What are the hangers on , the cousins etc getting paid for ?

The Duchess of York , just ridiculous 

 

Some Royal family came to Australia last week she didn't even attract a crowd ,no one cares yet she got her and her hangers on a free holiday hotel travel ...what a life !!

 

Hoping Australia calls for another referendum to get vote them OUT !

One of the things people accuse the RF for, is taxpayers money being used to support them. This is a totally unfounded Myth. The Duchy of Lancaster is owned by the Royal Family but ALL income from it goes to the treasury, the RF then are supported with funds to carry out their usual duties, including travel and accommodation where required.

 georgegeorgia would do well to do some research on the Royal Families income and expenditure and learn a few FACTS.

Also, the unfounded accusation of a free holiday in Australia? Where is your proof? The hotel and other accommodation was paid very well for the inconvenience. 

Think also on this little tid bit. No UK Royal Family and MULTI MILLIONS would be lost to the nation from visitors each year!

It pays to put the brain in gear, before engaging the mouth. 

May I also  point out, WE NO LONGER HAVE A DUCHESS OF YORK!!

I am no expert on Royalty by any means, but it seems to me that they are more like ambassadors with heritage. They are able to keep in touch or visit nations where perhaps politicians might find it difficult. A way of keeping doors open. I suppose. As to their number, I don't know how many are in the UK's royalty nor how many are really needed but there at least three that I Ithink should lose their titles etc. 

On 12/2/2025 at 11:47 PM, Burma Bill said:

 

Do not have to. For example:- (Google)

 

The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate established in 1337 to provide an income for the heir to the British throne. The current Duke of Cornwall, Prince William, uses the revenue to fund his public, private, and charitable activities and those of his family. The estate includes a wide range of land, from farms to residential and commercial properties, across 19 counties in England and Wales. 

 

The Duchy of Cornwall is worth around £1.3 billion ($1.5 billion), composed of a large portfolio of land, properties, and financial assets across the UK, primarily in the south-west. This private estate provides income to the Prince of Wales (currently Prince William) and includes holdings such as farmland, commercial real estate, and holiday rentals. 

 

There are also the Royal Estates of Windsor, Sandringham and Balmoral covering many thosands of acres of land. 

 

The Duchy of Lancaster provides a personal income for HM KIng Charles 111:-

 

The Duchy of Lancaster was valued at £647.6 million at the end of March 2024, with a net income of £27.4 million paid to the reigning sovereign for the 2023/24 financial year. It is an ancient private estate of land, property, and other investments that provides independent income for the monarch, rather than being funded by taxpayers. 

 

 

Can I correct you on the Duchy of Lancaster? I do believe all income from said Duchy goes to the treasury, and the King is given income to cover his and other Royals expenses for travel and accommodation for the usual duties they perform.

On 12/3/2025 at 12:38 AM, georgegeorgia said:

Hopefully the PM of Australia will have a referendum like some radio announcers are calling for .

Australia needs to be a Republic,

GOOD. That would save the UK millions. Bye, Bye.

On 12/3/2025 at 12:45 AM, richard_smith237 said:

 

Just like Harrisfan, every time you touch the keyboard, you unlock a new level of stupidity. Just when I think the depths have been reached, you go and plumb even lower.

 

I thank you for that - it’s genuinely eye-opening. It’s also a public service: a reminder to the rest of us that the truly dim-witted walk among us, and patience is a virtue.

 

 

 

 

More to the point, he is not virtuous! 

On 12/3/2025 at 9:14 AM, KhunLA said:

Still amazes me so many countries endure 'royals'.  They truly represent the worst of a 'classed' society.  Simply being born makes them better in their subjects eyes.   

 

Let them eat cake ... IGORANCE is BLISS

It certainly appears to be in your case!

On 12/3/2025 at 9:14 AM, KhunLA said:

Still amazes me so many countries endure 'royals'.  They truly represent the worst of a 'classed' society.  Simply being born makes them better in their subjects eyes.   

 

Let them eat cake ... IGORANCE is BLISS

Like Trump, you mean.........?  🤫

On 12/3/2025 at 1:13 PM, fondue zoo said:

 

That's a fair point, but there is a difference between having leaders and having hereditary monarchs.

Hereditary leaders are taught their trade from birth, totally different to the likes of Trump........🤗

On 12/3/2025 at 12:52 PM, Kinnock said:

For the first time since WW2 the British people needs the leadership of a 'defender of the faith' monarch.  A King who can tell the feeble government to defend our borders and fight them on the beaches if necessary.

 

He should speak up about Pakistani rape gangs and the erosion of woman's rights.

 

But what do we get?  Total silence on the key issues, plus weak platitudes about the environment.

