_______________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Stephanie on January 29, 2014, 06:32:06 pm
________________________________________
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/8-royal-money-raising-ideas-queen-3069553#.UulI4Hk5XmQ :laugh:
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 29, 2014, 06:54:24 pm
________________________________________
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckL How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-millionQuote
As a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.
The public accounts committee shouldn't suffer from that problem. Its role is to examine public expenditure not on the merits of any policy but "on value-for-money criteria which are based on economy, effectiveness and efficiency".
So, a report by the committee published on Tuesday which looks at the finances of the royal household should be scrutinised by those who are after the facts.
There's an immediate problem for us though - there's relatively little data in the 35 page report. Instead Margaret Hodge, chair of the committee resides over a series of Q and As where two witnesses are responsible for the As - namely Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse and Treasurer to the Queen, and Mike Stevens, Deputy Treasurer to the Queen.
We've published extracts from some of the more interesting exchanges below:
Chair: "You have now left your reserves at £1 million from a high of £35 million. There are two questions arising from that. First, how did you allow yourself to get into the position where your expenditure exceeded your income in the new settlement? Secondly, is it not a bit risky to leave yourselves with just £1 million in reserves?"Sir Alan Reid: "A quick bit of history. The £35 million reserve that we had in 2001 was absolutely intended to be spent by the end of 2010."
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"
The Chair interrupted again, frustrated by the responses. But it's that £1 million figure that has really captured people's imaginations about the finances of the royal family. In 2012, those reserves were £3.3 million - how did that money get spent and how much is left?
We have taken a look at the annual financial reports of the royal family to find out.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: MOSAIC on January 29, 2014, 07:17:42 pm
________________________________________
Tomorrow nights Question Time Programme should be interesting to watch.
People will certainly try to ask questions about this. Watch David Dimbleby
do his usual routine and allow it right at the end of the evening when he'll
then say they've run out of time. He'll also be interjecting on comments
he doesn't like. Typical Dimbleby, always the same and always a crawler.
Never expect anything of him, he's well and truly
. Yesterday's man,
waiting for his gong..
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Snowdrop on January 29, 2014, 07:
:52 pm
________________________________________
Quote from: MOSAIC on January 29, 2014, 07:17:42 pm
Tomorrow nights Question Time Programme should be interesting to watch.
People will certainly try to ask questions about this. Watch David Dimbleby
do his usual routine and allow it right at the end of the evening when he'll
then say they've run out of time. He'll also be interjecting on comments
he doesn't like. Typical Dimbleby, always the same and always a crawler.
Never expect anything of him, he's well and truly
. Yesterday's man,
waiting for his gong..
So true Mosaic :worship:
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 08:47:27 pm
________________________________________
Quote
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckLPeople on benefits don't have people bowing to them and frankly people on benefits don't have even a little of the protection that the royals have. Most people on beenfits lost their jobs, had a life that broke them mentally and emotionally, and frankly I don't see why HM gets lauded and the commoners get insulted and mocked and blamed.
Quote
How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-millionAs a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.
Personally they aren't down to their last million, but the public money is obviously being grossly mismanaged and the RF's evasiveness isn't doing them any favors.
Quote
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"
If they keep up this evasiveness, a Labor PM will be elected and he'll be going after this family like none other. HM complained about Blair being intrusive and disruptive, but it's likely that a new Labor PM will go for the throat and order a full disclosure of every penny that has been spent on anything.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Snowdrop on January 30, 2014, 11:30:59 am
________________________________________
Quote from: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 08:47:27 pm
Quote
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckLPeople on benefits don't have people bowing to them and frankly people on benefits don't have even a little of the protection that the royals have. Most people on beenfits lost their jobs, had a life that broke them mentally and emotionally, and frankly I don't see why HM gets lauded and the commoners get insulted and mocked and blamed.
Quote
How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-millionAs a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.
Personally they aren't down to their last million, but the public money is obviously being grossly mismanaged and the RF's evasiveness isn't doing them any favors.
Quote
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"
If they keep up this evasiveness, a Labor PM will be elected and he'll be going after this family like none other. HM complained about Blair being intrusive and disruptive, but it's likely that a new Labor PM will go for the throat and order a full disclosure of every penny that has been spent on anything.
As much as I don't want a Labour government - every cloud has a silver lining!!
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 30, 2014, 02:50:08 pm
________________________________________
Quote from: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 08:47:27 pm
Quote
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckLPeople on benefits don't have people bowing to them and frankly people on benefits don't have even a little of the protection that the royals have. Most people on beenfits lost their jobs, had a life that broke them mentally and emotionally, and frankly I don't see why HM gets lauded and the commoners get insulted and mocked and blamed.
Quote
How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-millionAs a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.
Personally they aren't down to their last million, but the public money is obviously being grossly mismanaged and the RF's evasiveness isn't doing them any favors.
Quote
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"
If they keep up this evasiveness, a Labor PM will be elected and he'll be going after this family like none other. HM complained about Blair being intrusive and disruptive, but it's likely that a new Labor PM will go for the throat and order a full disclosure of every penny that has been spent on anything.
