I'm a staunch royalist but also believe that if Her Majesty wanted the Britannia so much then why couldn't she fund it herself? Like it or not the money wasn't in the public coffers to spend on it. Or alternatively they could have downsized to a more manageable and modern yacht 🤷♂️
Notice Charles is the only one who can accept that the monarchy must change if it wants to remain. For all his faults with Dianna he was always a populist (as far as a king can be anyways) and has always been a supporter of modernization of the monarchy. Even now as King, Charles has made a great effort to shift the perception of the monarchy from being a stuffy class of poms to being more like that of his Grandfather, a servant of the people and a citizen-king.
Prince Philip tried to modernize the monarchy. He faced pushback from the Queen-Mum and the courtiers. Elizabeth II was loath to disagree with her mother. The Queen Mum dug in her heels at any slight change in her environment or her lifestyle. That is why she died 7 million dollars in debt to the Bank of England.
Charles has modernized the "monarchy" by giving himself a £1.4billion salary increase since he became monarch while his subjects suffered with 20% inflation after covid. He is a classic example of delusion.
Being political will be and is probably at this very moment sounding the death knell for the monarchy. New Britain, worse than the old could be the motto.
@@maestroCanuck In "The Crown" the Queen's character tells Charles "Nobody cares! (what your opinions are)" AND "Don't take sides" The Crown is fiction; but I believe that the producers/scriptwriters got that right.
@@here_we_go_again2571 clearly it is fiction, entertaining fiction for sure. In reality though, the King needs to be exactly like his mother. Not sure he has been and I am not sure he will be and that may be the end of it one day.
I have to say that the royal yacht was an expense that neither the BRF or the UK government could afford. As the saying goes " *A* (pleasure) *boat is a hole in the water into which* . *one pours one's money* " I can understand why, as Britain was once premier naval power of the world, that the BRF would have a yacht, "back in the day" Also, air travel on luxury planes didn't exist under after WW2.
In fairness it's a yaht specifically used for the purpose of them being diplomats. Not for vacation. I swear the British people for all their fuss about the royal family's taxes fail to realize they bring in more money to the country than the country could ever possibly spend on them. I'm a staunch republican but it is funny to see people who have zero economic awareness of Britain's situation talking about how to spend taxpayer money.
@@Usernamesdontmatter1 The royal yacht brought no tourism to the UK It was always a money pit. A hangover of the pre-airplane era. HMTQ was a very rich woman (as is King Charles -- No death taxes for the monarch's estate). Even HMTQ did not to want to fund it by herself
@@Usernamesdontmatter1 "they bring in more money to the country" what most fail to realize is that the vast, vast majority of this money they "bring in" is due to their possessions, possessions they only have because a thousand years ago kings and queens were ordained by god himself, granting them direct ownership of the nation. As the world did away with that notion and royalty in general, royal families had 99% of their holdings reclaimed by the government, allowing for an increase in income for the government as they no longer had the freeloaders skimming off the top. The British royal family would be no different; if their holdings were confiscated/reclaimed, their continued existence wouldn't make the UK government much more than a dime. Their land and properties that they questionably own have value, they, themselves, do not.
The Royal Yacht came into service at pretty much the same time that ER ascended the throne. As such, the ship was bound up in her identity as monarch. The reason she wanted the ship to be refitted and continued as her platform of transport as paid for by the government (aka taxpayers) is the same reason the US government pays for the aircraft known as Air Force One: as a showcase of the government’s head of state. It was a good idea for the government to persuade ER to decommission the Yacht and use it as a museum ship to showcase the history of ER’s reign.
You can run the government of the United States, up to & including nuclear war, from AF1. It’s much more than just a showcase; it’s an actual flying fortress.
Actually, there is no single US aircraft called: Air Force One. By tradition, any plane that the US President Boards is called Air Force One while he is using it, (in the same way that any helicopter is called Marine One while he uses it.)
They could EASILY sell off one diamond of the crown jewels and pay off for a new yacht. Why on earth did they think asking more money from the public is the right thing to do when they have enough savings to finance their bloodline for generations to come?
