Reverend Ludd
Well-Known Member
Lets sort the old age pensioners out before we worry about the richest pensioners in the land.
Renovate Britannia
- Thread starter Sybarite
- Start date
Rigger Mortice
N/A
+1.
I quite like the old dear and I wouldn't want to get rid of the monarchy but we really don't need to give her a boat to play with.
Rooster
Well-Known Member
Isn't security more of an issue these days? Protecting the royals floating around like a sitting duck would be a complete nightmare.
ccscott49
Well-Known Member
+1. I totally agree with you, noiw is not the time, it will probably never be the time.
The pensioners dying is a real problem. Especially when they get half of what an asylum seeking family gets!
Reverend Ludd
Well-Known Member
Far too real - sadly
boomerangben
Well-Known Member
If the RY really did contribute £3 billion to the Exchequer's coffers, then she would pay all the OAPs heating bills. And some
D
Deleted member 36384
Guest
There is no doubt that she could be put back into commission. She has a certain style that has not diminished even today, an air about her that is far superior to any grand, billionaire's crass super yacht. I am biased though as I prefer traditional steam ship lines. However, would it be worth it, she is now soiled and lost some of her esteem.
A new Royal Yacht, on similar lines and style could be built probably for a better price than renovation. This new yacht could reflect Britannia in ascendance, which will come one day.
onesea
Well-Known Member
What chance do we have if we cannot even keep an air craft carrier?
I agree fully Royal Yacht great, so would an air craft carrier...
Spending some time working with the Dutch at the moment, will give them one thing...
They have National Pride "It it ain't Dutch it ain't much"...
They laugh at the fact our new RFA ships are being built abroad...
I agree fully Royal Yacht great, so would an air craft carrier...
Spending some time working with the Dutch at the moment, will give them one thing...
They have National Pride "It it ain't Dutch it ain't much"...
They laugh at the fact our new RFA ships are being built abroad...
Last edited:
Fire99
Well-Known Member
Like her or loathe her, the Queen is hugely popular and just taking the Jubilee as an example, she draws a huge crowd and as such I don't doubt Britannia would far more than finance itself.
Personally, I think we need to open our minds regarding "How much will it cost to fix, who will pay for the refit, it's the Queen's boat and make her pay for it" because if you use that approach for everything, then I think some people would be in for an almighty shock if they got a full run-down of all public spending.
Government jollies, ridiculous Government schemes, Public sector paying through the nose for day-to-day items, are just the tip of the iceberg and they offer zero value for money.
Britannia is a famous, crowd-drawing ship, which could easily pay its way and dare I say, give many of us something to be proud of.
Personally, I think we need to open our minds regarding "How much will it cost to fix, who will pay for the refit, it's the Queen's boat and make her pay for it" because if you use that approach for everything, then I think some people would be in for an almighty shock if they got a full run-down of all public spending.
Government jollies, ridiculous Government schemes, Public sector paying through the nose for day-to-day items, are just the tip of the iceberg and they offer zero value for money.
Britannia is a famous, crowd-drawing ship, which could easily pay its way and dare I say, give many of us something to be proud of.
Ex-SolentBoy
Well-Known Member
All of us.
It is the least that can be done to honour a Monarch who has served the Nation, The Commonwealth and Dependencies for 60 Glorious Years.
God Bless Her, and may she reign for many more.
I agree, but she should give back all the money the Monarchy took from the population over the years. She doesn't need it and it isn't rightfully hers.
Keep a palace or so, live rent free, but pay back the billions. And make all the related hangers on work for a living.
And make her son give back Cornwall so we can anchor without getting shouted at for disturbing his oyster business.
Three kings
Well-Known Member
I'm not British, so it's interesting to see the diverse opinion surrounding the royal yacht develop into a pro and anti monarchy debate.
From an outsiders perspective, it strikes me that the Queen has been a powerful unifying force in Britain over the past sixty years.
She is to be admired for her apolitical stance, her dignity and the unqualified respect she receives everywhere. Her recent visit to my own country, Ireland, was an outstanding success and did more for Anglo Irish relations than any politician could have achieved.
I dont feel qualified to comment on whether or not she should have the use of a publicly funded yacht, however her contribution to British society and British interests abroad has been immense.
From an outsiders perspective, it strikes me that the Queen has been a powerful unifying force in Britain over the past sixty years.
She is to be admired for her apolitical stance, her dignity and the unqualified respect she receives everywhere. Her recent visit to my own country, Ireland, was an outstanding success and did more for Anglo Irish relations than any politician could have achieved.
I dont feel qualified to comment on whether or not she should have the use of a publicly funded yacht, however her contribution to British society and British interests abroad has been immense.
Fire99
Well-Known Member
+! Amen to that!
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
£3 billion was only for the period 1991 - 1995.
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Some time ago the Royal Family surrendered to the nation the income from the Crown Estates. This income was far greater than the Royal lists. This was the justification for her not paying taxes for so long.
Again it was the "annus horibilis" that motivated them to pay taxes over and above the surrendered income.
maxi77
Well-Known Member
The sad reality Britannia is past it and it would cost less to build new than try to make to make the old dear a bit cheaper to run. I would support the idea of a new yacht not on the scale of the Britannia but more like the Dannebrog for example, or perhaps something innovative.
We do need to start moving away from the 'big'royalty' beloved of the courtiers it funds try for something more in tune with both reality and our pockets.
I am not a republican and certainly do not wish to change our monarch for some elected leader with the powers of a Georgian king like the Froggies or the Americans. Mind you change may still be a good thing
We do need to start moving away from the 'big'royalty' beloved of the courtiers it funds try for something more in tune with both reality and our pockets.