As it should be since the taxpayers are footing the bills for the Royal Family and the upkeep of the palaces, which haven't been maintained.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Fly on the wall on January 30, 2014, 06:16:41 pm
________________________________________
Royal Family doesn’t need a Disney makeover
Dramatic headlines that the Queen is down to her last million don’t tell the whole story – the royal finances are looking up, says Harry Mount
Don’t worry – the Queen won’t be moving into a two-up, two-down on Benefits Street any time soon. Black Dee and White Dee will have to survive without White Liz for a little while longer.
Yes, Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was right to say this week that royal finances are tight. Last year, the Royal Household’s net expenditure was £33.3 million, while it received £31 million from the Sovereign Grant. The shortfall had to come from a reserve fund – which now only has £1 million left; in 2001, it was as high as £35 million.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10603719/Royal-Family-doesnt-need-a-Disney-makeover.html________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Queen of the Hill on January 30, 2014, 07:57:26 pm
________________________________________
^ :June: I guess they took it a little too far with the "austerity" pr :BS: :bored: So PC new communications officials at BP f#cked it up this time, didn't they? :sly: :laundry:
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Fly on the wall on January 30, 2014, 11:05:00 pm
________________________________________
Why are we subsidising the royal family at a time of gross inequality?
Nothing symbolises stagnation, immovable social barriers and hierarchy quite like the royal family. No wonder George Osborne is leaping to their defence
When you are on a limited income, a boiler packing up, a leaky roof, dodgy guttering or a basement full of asbestos can tip you over the edge. If you are mortgaged-up, you cannot let your property fall into disrepair. If you live in social housing or are renting privately, you may find you receive little help; landlords and councils will keep you waiting and do the bare minimum. Rising food and fuel bills mean that, despite our much-trumpeted growth, too many are left with the "heat or eat" dilemma.
So can you imagine what it is like to be the poor old Queen? The boiler in Buckingham Palace is 60 years old. And you will get no Camilla cracks from me: I've moved on.
What, though, is the Queen to do? Obviously the answer is not pay for it herself out of her own enormous fortune because … well, she is the Queen. We – her largely indifferent subjects – should be ecstatically happy to pay for her repairs. Instead, though, "we" – in the shape of the public accounts committee headed by Margaret Hodge – are nosing round asking awkward questions about the royal finances, which is really rather vulgar. It is "bizarre", Jacob Rees-Mogg has told us, that this committee should query the pittance of royal expenditure when we should be looking at cutting other public spending
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/royals-want-new-boiler-we-pay-for-it?CMP=fb_ot________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 30, 2014, 11:23:30 pm
________________________________________
You know, a cool million would fix half the problems and another couple million would certainly fix another round of issues.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Royal Lowness on January 31, 2014, 02:29:16 am
________________________________________
Quote from: cate1949 on January 29, 2014, 04:40:59 am
... so when you kick her out ...
Yes, I think the only real option is to kick her and the rest of them out. England, Scotland and Wales can never be free and just otherwise.
Her "last million" (joke) should allow her to see out her days in luxury, unlike most of the pensioners in Britain who cannot afford to heat their home in winter.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 31, 2014, 03:26:03 am
________________________________________
To be frank, blaming the courtiers isn't going to really help her; chances are the courtiers are as fed up wtih her as they are with the rest of the RF.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Magnolia on February 03, 2014, 06:55:28 am
________________________________________
In the news there was the headline "The RF having financial problems".That was a total disrespect to the public the RF and money problems don't go hand in hand.When there are working people who don't know if tomorrow they even have a job.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: LadyLaura on February 05, 2014, 06:42:07 pm
________________________________________
Please pardon my ignorance as I have no idea really how the monarchy's finances are handled, but really, doesn't the Queen get billions in income from estates, rents, duchies...I thought more went in than out.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: india on February 05, 2014, 06:45:35 pm
________________________________________
Of course she does. They just don't want the public to know about it.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Royal Lowness on February 13, 2014, 12:32:59 am
________________________________________
Queenie, Rothschilds, Rockefellers et alia do not appear on Forbes List - they have far too much wealth for that. Plus, as india says, it has to remain hidden.
8)
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Queen of the Hill on February 15, 2014, 11:27:04 pm
________________________________________
People talk about billionaires but I suspect we have been looking right into the eyes of a few trillionaires all along. Their assets are so entangled under fictitious corporations and umbrella companies and this and that I am surprised even them can keep track of it all. The British Empire
still crawls underneath international law with its globalist agenda, it might be more difficult to see, but make no mistake, its tentacles are still there.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 24, 2014, 10:07:24 am
________________________________________
Not sure which thread to put this in - mods please move to appropriate thread if in the wrong place. :thankyou:
kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/my-week-of-lese-majeste/________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Royal Lowness on February 24, 2014, 09:22:10 pm
________________________________________
^
The "welfare queen" of England. That's even come from the New York Times! :thumbsup: Never thought I'd see that from the NYT.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Dasher on February 25, 2014, 12:47:12 am
________________________________________
Quote from: gingerboy24 on February 24, 2014, 10:07:24 am
Not sure which thread to put this in - mods please move to appropriate thread if in the wrong place. :thankyou:
kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/my-week-of-lese-majeste/Kenan Malik is an Indian born English writer who has long campaigned for freedom of expression.