 

Do the Royals not realise that a future Islamic government in the UK will get rid of the monarchy and replace it with a Caliph?  Their days are numbered, not because the traditional 'British' people will oust them, but because they allowed an invasion of people who do not share their values and do not care about English history.

Unfortunately, the King cannot speak his mind on these matters. It would be classed as an interference in government matters. I do believe a UK King lost his head for doing such.

On 12/3/2025 at 5:51 PM, 3NUMBAS said:

They’ve always been a nuisance invading Ireland and Scotland and wales ,colonising countries all over the world and grabbing land where possible ,and bumping off opposition . Like a mafia really

Not bad for a small country. It could so easily have gone the other way? 

1 minute ago, Surasak said:

Not bad for a small country. It could so easily have gone the other way? 

Plus, most of the European countries were doing exactly the same thing, G.B. itself has been invaded by many..😉

 

Strange how some folk don't know much about G.B. history.....🤗

9 minutes ago, transam said:

Plus, most of the European countries were doing exactly the same thing, G.B. itself has been invaded by many..😉

 

Strange how some folk don't know much about G.B. history.....🤗

I have to admit my knowledge of British history is somewhat limited. History was not my strong point and still isn't. Accepted that the UK has been invaded by many, and in fact still is, encouraged by the present government no less. The UK has had a  great past, it's the future which has a problem. I'm just pleased I am not associated with it. 

1 minute ago, Surasak said:

I have to admit my knowledge of British history is somewhat limited. History was not my strong point and still isn't. Accepted that the UK has been invaded by many, and in fact still is, encouraged by the present government no less. The UK has had a  great past, it's the future which has a problem. I'm just pleased I am not associated with it. 

In a way, I am too, though happy I was born there, enjoyed the place growing up, but now, being taken over by those escaping from what they had to grow up with, and milk the system we built up for our own...........😒

9 minutes ago, transam said:

In a way, I am too, though happy I was born there, enjoyed the place growing up, but now, being taken over by those escaping from what they had to grow up with, and milk the system we built up for our own...........😒

Like any other country, the UK has its good and bad points. Agree, I am happy to have been born and grown up there, can't and would never deny my heritage. Unfortunately, it is not now, and hasn't been for a long time, the country I remember from my younger days. I can honestly say I do not miss it, and have no intention of ever returning. Reading the UK news is very depressing and that is reason enough.

I can only answer this question with another question.... Need them for what?

32 minutes ago, Surasak said:

I have to admit my knowledge of British history is somewhat limited.

yes... My knowledge kind of starts about here...

52 minutes ago, transam said:

Strange how some folk don't know much about G.B. history.

Old mate was saying much the same thing the other day

1 minute ago, wombat said:

Old mate was saying much the same thing the other day

I am sure Chief Sitting Bull thought the same about his country...........😉

 

On 12/2/2025 at 8:20 PM, georgegeorgia said:

Do we really need to pay these UK  Royal family to be the Royal family

UK is a constitutional monarchy originated by the Magna Carta. 

Through a constitution developed by the electorate, ie., represented by elected members of the legislature (parliament), the power, privileges and authority of the monarchy is decided.

So decide.

1 hour ago, Surasak said:

One of the things people accuse the RF for, is taxpayers money being used to support them. This is a totally unfounded Myth. The Duchy of Lancaster is owned by the Royal Family but ALL income from it goes to the treasury, the RF then are supported with funds to carry out their usual duties, including travel and accommodation where required.

 georgegeorgia would do well to do some research on the Royal Families income and expenditure and learn a few FACTS.

Also, the unfounded accusation of a free holiday in Australia? Where is your proof? The hotel and other accommodation was paid very well for the inconvenience. 

Think also on this little tid bit. No UK Royal Family and MULTI MILLIONS would be lost to the nation from visitors each year!

It pays to put the brain in gear, before engaging the mouth. 

May I also  point out, WE NO LONGER HAVE A DUCHESS OF YORK!!

 

As a CDN we have a representtive of the royal family as our head and on that basis and hving looked after accommadations and such for a Royal visit to Tornot can tell you that the Royal family gets nothing for free.

 

First most countries that the royals visit have a residence for visiting dignitaries.  In the case of Canada the Queen and her small entourage would be hoswed at the governor Generals residence.  I am sure that it is the same in Australia.

 

 The rest of the entourage are housed in a local hotel and all bills are paid there is no free ride.  Yes the embassy pays the bills upfront but then they submit the bill to the governement or section.  

 

Also consider that when the Queen or King visit a city there is a huge tourism boost as locals and people that live outside teh city come to pay their respects or to just view them.

