Queen Elizabeth Seeks Support for the Royal Yacht | The Crown (Imelda Staunton) 

A fact that so many royalists wouldn't comprehend . Britannia was designed with a standard 25 yr lifespan the fact she exceeded that in a good condition was more to do with her builders than the constant refits , which helped , but could do no more than give her a few more years service . That said, she did perform her duties extremely well but is far better suited to her new role as a museum . We had the good fortune to be among the first on board in that role , the mother in law was a good friend of the wife of someone on the yachts committee and we got passes to visit before she was officially opened . We were fortunate to see her in her almost original condition ........including the dust . If anyone is in Leith i suggest they take a look around , well worth a visit .

How could she justify the cost of the makeover of a luxury yacht when people were living on the street, without a home?😒

@@chinavaughan6383 There will always be homeless on the streets regardless of there being a royal yacht , and that doesn't make it right , being homeless is a dire situation to be in , but the yacht did play a vital role in trade with many deals being made on board which benefitted the UK . Britannia wasn't just a plaything she played her part for the UK .

@@roystone9932 Yes, I understand the emotional tie that she had to that yacht, but given the modern ways of transportation that now exist, the money to refurbish the yacht could have been used to help people in need. Being one of the richest people on the planet, if she wanted this so badly, she could have paid for the refurbishment herself😒

@@roystone9932 You are incorrect. There may have been deals made onboard when it was in good condition, merely because it was available. But it was in no way essential for any deal. The Queen herself is on record for saying Britannia was not essential for her travel and diplomatic needs - merely nice to have. The Queen hosted many dinners for VIP's on board, but she could do that in any 4- or 5-star hotel too.

😂😂

Wow. I never knew that. Bigger Question, How did Britannia make £6 billion a year in trade around the world? It's a transport vehicle, a yacht.

@@Mrchair-bk5ns diplomatic deals, trade deals, making connections, etc. They send the Royal yacht to a country, with the Royal family, and they arrange a party onboard, state dinner for example. where important people sit around a table with good food and alcohol. You will be amazed how many trade deals have come around, with alcohol involved! There are times where a member of a Royal family is good to have, to help braking the ice, in discussion with new possible trade partners. You sort of can say a Royal family is third wheeling for the Government that is on a blind date. For example, a few years ago, Norway sendt the Norwegian King and Queen to China, with politician and business leaders. The King would start the talk with introducing his people, then he will just leave them for them self. It works in a country like China, where they have a sort of "Fantasy" respect against royalty. But it wouldn't be as efficient to do in USA for example.

Really? The treasury state that it only raised £3bn between 1991 and 1995.

Shhh don't question it, it's better that way.@@Mrchair-bk5ns

​@@Mrchair-bk5nsThe government probably used it to carry cargo when the Queen wasn't using it.

I agree that she struggled with accepting the 90s. I think she and the whole RF struggled even before that, going back to the time of Charles' marriage. Had she understood the 70's/80's and issues facing young adults of that time, her children probably wouldn't have been urged into the marriages and on the timelines they were. I think with Britannia, it was the only truly private holiday or family time away from work and the press that she ever had. As such, she was blinded to what others perceived of it

She had an immense fortune and could have taken care of the expense. She evidently did not care for the yacht as much as portrayed with such sentiment or she would have never given it up. However, the RF is so used to others paying for things she found this impossible. What a bubble they live in and still do.

Does your job require every single moment of your existence? No? Not quite the same then is it?

If you inherited enough money to grow and to have one, who are we to judge after all is your money.

In all her later trips to Edinburgh she never went to see the yacht as a museum because it broke her heart so much 😢

I don’t she was allowed to

it belonged to the navy.

@@prismaticmarcus She could buy it from the Navy and operate it as private property of the Royal Family. The idea was this was the official yacht of the Royal family, like Air Force One is the official airplane of the president. But that means the government decides if it's needed. So the choice was buy it or mothball it.

​@boredlawyer3382 the government decided to mothball Britannia. HM The Queen suggested a smaller Royal Yacht be built at their expense and crewed by the Royal Navy. The government said no. Britannia used to make £6 billion a year in trade around the world. That money didn't go to the Royal Family or the MOD. It went to the treasury. I served on Britannia and agree with Princess Anne's suggestion that Britannia be sunk. Just so you know.

@@boredlawyer3382 I don't know if Air Force One is a good comparison. Unlike the Queen, the President is the elected leader of the nation. He only has use of the plane while he's President. The Brittania was used by an unelected family, not just for official royal duties, but also for personal leisure. Parties, honeymoons, vacations, etc. It may have been technically owned by the Navy, but it was basically the Queen's personal boat for life.

technically the Queen can, coz all the power is given by the Queen, the Queen is the law itself.

If you wanna get granular, as far as I understand the Monarchy can still "technically" take back total control of the government if it so desires. They don't have any control now, and the British government that exists currently essentially runs the governance of the country in the name of the monarch. However, if there was like a national emergency the King/Queen could just up and dump the government and return to a state of absolute monarchy if they felt the need to.

​@josephmurphy6127 yes and they would never do that because even in this day this would lead most likely to civil war and the split of the kingdom but yes

@@josephmurphy6127 Yes, that's what the King did at the start of World War 2. The elected PM was useless, had no idea how to win against Germany. So the King replaced him with Churchill, unelected but up to the job - the only guy in Britain that was.

@@josephmurphy6127 Which would likely trigger a set of actions to eliminate the monarchy entirely and once again establish a republic.

Neither did Churchill tbh

@@alizaheer9123 Churchill just simply let his chins waddle.

@@seanwebb605 he was the only one to like go up and kiss her hand as well

@@alizaheer9123 Sort of like Richard Dawson on Family Feud.

The issue simply was that she wanted the luxury paid for from public dollars. She should have just paid it herself if it was so important to her.

Funnily enough or not the crown wasn't allowed to do work on the ship as far as I'm aware because it was owned by the government but also idk why they wouldn't be allowed to pay for it too

Usually she would join the ship wherever it was rather than sail with her. But I do agree that it was antiquated and extravagant.

The "stupid" voter demographic making FAR less money than the the Queen- a largely performative leader. The difference between the Royal Yacht and Air Force One is that that the latter is actually and regularly used for foreign policy and political matters of state. Not sailing to a commonwealth country to cut ribbons. But to actually carry out matters of national security and state. The Queen wasn't sailing around to negotiate with foreign leaders and prevent conflicts. She wanted a yacht to sail around and make appearances with. Not the same thing at all. And then British public- the PEOPLE- obviously agreed

Couldn't she have bought her own yacht?

@@1violalass She wasn't using it for vacations, it was for official duties and was cost effective and impressive to boot.

She was speaking with Conservative PM John Major-not Labour.

She can or rather could have flown like the rest of us, and I doubt you could pay for it yourself, so what right do you have to ask others to pay for it,