I see Hugo Vickers (historian and royal biographer) was outraged. Well, the sycophant would be, as he said 'that the Royal Family are worth every penny'! He insisted that ‘The Queen is very parsimonious. Frugal, what a joke! Are we talking about the same Queen here, the one who is worth $33 and trillion and the world's number landowner?
Good for Malik, he didn't fall into the doorstepping, sneaky, journalists trap! Too wise for that one, eh. Seems like they were well put out when he said, ‘What’s so controversial about wanting a non-hereditary head of state?’.
His most controversial line was the suggestion that, far from being an apolitical institution, the very existence of the monarchy was a political statement, proclaiming ‘that an accident of birth matters more than the democratic will. 8)
________________________________________
Title: The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds'
Post by: Nighthawk on February 25, 2014, 11:56:08 am
________________________________________
The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds' worth of benefits every year
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-prince-charles-cash-tens-3180813#ixzz2uKm5sUuS Quote
The pair receive tens of thousands of pounds a year in housing benefits that are paid by local authorities to landlords.
Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall Estate, which has an array of properties across the South West, raked in at least £111,000. from a string of councils providing cash to households.
And the Crown Estate, which gives the Queen 15% of its revenue, received at least £38,539 in housing benefit payments from just one town hall last year.
But the true figure of such payments received by the Duchy is likely to be higher as several councils said they were only able to provide amounts handed directly to ¬landlords and not where the money was given first to the tenant.
The estate, which is worth £847million and exempt from tax, paid Charles £19million last year while the Queen is worth £320million.
Our revelations come a day after we revealed Britain’s richest MP, Tory Richard Benyon, earned thousands of pounds last year in housing benefits from his tenants. That’s despite him blasting the “something for nothing” welfare state.
Quote
The scandal in figures
£8.6bn Total value of the Crown Estate. It owns Regent Street in West End of London, left, large areas of farmland, huge shopping centres and other property. The Queen gets 15% of revenue
£163,000 Amount paid in housing benefit to the Duchy of Cornwall by string of councils in the South West of England, including Scilly Isles (below). The Duchy gave £19million to Prince Charles last year
£52,257 Amount paid by West Dorset district council for housing benefit for 12 tenants in Poundbury, Prince Charles’ model town. The homes were rented through the Guinness Trust
________________________________________
Title: Re: The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds'
Post by: india on February 25, 2014, 03:12:25 pm
________________________________________
Any poor mouthing done by HM is disgusting and a it fat lie. Wake up people! She's the richest woman in the world!
________________________________________
Title: Re: The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds'
Post by: Royal Lowness on March 11, 2014, 09:27:46 pm
________________________________________
"Tens of thousands of pounds?" I make it "Hundreds of thousands of pounds."
Disgraceful, shameless parasites, in my opinion.
bignono
________________________________________
Title: Annual costs of keeping the royals
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 24, 2014, 11:45:34 am
________________________________________
Interesting what you find when you have time to play with google. I found the two links below very interesting indeed.
The Republicans have been adding up the annual costs for the royal family and it is nearly 300 million per year.
twitter.com/RepublicStaffThe above does not include guarding the royals, and the costs must be horrendous if Rebecca English thinks they would spark outrage. Maybe we should demand to know exactly what the RPO´s cost on an annual basis, after all I think the taxpayer has a right to know.
Rebecca English @re_DailyMail · 13h
...the cost of guarding royals-even those few would recognise-would spark outrage, if the figure was ever revealed publicly (which it is not)
It would appear also that the Norfolk police are making 350 redundancies. Does this mean a reduction in police coverage for wimpo at Sandringham? It should.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 24, 2014, 04:59:13 pm
________________________________________
Tomorrow they will talk about the finances in parliament so it will be interesting to see if they say anything relevant.
P.S: As there is already a thread in this board I just merged both threads, ok?
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 24, 2014, 05:48:52 pm
________________________________________
^I believe so, Alex. Thanks for saving me this one. NO offense intended. Just kept forgetting. :flower:
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on June 24, 2014, 10:26:01 pm
________________________________________
I think the only costs it is reasonable to lay on the RF are those costs they are in control of - they are not in control of costs local councils accrue - so not reasonable to apply those costs to the RF.
The Republicans hurt their credibility when they do stuff like this - make a reasonable case - cause otherwise people just get turned off. Furthermore - the crown estates legal status is not clear - so it is also best not to make assertions that are not true.
But - I do bet those security costs are high - they are always high. This is why IMHO peripheral members of the family should not get security - only the main branch - HM PP Charles, and his sons.