 

As to politics we have had a few examples where the King came into being important.  First we all know that Starmer and tehLabour party dispised TRUMP and the U.S.  The king was able to sort out some ruffled feathers and get deals sorted.

 

Then ther was the annexation of Canada by the U.S. the king was able to visit Canada show that it is still an important part of the commonwealth and tell Donald hands off.

 

I am sure also that that was discussed during the visit. 

3 hours ago, Surasak said:

Can I correct you on the Duchy of Lancaster? I do believe all income from said Duchy goes to the treasury, and the King is given income to cover his and other Royals expenses for travel and accommodation for the usual duties they perform.

 

With respect, reference Google:-

 

No, income from the Duchy of Lancaster does not go to the Treasury; instead, it provides the monarch with private income (the Privy Purse) for official and private expenses, while the monarch surrenders the Crown Estate's revenue to the Treasury in exchange for the Sovereign Grant. The Duchy of Lancaster is a separate landed estate, held in trust for the Sovereign, providing independent funding not covered by the public Sovereign Grant. 

 

2 hours ago, Surasak said:

Unfortunately, the King cannot speak his mind on these matters. It would be classed as an interference in government matters. I do believe a UK King lost his head for doing such.

Now he's more likely to lose his crown by not speaking up ....

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/zarah-sultana-monarchy-abolished-andrew-5HjdNfH_2/

They have overseen 100 plus years of sad decline so on that basis they appear unnecessary. However, who/what replaces them may well be even worse.

2 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

 

As a CDN we have a representtive of the royal family as our head and on that basis and hving looked after accommadations and such for a Royal visit to Tornot can tell you that the Royal family gets nothing for free.

 

First most countries that the royals visit have a residence for visiting dignitaries.  In the case of Canada the Queen and her small entourage would be hoswed at the governor Generals residence.  I am sure that it is the same in Australia.

 

 The rest of the entourage are housed in a local hotel and all bills are paid there is no free ride.  Yes the embassy pays the bills upfront but then they submit the bill to the governement or section.  

 

Also consider that when the Queen or King visit a city there is a huge tourism boost as locals and people that live outside teh city come to pay their respects or to just view them.

 

As to politics we have had a few examples where the King came into being important.  First we all know that Starmer and tehLabour party dispised TRUMP and the U.S.  The king was able to sort out some ruffled feathers and get deals sorted.

 

Then ther was the annexation of Canada by the U.S. the king was able to visit Canada show that it is still an important part of the commonwealth and tell Donald hands off.

 

I am sure also that that was discussed during the visit. 

You are a pure loyalist who has never forgotten the loss of the colonies in 1776.

You must be leaving on Highway 2 on the north shore of Lake Ontario and the St.Lawrence River.

All the visits and travels of the Royal Family are paid by the Canadian government meaning the Canadian taxpayers.

Mary Simon the Governor General is at the centre of a huge polemic due to her extravagant expenses.

The Canadian government had to send an aircraft to the UK for the last visit of Charle III and Camilla in May 2025 for the Throne Speech in Ottawa.

The Crown is the main source of Canadian problems regarding the corrupt and outdated judicial system, the internal conflict between provinces harboring or not the Union Jack on their flags, the development of the wokism, the total lack of exploitation of mineral resources in “Crown Land” and the WEF infiltration in the Liberal government.

The Crown is the reason Canada is going down the drain economically, socially and culturally.

The question really should ask whether the UK needs its royals. Clearly, no country needs royals but equally they don't need presidents like Trump, Putin and countless others. 

The whole world needs a k!ng/queen, Change him/her every year, 

 

I suggest Gayatri Galloway.

3 hours ago, Burma Bill said:

 

With respect, reference Google:-

 

No, income from the Duchy of Lancaster does not go to the Treasury; instead, it provides the monarch with private income (the Privy Purse) for official and private expenses, while the monarch surrenders the Crown Estate's revenue to the Treasury in exchange for the Sovereign Grant. The Duchy of Lancaster is a separate landed estate, held in trust for the Sovereign, providing independent funding not covered by the public Sovereign Grant. 

 

If I were you, I would look elsewhere than Google for information. It is not  always your friend.  

Guess you can ask most americans and they will swop with "donnie diaper " any day and maybe give some land as sin sod 😉

But, being serious norwegian, our king, crown prince is modest and very popular and respected.

Its constitutional monarcy with "not much" real power (said resign rather give in to nazis example of his power).

He is above party policy, with a president its different.

 

1 hour ago, Surasak said:

If I were you, I would look elsewhere than Google for information. It is not  always your friend.  

 With respect, Google in this instance was my friend as It directed me to Wikipedia which explained in detail the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall which are independent from the Crown Estates. These generate income for the Government and Royal Family members (Civil List).