You need to look up the crownland or crown estate. The monarch signs over the crownlands to the UK in exchange for a stipend. The crownlands make much more than the stipend the crown is given. Not to mention that the Monarchy generates billions of pounds in revenue for the UK just in tourism. It's more complicated than the royals should just pay for it themselves.
I don't know if would be great optics even to do an internal big sell off just to buy a yacht. Monarchy was once about grandeur and opulence but In the modern world, it was to be seen to be streamlined and efficient and justify itself among a whole load of things that are going on..
@@kalinastachel1425 Actually, the crown jewels belong to the royal family. So, I they could sell them if they wished but easier to tap into their land holding which are worth billions if they weren't being used by the UK for revenue.
I visited the yacht in Edinburgh harbor a few weeks ago. A really nice thing, although nowhere near luxurious by today's superyacht standards. But even then: to pay for it with public funds? No way.
If this is an accurate. The Queen made the right decision. She didn't want Blair's motto on Hull. That's Political. A corporate would be endorse the brand. Philip figured " he was entitled to their entitlements. Charles was like King Edward selling out the CROWN!!!!!
Palaces and Castles[1] belong to the Crown -- The country ----------------------- 1.) Balmoral in Scotland is the one exception -- But the park surrounding it belongs to the country Also, a large stone house in Scotland, "Castle Mey" belonged to the late Queen-Mum Charles owns it now.
Actually, the way the civil list/sovereign grant works is that the sovereign forfeits all profits from the crown estate to HM Treasury, totaling hundreds of million of pounds per year. The sovereign grant is a small stipend paid to the sovereign by the treasury for official expenditures out of the funds the sovereign forfeits yearly. Most people don’t realize that. Technically, they pay their own way PLUS some. I believe this goes back to Charles II. This is when the sovereign stopped ruling “in person” and could therefore no longer be held liable for a treasury that was in the red.
No wonder why out of all the colonies the Empire had, Australia was made the penal colony. You Aussies are bloody mental. As demonstrated by this idiot here 😂
Just about any large or extended (semi-famous or famous family) has someone like Andrew and/or Harry. Both of them are the so-called "Black sheep" of the family. In George VI's generation it was his oldest brother David (aka: Duke of Windsor/married to Wallis Simpson -> both of them Nazi supporters.) and for the really kinky story Prince George, Duke of Kent who was a flamboyant bisexual and druggie. His oldest brother David helped him to get off the drugs. He was killed in a plane crash during WW2. *George Duke of Kent's oldest son, Prince* *Edward, Duke of Kent* (i.e. the old, skinny, bald man at the BRF/Windsor state occasions, who is always alone and off to one side -- between Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh/Duchess Sophie or next to Princess Anne's husband) *has spent a lifetime trying to do the right thing* *serving Queen Elizabeth and being very* *straight and narrow to not bring shame to* *the family* His nickname is "Steady Eddy" Prince Edward of Kent's wife, Duchess Katherine Worsley Kent is retired (health reasons). His younger, widowed, sister, Princess Alexandria was one of Queen Elizabeth's ladies in waiting (i.e. companions) The youngest sibling is Prince Michael of Kent who is married to a Hungarian Baroness, Marie-Christine (known as Princess Michael of Kent) They are kind-of stylish and glamourous; but people call her "Princess Pushy"
I was brought up that if I wanted something, I had to work hard and pay for it. The royals have palaces and yachts, and everything is just given to them. if they want it, then they should pay for it. taxpayers shouldn't have to prop up the royal family.
Is the Royal Yacht Britannia, the same ship that Prince Charles rode on to participate in the 1997 handover of Hong Kong (Britain's last overseas Colony that marked the end of the British Empire)?