It will be interesting to see what gets said in Parliament. I do think the RF is getting better at making money off the palaces etc - although - I have doubts about using BP for corporate events - we do not rent out the White House for private corporate events - it seems undignified.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on June 24, 2014, 10:59:47 pm
________________________________________
Some thoughts from Sarah Whalen
www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/item/693560-will-and-kate-middleton-spend-8m-on-digs-taxpayers-get-royal-screw________________________________________
Title: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Emperor on June 27, 2014, 05:04:57 am
________________________________________
JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
The royal household’s sovereign grant report has just been published, detailing how the annual government contribution to the Royal Family is spent.
First, the bad news for the anti-monarchists. Following that, some news for them that’s even worse.
Our sometimes tattered, oversubscribed, Beatrice and Eugenie-containing monarchy cost the British taxpayer £35.7 million over the past year. Which is an increase of £1.9 million on the year before.
Ouch.
Where does all the money go? Princess Anne clearly hasn’t bought a new skirt since 1977. Prince Charles has worn the same grey ski suit since the mid-Nineties.
The Queen keeps her breakfast cereal in pre-Festival of Britain plastic containers and favours two-bar electric fires as a primary source of heat.
Yet underneath such markedly ostentatious royal thrift, it is clear that extravagance blooms like a crop of hothouse peonies.
From the report, we understand that Kate can’t live without two kitchens (though she and Wills have paid for the second one themselves).
In their newly refurbished apartments at Kensington Palace, she has insisted on a ‘private, family kitchen’ — paparazzi-proof breadbins? — in addition to the existing one.
Why? Perhaps so she and William can skip around boiling baby’s bottles and drying dishes, pretending they’re normal, just like the rest of us.
It is certainly a lot of worktop space in which to prepare the three raisins washed down with a thimble of water that appear to be all the slender Duchess lives on.
Also, the Cambridges have two principal residences, something many young couples, unable to get onto the housing ladder at all, might find galling.
William now thinks he might go back to work, but then again he might not. To be or not to be a helicopter pilot? That is the question that transfixes him, not stamp duty or a lack of mortgage offers. Luckily he can float between two gorgeous, rent-free homes in Norfolk and London as he does so.
The freedom not to worry about money? That is the real luxury the royals enjoy.
Meanwhile, Harry is in South America, being nice to underprivileged children as a smokescreen for watching the World Cup.
He went to the U.S. last year, and we are supposed to think his £11,000 one-way, first-class ticket was a bargain. Note that his uncle, Air Miles Andy, used a tax-payer-funded private jet to fly him to Edinburgh to visit local businesses.
‘Hello, hello, jolly good, carry on,’ said HRH Freeload, before rushing off to the golf Open, conveniently being held at nearby Muirfield. The Duke of Gloucester went to South Korea a lot last year, though no one is quite sure why.
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2671573/Jan-Moir-These-royal-freeloaders-priceless.htmlNOTE to YooperMod - if this is the wrong place to post this please move it. :flower:
________________________________________
Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Rosella on June 27, 2014, 05:17:34 am
________________________________________
^^^ 'Three raisins washed down with a thimbleful of water'? Surely Kate shares those with William? Anyway, a very entertaining article, thanks for posting it ! On the other hand, please read the rest of it, everyone!
________________________________________
Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Emperor on June 27, 2014, 05:20:32 am
________________________________________
:sorry: accidentaly hit the post button and ran out of time to eidit due to internet dropping. :sorry:
Meanwhile, Prince Charles was once more the most extravagant royal. He needs to fly on private jets. Ordinary scheduled flights just won’t do for him and Camilla. No organic cocktail snacks for a start.
He spent more than £255,000 chartering a private jet to fly to Nelson Mandela’s funeral in South Africa last December. Aides said that it happened at such short notice that he could not travel on a scheduled flight. Hmmm.
Other charges incurred by the Prince of Wales include a £16,362 trip to Stoke-on-Trent on the royal train — honestly, that’s almost as much as Virgin.
There was a further £19,578 for another royal train trip from Windsor to Worcester — a journey that would have taken two hours by car. All of this funded by the long-suffering British taxpayer.
While I love the fact we have a royal train, can such flamboyant travel plans be acceptable in a nation still struggling through difficult financial times?
In total, experts estimate that the Royal Family, their palaces, travel and red-carpet lifestyle cost every single person in this country 56 pence per annum. The big question is this — are they worth it?
Despite their velvety extravagances, after some deep consideration, I would say . . . yes. Every last pip-squeaking sixpence of it. Despite Prince Charles’s lavishly patched garden jacket and the entire family’s occasional, guilty pretences at frugality, I certainly feel I get my money’s worth out of the Windsors.
They are an ongoing cavalcade of capers, a royal soap that has kept us entertained for years.
From Kate flashing her bottom in Australia to the Queen and Prince Philip toughing it out on deck during the rain-lashed Diamond Jubilee Thames river pageant two years ago, the Windsors always, always deliver.