I am not a republican and certainly do not wish to change our monarch for some elected leader with the powers of a Georgian king like the Froggies or the Americans. Mind you change may still be a good thing
RUSSH
Well-Known Member
The below link may be of interest to posters on this subject.
http://www.commonwealthflagship.com/
Had Britannia's alleged secondary role of hospital ship actually happened it may have assisted the case to keep her. She was berthed at Whale Island when I sailed South in 1982 and she was still there when I got back with not a mark on her immaculate paintwork!
http://www.commonwealthflagship.com/
Had Britannia's alleged secondary role of hospital ship actually happened it may have assisted the case to keep her. She was berthed at Whale Island when I sailed South in 1982 and she was still there when I got back with not a mark on her immaculate paintwork!
Sneaky Pete
Well-Known Member
My goodness making that amount of money in such a short period of time, why not get the tax payer to fund the building a new one for her, the best that has ever been seen, according to the above stats it will pay for itself within the year. Then we could get all the royal hangers on (there are lots of them) to use it for their holidays and other family celebrations and the tax payer could wave their little union jack flags while they were enjoying themselves. Why have we not thought of this before? Simples.
prv
Well-Known Member
Probably one of those "secondary roles" intended only for World War Three / the Russians swarming over the Inner German Border. Like the Army buses fitted with brackets for conversion into mass stretcher-carriers, or the Saxons intended to transport the TA from their UK bases one-way to the front line, or indeed the TA of the time in its entirety (not the current TA, which regularly fills the gaps in our overstretched regulars). A little local skirmish like the Falklands wouldn't have been enough to trigger all that stuff.
Pete
Sybarite
Well-Known Member
Part of the launching ceremony :
HM:
"It has been a great pleasure to come to Clydebank today and once again to launch a ship in John Brown’s yard. This time it means more to me than ever before, because the Britannia, which is now floating in the waters of the Clyde, is not only the most modern addition to a long line of Royal Yachts which goes back to the reign of King Charles the Second, but she is to be at times the home of my husband and myself and of our family. I am sure that all of you who are present here realise how much the building of this ship meant to the late King, my father. He felt most strongly, as I do, that a yacht was a necessity and not a luxury for the Head of our great British Commonwealth, between whose countries the seas is no barrier but the natural and indestructible highway. With the wise advice of the Admiralty and of your firm, he laid the plans of a vessel which should wear the Royal Standard in days of peace and which, in the event of a war should serve the cause of humanity as a hospital ship."
From the technical paper :
"In 1938, the Admiralty considered the possibility of building a ship which would not only replace the Royal Yacht Victoria and Albert, then nearly 40 years old, but which could be economically converted to a hospital ship in the event of a war. Outline drawings and a statement of essential requirements were accordingly prepared, and in 1939 these were sent to some of the principal shipbuilders in the country, inviting them to submit more detailed proposals. With the advent of war, however, the matter was dropped.
In 1951 the project was revived, and in October of that year the Admiralty announced that a medium-sized hospital ship would be put into the re-armament programme and would be used in peacetime to replace H.M. Yacht Victoria and Albert, which by then was not seaworthy. Sketch designs were started in the Admiralty on the basis of the 1939 design reduced in size. Although the title of this paper is "Her Majesty’s Yacht Britannia," most of the subject matter refers equally to the hospital ship role. It was decided that the ship should be suitable for service in both tropical and arctic waters. A continuous seagoing speed of 21 knots was required, and this meant that a trial speed of 22 knots with the ship in the load condition, with clean bottom and in temperate waters, had to be guaranteed. The endurance required was at least 2,000 miles at 20 knots at load displacement with clean bottom and in temperate waters, allowance being made for the maximum load required for auxiliary machinery and for domestic services.
The necessity for economy in the cost of construction was kept continually in mind during the design and construction of the ship. The late King and subsequently Her Majesty The Queen both stressed this need for economy and made many suggestions with the object of reducing expenditure. Even after the design has been commenced the original requirements were reviewed and many changes were made in order to reduce the size of the ship. It was necessary, however, to ensure that the size of the ship was not so reduced as to impair her seaworthiness when undertaking long ocean passages. Moreover the ship had to be large enough to permit of economical employment as a hospital ship in wartime. After much consideration it was decided that the smallest ship to meet these requirements was one of about 4,000 tons displacement, and every effort was made to produce an acceptable design with a displacement as near to this figure as practicable.
It will be appreciated that the design of a dual-purpose ship such as this, is far from being straightforward. Designs had to be developed simultaneously for the Royal Yacht and hospital ship roles and the best arrangement worked out which would meet both requirements and at the same time ensure that the work and cost of conversion in wartime would be kept to a minimum. For example, certain features have been embodied in the design which add to the value of the ship as a Royal Yacht, but which are not altogether essential for that purpose. They would however be necessary if and when the ship is used as a hospital ship. Such features include ship’s stabilizers,certain air-conditioning, large laundry facilities and comparatively high speed, none of which could be added on conversion as a hospital ship except at considerable additional expense and long delay in completion.
As a Royal Yacht the ship will wear the white ensign and be manned by a naval crew. As a hospital ship she would be manned by a merchant service crew and wear the red ensign."
It's interesting to note the speed requirement for the ship in its role as a hospital ship leading to excessively large engines. These contributed to the relatively high fuel costs which were always brought up when criticizing the boat's operating costs.
Last edited:
Keen_Ed
Well-Known Member
She's got steam turbines (Britannia, not HM), so fuel efficiency would be horrific. I would think that recommissioning would entail replacing the engines with i/c diesels. Which would involve chopping big holes in decks. Might as well start from scratch, I would think.