I thought this might be an interesting and fun debate. Just been reading a story describing that many organisations that are funded by the taxpayer, much like the Royal Family, are facing 20% cuts. So, imagine the Royal Family have to make 20% cuts, and you are in charge. Who/what would you cut, and why?
Remember, this is all hypothetical, and nothing that you post will actually happen in reality. Largely as I don't have the authority to make it happen.
Cuts are inevitable. If things get really bad, the BRF will have to kick in their own money. It could get to the point where the Queen would only maintain her private properties and the rest of the old piles: St. James, Buck House, Kensington, etc. might become actual piles.
If you're alluding to further cuts to the Civil List, I could see a reduction happening. However, this would cause less and less exposure of the soverign and her representatives to the people. I wouldn't work if I wasn't being paid, so would never criticize the BRF if they decided to recede into private life.
I know what your saying here KA, and it makes our sovereign appear more human IMO, as deciding which of your Central London pads to sell/rent out is a decision we all face in our daily lives.
Do people think the royals should be doing more to cut costs however? Or do we think that the fact that they are a big tourist attraction means that they should continue to spend spend spend?
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014