From the hat Princess Beatrice wore to William and Kate’s wedding, to Princess Anne gruffly stating that we should all be eating horse and Harry’s naked billiards games, it is just one big party of pomp and dubious circumstance.
No, the Spanish royal family don’t cost as much as our lot — but they are not half as entertaining.
My heart soars every time I see Prince Philip approaching an innocent bystander during a walkabout. Whatever will he say next? And I love the Queen, who never puts a foot wrong. God bless her.
Just look around you. In many ways, we have become a mediocre country.
Our Prime Minister is a laughing stock, the armed forces are a shadow of what they once were, the England football team are dismal and the captain of the English cricket team has been complaining that people are not nice enough to him. Diddums.
So instead of moaning about the cost, perhaps we should celebrate that at least the Brits can do one thing well, and that is have a Royal Family who still capture the imagination and know how to put on a show.
For better or worse, they are the benchmark against which we judge our own families, chart the march of male pattern baldness, *female dog* about their gratuitous consumption, and wonder about the family members who don’t pull their own weight.
If we are to have a Royal Family, we might as well have them, in all their cranky, stiff awkwardness.
We don’t want them cycling to work and working in a bank, like some do-gooding Belgian or Danish royal. We want them to be different from us, we want to be fascinated by them.
Even now, is there any more fascinating person in British public life than the Queen?
There she is, on banknotes and stamps, muscling in on our everyday lives, yet as silent and uncomplaining as a Sphinx.
Yes. Of course she is worth every penny.
________________________________________
Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: cate1949 on June 27, 2014, 06:01:35 am
________________________________________
good article - cheeky - the three raisins and thimble fo water stood out for me - seems Kate's issues are apparent to all
________________________________________
Title: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Nighthawk on June 27, 2014, 11:50:40 am
________________________________________
SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Queen must pay her own security bill
Quote
Metropolitan police has refused to continue footing all of the £128m bill
Four officers guarding Kensington Palace and St James's Palace made way for lower-paid security guards last year
Officers protecting the Royal Mews will soon be replaced
Quote
When Home Secretary Theresa May ordered a review into the Royal Family’s security two years ago, no one had any idea just how far reaching it would be.
Now, however, it has emerged that the Metropolitan Police has refused to continue footing all of the £128 million bill.
Buried away in the Monarch’s annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.
Quote
Taxpayers will continue to pay for the guards, but the money will not come from the Home Office’s budget. Instead, the Queen has to use her Sovereign Grant.
This grant, which replaced the Civil List in 2011, is calculated at 15 per cent of the profits of the Crown Estate, a portfolio of land, holdings and investments worth more than £9 billion.
‘The taxpayer will save money because the guards will be paid less than police officers,’ says the source. Let’s hope they provide the same level of security.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671626/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Queen-pay-security-bill.html#ixzz35pr3ST5Nsweet most of these guys couldn't keep intruders out in the first place :- :sly: I'd be scared :sigh:
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 11:58:55 am
________________________________________
HM is about to start getting sick:
SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Queen must pay her own security bill
Metropolitan police has refused to continue footing all of the £128m bill
Four officers guarding Kensington Palace and St James's Palace made way for lower-paid security guards last year
Officers protecting the Royal Mews will soon be replaced
Read more:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671626/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Queen-pay-security-bill.html#ixzz35pnCGVwHFollow us: @mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I think the government did the right thing; lets face it, the security officers are now just glorified security officers and it's not like the RF is as much of a target as others might have thought. The main job of the officers is to babysit the RF when they are jet setting around and this will actually save taxpayers a huge chunk of change mainly since they don't have to pay 128 million a year just to ensure their safety and security.
Either way, HM has lost a lot of previously free perks:
Her Yacht
Queen's Flight
Now taxpayer funded security protection and HM will be spitting nails over all this. She's systematically losing every free thing she's ever known (not that I sympathize) and she's likely right when she realizes that if the Tories are consenting to this, another labor government will in fact go ever further.
Blair decommissioned the Britannia and removed a ton of her powers (while not always showing up to the weekly meetings) and it could well be that a less kind and genial Labor Prime Minister would end up being as pleasant as Tony Blair was. I don't think the perks are going to stay where they are.
Any Labor PM can easily point to the Cambridges and make it clear that since taxpayers are paying for all these renovations, then taxpayers should be able to get some kind of relief from paying for more things, like protection and other stuff.
So now, perhaps there won't be nine guards for Kate, or a dozen for Harry, or something like a handful while they jet set around.
Even more interestingly, I think this means that HM will likely order the number of royal residences streamlined, since she won't be able to blow bucks having the numerous estates protected by endless numbers of police officers.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 12:00:10 pm
________________________________________
I already posted this in the finance section.
But, I will post again!
This means that HM will no longer enjoy the free protection granted to protect those endless numbers of royal estates. So the RF will have to streamline the number of residences they own and occupy.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Nighthawk on June 27, 2014, 12:08:55 pm
________________________________________
oh I don't read that thread so my bad :flower: if you want to remove this or whatever that's cool with me
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on June 27, 2014, 01:14:45 pm
________________________________________
In the article it says the Met (Police) are refusing to pay for ALL the £128 million for royal security. That means, if you read between the lines, that they will continue to pay part of it. That is reinforced later in the article where it says the Queen has agreed to pay 'some' of her own security costs.