Remember, this is drama. I stopped watching it because they had the Queen querying her education and it actually wasn't the Queen but Princess Margaret. Brittania was special to the Queen because it was the only place on Earth where she could truly relax. She was in tears at the decommissioning ceremony. She can't sell the Crown Jewels - they belong to the State. When Windsor Castle caught fire, the Government expected us to pay (not the Queen), they told the Queen that we would pay so imagine the egg on their faces when we said we were not going to pay! There were six funding streams such as Historic England etc and Queen Elizabeth chipped in significantly but the Crown won't tell you that! Prince Andrew ran in and out with the firefighters to save the priceless artworks that belong to the nation. That is you.
I don't get the big deal, we waste so much taxpayer $$$$ on pointless military expenditures here in the USA. $70 million is a drop in the bucket, not even a rounding error in terms of the national budget in a country the size of England. It gives the country(UK) a black eye that they are a 4th rate world power at best, some navy you have when you can't provide your head of state a proper ship.
I agree, honestly the cost was nothing compared to what the government were spending at the time. It was more a political choice, not a financial one, though that’s how they positioned it.
I'm a staunch royalist but also believe that if Her Majesty wanted the Britannia so much then why couldn't she fund it herself? Like it or not the money wasn't in the public coffers to spend on it. Or alternatively they could have downsized to a more manageable and modern yacht 🤷♂️
Agreed.
I loved that old woman but surely she could fund her own?
It didn't belong to her. It belonged to the navy.
@@prismaticmarcus I wasn't aware of that, appreciate the info 👍 Even so, she could have reached into her pockets and made it happen I reckon 🤷♂️
@@prismaticmarcus Would the navy not have taken Royal cash for refurbishment?
@@Youngstown529 Well, constitutionally, the monarch hands The Crown Estate over to the government at the start of every reign, so...
Notice Charles is the only one who can accept that the monarchy must change if it wants to remain. For all his faults with Dianna he was always a populist (as far as a king can be anyways) and has always been a supporter of modernization of the monarchy. Even now as King, Charles has made a great effort to shift the perception of the monarchy from being a stuffy class of poms to being more like that of his Grandfather, a servant of the people and a citizen-king.
Prince Philip tried to
modernize the monarchy.
He faced pushback from
the Queen-Mum and the
courtiers. Elizabeth II
was loath to disagree
with her mother.
The Queen Mum dug in her
heels at any slight change
in her environment or her
lifestyle. That is why she
died 7 million dollars in
debt to the Bank of England.
Charles has modernized the "monarchy" by giving himself a £1.4billion salary increase since he became monarch while his subjects suffered with 20% inflation after covid. He is a classic example of delusion.
Being political will be and is probably at this very moment sounding the death knell for the monarchy. New Britain, worse than the old could be the motto.
@@maestroCanuck
In "The Crown" the Queen's character
tells Charles "Nobody cares! (what your
opinions are)" AND "Don't take sides"
The Crown is fiction; but I believe that
the producers/scriptwriters got that
right.
@@here_we_go_again2571 clearly it is fiction, entertaining fiction for sure. In reality though, the King needs to be exactly like his mother. Not sure he has been and I am not sure he will be and that may be the end of it one day.
It is said that to maintain the Royal Yacht it cost $15 million per year and doesn't include the cost of security needed.
I have to say that the royal yacht was an expense that
neither the BRF or the UK government could afford. As
the saying goes
" *A* (pleasure) *boat is a hole in the water into which*
. *one pours one's money* "
I can understand why, as Britain was once premier
naval power of the world, that the BRF would have a
yacht, "back in the day" Also, air travel on luxury
planes didn't exist under after WW2.
The easiest way to be a millionaire is to be a billionaire and then buy a yacht
@@roopelotjonen5091
For sure! 😁
In fairness it's a yaht specifically used for the purpose of them being diplomats. Not for vacation. I swear the British people for all their fuss about the royal family's taxes fail to realize they bring in more money to the country than the country could ever possibly spend on them. I'm a staunch republican but it is funny to see people who have zero economic awareness of Britain's situation talking about how to spend taxpayer money.
@@Usernamesdontmatter1
The royal yacht brought
no tourism to the UK
It was always a money
pit. A hangover of the
pre-airplane era.