The Queen is a very frugal person in her private life. She probably approved the Royal Household's working party which examined the problem of security and put the lower-paid security staff in the Royal Mews etc already. I cannot see any giving up of Balmor@l, Sandringham etc coming out of this latest exercise. Especially since Queen Elizabeth's been given an extra 5 percent rise from this year.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 01:40:19 pm
________________________________________
No matter what, it's what she deserves.
Maybe William can give up a few of his homes and so can Anne; then Edward and then the rest who aren't directly in the line of succession and won't inherit (unless a profoundly freakish incident happens) and they can remodel their suites in the palaces to suit them.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 01:41:14 pm
________________________________________
I think this thread si fine, as long as there is no off topic post about general royal expenses.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on June 27, 2014, 01:54:48 pm
________________________________________
Anne hasn't got a lot of homes. Neither has Edward. Can't see any giving up of Gatcombe, nor Bagshot, nor Royal Lodge etc. Sorry, just can't.
________________________________________
Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 02:27:42 pm
________________________________________
Well now, the DM is turning on the RF for sure.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 27, 2014, 03:10:18 pm
________________________________________
^Neither can I. They've lived on the public dole for so long it's become an ingrained lifestyle. These people never give up any perks unless they absolutely have to.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 05:41:38 pm
________________________________________
I think an enterprising Prime Minister could easily float the idea of restricting the RF to the official palaces. Each time WK gorge themselves, it's another piece of PR for a minister who wants to curtail the entire issue of royal privilege.
Quote from: Rosella on June 27, 2014, 01:54:48 pm
Anne hasn't got a lot of homes. Neither has Edward.
Maybe not a lot of homes, but they don't live in just one place; if the right minister came along and proposed a bill that would require the RF to reside in the official residences/palaces and give up their own individual houses (that they live on, on the various estates) I could see it passing. It's a bad idea to spread the RF around anyway and better to keep them centralized. I'm sure the apartments are large enough to hold family and a handful of staff each. I'm sure that Anne could fit a stable on the grounds and live primarily in the palaces and it would reduce a need for security.
Quote
Can't see any giving up of Gatcombe, nor Bagshot, nor Royal Lodge etc. Sorry, just can't.
No one saw the future, when a Prime Minister required HM to pay for income tax, or made HM give up the official royal yacht and lose a variety of other long held perks. Certainly she (HM) never saw a time when a Prime Minister would treat her fairly dismissively (Blair).
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 27, 2014, 05:48:46 pm
________________________________________
@emperor please next time only paste here the link to the article unless it's behind a paywall.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: cate1949 on June 27, 2014, 08:19:25 pm
________________________________________
so they hire their own private security for some of the buildings - as long as the persons have professional security - seems fine
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: meememe on June 27, 2014, 11:27:14 pm
________________________________________
Quote from: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 12:00:10 pm
I already posted this in the finance section.
But, I will post again!
This means that HM will no longer enjoy the free protection granted to protect those endless numbers of royal estates. So the RF will have to streamline the number of residences they own and occupy.
They actually don't 'own' that many - Balmor@l, Sandringham are the Queen's and Gatcombe is Anne's.
The rest are owned by the state, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Crown Estates - in other words they are owned by the nation and are occupied by the royals. So what this boils down to is the fact that the government doesn't want to have to pay to protect the nation's heritage and property u front but...if you read it very carefully the money is to come from the Sovereign's Grant and not from the Metropolitan Police budget - so still being paid for by the state but at a lower cost due to coming from the limited Sovereign Grant - which replaced the Civil List and other grants in 2012 and had been frozen for 20 years - meaning other ongoing expenses to be covered by the Sovereign Grant will have to be cut back such as maintenance of royal homes - a case of rob Peter to pay Paul.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Magnolia on June 28, 2014, 12:12:26 am
________________________________________
Quote
Now, however, it has emerged that the Metropolitan Police has refused to continue footing all of the £128 million bill.
Wow that's alot I know it's for safety but still.
Quote
Buried away in the Monarch’s annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.
Let's see if that's even true.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2014, 12:41:25 am
________________________________________
Either way, HM must be steaming about this; she hates to spend HER own money.
________________________________________
Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: meememe on June 28, 2014, 02:00:59 am
________________________________________
She won't be spending her money though.
It is simply a different way for the government to fund the security. Instead of it coming from the Metropolitan Police's budget it will be coming from the Sovereign Grant - so instead of coming from taxpayers it will be coming from the income of the Crown Estate 15% of which goes to The Queen while 85% goes to the government.
She will still have her private income.
What it will mean is that other aspects of the spending of the Sovereign Grant, such as the maintenance of the nation's property, will have to be curtailed.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Emperor on June 28, 2014, 04:16:25 am
________________________________________
Will do
:flower: :thumbsup:
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 17, 2014, 09:39:48 pm
________________________________________
Thank you!
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on July 17, 2014, 11:50:45 pm
________________________________________
I suspect telling the rf where to live would be illegal - a human rights violation. Telling them just how much you will pay for security might be different though.
I don't get this - it is in everyone's best interest to provide security. Consider the blow to the British if a member of the RF was kidnapped or worse. Think about the anger, loss of feeling secure - even republicans would be utterly infuriated by any such attack. Think about what the costs would be in the aftermath - some sort of retaliation? Criminal investigations etc.
Wheither one likes them or not - the UK has a RF - its chosen head of state - security must be provided. But concerns about security costs - which just keep getting higher given the nature of the world we live in - do point out the need to limit the size of the RF
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 18, 2014, 02:08:32 am
________________________________________
Thing is, that the RF is using security for funding vacations, not work and second, they are a target, but not like they used to be. The IRA has oddly become more disinterested in attacking the RF, the RF is out less (WK in particular aren't doing much), and the guards are becoming scapegoats each time a royal acts out.
During the 2012 nudie scandal, people wondered why officers weren't paying attention to photographers, blaming them for not shielding Kate from public view, and being blamed for not babysitting Prince Harry while Harry got plastered on Croatia and messing around in Las Vegas, letting in dozens of women. Thing is, these officers do try to do their jobs, but the royals are always playing games, making it hard to create a concrete plan for protection since the royals are so unstable.
Even Diana, she spent time giving contradictory orders, ordering Wharfe to 'deal with' a parking violation, and sometimes ran off or ordered them to attack a paprazzo.
So it's no wonder that the officers assigned by the government are likely fed up. Fed up trying to protect them and the government is tired of paying for it.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 18, 2014, 08:05:30 pm
________________________________________
IMO people start questioning on funding security depending on the royal reputation. I at least haven't heard criticism on the security to the Queen/DoE or Charles. It starts with the Cambs and the rest of the family.
No one questions that the main family needs funding. But then what is the main family?
Andrew is very known and he didn't choose to be born on the royal family. However, many consider that he doesn't need security funded by the taxpayer and less of all his kids.
However, if they are kidnapped the repercussions are nearly the same as if they kidnap Harry.
On the other side if they decide to go on holidays on Mustique, the Alps, o whatever does the state needs to fund security? Sure the royals should stay free to choose whatever destiny they want but they also should pay the extra costs on security. If not they should just stay on UK.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 21, 2014, 09:36:11 am
________________________________________
I often think the RF needs to start changing their party habits; like party on the estates and not on the more public club scene and adhere to knowing which nations are unfriendly to the UK to avoid putting themselves at risk. The royals need to do their part and I think making them pay for their own safety is a good idea. They've been using the security as both babysitters and scapegoats.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 21, 2014, 12:26:29 pm
________________________________________
When a royal goes overseas they do so with the permission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and often they are sent to 'unfriendly' nations because they are royal and thus the government can distance itself from any negative publicity.
The royals don't make a lot of the decisions about where to go for themselves but they go as representative of the nation.
Holidays - somewhat different but again with the knowledge and approval of the government of the day.
As for security - the decision about who gets protection is made by the Home Office and it applies to ANY person in the country who needs it temporarily or permanently.
Currently the Queen and Philip, Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William, Kate, George and Harry have 24/7 protection paid for by the state while the others royals - Sophie, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra only have personal protection when they are on public duties although their homes are also protected 24/7.
Beatrice and Eugenie have private security 24/7 - not state funded at all but from Andrew's purse.
The whole think with security is that while nothing is going wrong it seems unnecessary but if say Beatrice was kidnapped would it but a non-issue then? How would the government and the public react to the kidnapping of The Queen's granddaughter?
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on July 21, 2014, 01:40:10 pm
________________________________________
one of the great things when they had the yacht was that they took their vacations on the yacht - secure no paps - and no problems. There is a move afoot to privately finance a new yacht which would be not just for the RF but government. If this happens that might solve some of the vacation security problems.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 22, 2014, 09:57:45 pm
________________________________________
Quote from: meememe on July 21, 2014, 12:26:29 pm
When a royal goes overseas they do so with the permission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and often they are sent to 'unfriendly' nations because they are royal and thus the government can distance itself from any negative publicity.
The royals don't make a lot of the decisions about where to go for themselves but they go as representative of the nation.
Holidays - somewhat different but again with the knowledge and approval of the government of the day.
I think all of us mean vacations.
They choose where they want to go. I agree that they gov shares responsibility but then again if they told them no they would be curtailing their freedom.
But it doesn't make sense that they can travel to the other side of the world and the tax payer has to foot the bill for the bodyguards expenses.
(In any case this is applicable to any RF not only the BRF)
Quote from: meememe on July 21, 2014, 12:26:29 pm
As for security - the decision about who gets protection is made by the Home Office and it applies to ANY person in the country who needs it temporarily or permanently.