HMTQ was a very rich
woman (as is King
Charles -- No death
taxes for the monarch's
estate).
Even HMTQ did not to
want to fund it by herself
@@Usernamesdontmatter1 "they bring in more money to the country" what most fail to realize is that the vast, vast majority of this money they "bring in" is due to their possessions, possessions they only have because a thousand years ago kings and queens were ordained by god himself, granting them direct ownership of the nation. As the world did away with that notion and royalty in general, royal families had 99% of their holdings reclaimed by the government, allowing for an increase in income for the government as they no longer had the freeloaders skimming off the top. The British royal family would be no different; if their holdings were confiscated/reclaimed, their continued existence wouldn't make the UK government much more than a dime.
Their land and properties that they questionably own have value, they, themselves, do not.
The Royal Yacht came into service at pretty much the same time that ER ascended the throne. As such, the ship was bound up in her identity as monarch.
The reason she wanted the ship to be refitted and continued as her platform of transport as paid for by the government (aka taxpayers) is the same reason the US government pays for the aircraft known as Air Force One: as a showcase of the government’s head of state.
It was a good idea for the government to persuade ER to decommission the Yacht and use it as a museum ship to showcase the history of ER’s reign.
You can run the government of the United States, up to & including nuclear war, from AF1. It’s much more than just a showcase; it’s an actual flying fortress.
Actually, there is no single US aircraft called: Air Force One. By tradition, any plane that the US President Boards is called Air Force One while he is using it, (in the same way that any helicopter is called Marine One while he uses it.)
They could EASILY sell off one diamond of the crown jewels and pay off for a new yacht. Why on earth did they think asking more money from the public is the right thing to do when they have enough savings to finance their bloodline for generations to come?
Crown Jewels belong
to the country and
people of UK. Royal
yacht was HMTQ's
personal property
You need to look up the crownland or crown estate. The monarch signs over the crownlands to the UK in exchange for a stipend. The crownlands make much more than the stipend the crown is given. Not to mention that the Monarchy generates billions of pounds in revenue for the UK just in tourism. It's more complicated than the royals should just pay for it themselves.
But the crown jewels are not their to sell.
I don't know if would be great optics even to do an internal big sell off just to buy a yacht. Monarchy was once about grandeur and opulence but In the modern world, it was to be seen to be streamlined and efficient and justify itself among a whole load of things that are going on..
@@kalinastachel1425 Actually, the crown jewels belong to the royal family. So, I they could sell them if they wished but easier to tap into their land holding which are worth billions if they weren't being used by the UK for revenue.
I visited the yacht in Edinburgh harbor a few weeks ago. A really nice thing, although nowhere near luxurious by today's superyacht standards. But even then: to pay for it with public funds? No way.
If this is an accurate.
The Queen made the right decision.
She didn't want Blair's motto on Hull.
That's Political.
A corporate would be endorse the brand.
Philip figured " he was entitled to their entitlements.
Charles was like King Edward selling out the CROWN!!!!!
The cheek of these people. Palaces, Castles.. pay for your own yacht😡
Palaces and Castles[1]
belong to the Crown --
The country
-----------------------
1.) Balmoral in
Scotland is the one
exception -- But the
park surrounding it
belongs to the
country
Also, a large stone
house in Scotland,
"Castle Mey" belonged
to the late Queen-Mum
Charles owns it now.
These people bring in more money by tourism etc than you ever have
Actually, the way the civil list/sovereign grant works is that the sovereign forfeits all profits from the crown estate to HM Treasury, totaling hundreds of million of pounds per year. The sovereign grant is a small stipend paid to the sovereign by the treasury for official expenditures out of the funds the sovereign forfeits yearly. Most people don’t realize that. Technically, they pay their own way PLUS some. I believe this goes back to Charles II. This is when the sovereign stopped ruling “in person” and could therefore no longer be held liable for a treasury that was in the red.
@@here_we_go_again2571 Sandringham House is also privately held, and the Castle of Mey is owned by the Castle of Mey Trust.
No wonder why out of all the colonies the Empire had, Australia was made the penal colony. You Aussies are bloody mental. As demonstrated by this idiot here 😂
How many millions did Andrew cost the Queen to pay off the scandal? But he carried some paintings out of a castle? What a good boy he is.
Just about any large or extended (semi-famous
or famous family) has someone like Andrew
and/or Harry. Both of them are the so-called
"Black sheep" of the family.
In George VI's generation it was his oldest
brother David (aka: Duke of Windsor/married
to Wallis Simpson -> both of them Nazi supporters.) and for the really kinky story
Prince George, Duke of Kent who was a
flamboyant bisexual and druggie.
His oldest brother David helped him to get off
the drugs. He was killed in a plane crash during
WW2.
*George Duke of Kent's oldest son, Prince* *Edward, Duke of Kent* (i.e. the old, skinny, bald man at the BRF/Windsor state occasions, who is always alone and off to one side -- between Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh/Duchess Sophie or next to Princess Anne's husband)
*has spent a lifetime trying to do the right thing* *serving Queen Elizabeth and being very* *straight and narrow to not bring shame to* *the
family* His nickname is "Steady Eddy"
Prince Edward of Kent's wife, Duchess Katherine
Worsley Kent is retired (health reasons).
His younger, widowed, sister, Princess Alexandria
was one of Queen Elizabeth's ladies in waiting (i.e. companions) The youngest sibling is Prince
Michael of Kent who is married to a Hungarian
Baroness, Marie-Christine (known as Princess
Michael of Kent) They are kind-of stylish and
glamourous; but people call her "Princess
Pushy"
I was brought up that if I wanted something, I had to work hard and pay for it. The royals have palaces and yachts, and everything is just given to them. if they want it, then they should pay for it. taxpayers shouldn't have to prop up the royal family.
Is the Royal Yacht Britannia, the same ship that Prince Charles rode on to participate in the 1997 handover of Hong Kong (Britain's last overseas Colony that marked the end of the British Empire)?
In the time it took you to type that question in a TH-cam comments section you could have typed it into Google and had an answer.
@@danielchilton5400 Or watch the video they're commenting under, where the question is answered.
Remember, this is drama. I stopped watching it because they had the Queen querying her education and it actually wasn't the Queen but Princess Margaret. Brittania was special to the Queen because it was the only place on Earth where she could truly relax. She was in tears at the decommissioning ceremony. She can't sell the Crown Jewels - they belong to the State. When Windsor Castle caught fire, the Government expected us to pay (not the Queen), they told the Queen that we would pay so imagine the egg on their faces when we said we were not going to pay! There were six funding streams such as Historic England etc and Queen Elizabeth chipped in significantly but the Crown won't tell you that! Prince Andrew ran in and out with the firefighters to save the priceless artworks that belong to the nation. That is you.
Pay. For. Your. Own. Yacht.
Tax payers should never need to pay for these people
Oh what Nonsens! They represent the head of state and as such of course will be paid for by the taxpayer.
@@johnmajor9564that is the non sense.
@@dannyboyNS752 the reality says otherwise
A bunch of freeloaders.
I don't get the big deal, we waste so much taxpayer $$$$ on pointless military expenditures here in the USA. $70 million is a drop in the bucket, not even a rounding error in terms of the national budget in a country the size of England. It gives the country(UK) a black eye that they are a 4th rate world power at best, some navy you have when you can't provide your head of state a proper ship.
Does the president get a yacht then?
I agree, honestly the cost was nothing compared to what the government were spending at the time. It was more a political choice, not a financial one, though that’s how they positioned it.
The president had a yacht, it was decommissioned 40 years ago.@benu_bird
The Sovereign's personal wealth could easily sustain a royal yacht, they just wanted the tax payer to foot the bill.
Is Charles really that stupid? If the royal family rides a yacht with Blair's political slogan, that relinquishes their duty of staying neutral.
Royal = Punk.......????
Aww the poor spoiled pointless monarchy has to find other people to pay for their boat.
Please commission a royal yatch for the royal family