Currently the Queen and Philip, Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William, Kate, George and Harry have 24/7 protection paid for by the state while the others royals - Sophie, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra only have personal protection when they are on public duties although their homes are also protected 24/7.
Beatrice and Eugenie have private security 24/7 - not state funded at all but from Andrew's purse.
The whole think with security is that while nothing is going wrong it seems unnecessary but if say Beatrice was kidnapped would it but a non-issue then? How would the government and the public react to the kidnapping of The Queen's granddaughter?
Although the tax payer should not pay for the side branches of the BRF it is not very fair for them. They've been exposed for their whole lives and not by choice though they now have to pay for their security. Though in another way the risk/cost they face is in exchange for all the opportunities they get from being born in that family.
Another question is when the they should have their security taken out. How many spares are needed so Harry doesn't "deserve" security anymore?
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 22, 2014, 10:29:10 pm
________________________________________
Harry has more security than many of the others because there have been direct threats against him due to his service in Afghanistan. As the son of a future monarch he will have 24/7 protection, at least until he is the brother of the monarch - just as Andrew, Edward and Anne do now.
The monarch, the spouse of the monarch, the spouse of the former monarch (currently none), the children of the monarch, the children of the heir apparent, and now the children of the heir apparent's heir apparent all have 24/7 but the spouses of the monarch's children, her cousins and their spouses now only have it while on official duties e.g. the Wessex's had security with them on their recent holidays because Edward is the son of the monarch so the security was there for Edward but there was no security there for Sophie, Louise or James. That is publicly funded security although the current reports are that The Queen will have to start paying for some of this from the Sovereign Grant (which will mean cutting back in other areas such as duties or maintenance of the palaces as there is a finite amount of money being given to the monarch but more and more is expected to be done with that money.)
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on July 22, 2014, 11:46:00 pm
________________________________________
^ thanks meememe for the info
Harry obviously still requires security if for no other reason tha his very high profile as well as the threats made against him. Now I do not expect the Taliban to send someone from Afghanistan but one does not know what home grown persons might choose to do. So the security is justified even if he is more removed from the throne.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 23, 2014, 03:19:38 am
________________________________________
^Which is why princes aren't supposed to be putting themselves in the battlefield in the first place; Harry sneaks off to be a soldier for a few months and comes back with more security because he just HAD to be allowed to do what HE wanted to do, no matter the results. During the entire second stint of service, he ended up putting Camp Bastion on the map and endangered the other soldiers and spent much of his time doing interviews.
Quote from: cate1949 on July 21, 2014, 01:40:10 pm
one of the great things when they had the yacht was that they took their vacations on the yacht - secure no paps - and no problems. There is a move afoot to privately finance a new yacht which would be not just for the RF but government. If this happens that might solve some of the vacation security problems.
Well, the other issue is how the royals tend to take risks with themselves. Kate cavorts naked in public and screams about how officers were supposed to be looking for paparazzi, when guards are supposed to look for lunatics with guns or weapons that will hurt them physically. A new yacht won't do anything other than cause more resentment among the public and frankly, the royals should just party on estates and stop pushing themselves everywhere. These estates are almost as large as small cities, but that isn't enough, they have to turn the rest of the world into their playground.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on January 01, 2015, 09:02:47 am
________________________________________
Mods - please out elsewhere if you think it is necessary.
The Crown Estates and Duchies are not the personal possessions of the RF. If there was no RF they would all revert to the Treasury for public use. It is only a constitutional arrangement that allows the RF to enjoy the profits of the Duchies and the Queen is given a Sovereign Support Grant which is linked to the profits of the Crown Estate - they are not given the CE neither do they put back money into the UK Treasury. It isn't theirs to take. Also let's not forget the tax breaks, no death duties etc, EU subsidies for the various estates, payments from various council tax areas for security. Which ever way you cut it the source of the Windsor's personal fortune is public money.
Queen Victoria bought Sandringham for Albert's 21st birthday using the interest accrued by the Duchy of Cornwall i.e. a constitutional arrangement which allowed then to use a form of public money and not their own. It's an utter scam. Look at Republic web site they have loads on this.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 01, 2015, 05:08:48 pm
________________________________________
^ Good post Val, and exactly as has been said before, but many people still don´t believe it, especially in the DM comments section. Quite where they think the rf get all their money from if not the taxpayer is beyond me - of course, maybe they just pluck it out of thin air or they grow money trees somewhere :laugh: :laugh:
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 03, 2015, 08:26:58 pm
________________________________________
Interesting read.
www.sxolsout.org.uk/zcase.html________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on February 03, 2015, 10:22:17 pm
________________________________________
Eye openly interesting and quite shocking too. Thanks for such a fascinating albeit disturbing read.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on May 31, 2015, 03:14:51 pm
________________________________________
Oh dear, wonder what the rf will think of this.
Royal Family faces major financial review as costs soar by a third in three years
THE Queen faces a stringent review of the Royal Family’s finances after three bumper years in which public funding of the monarchy has risen by nearly a third.
www.express.co.uk/news/royal/581000/Royal-family-financial-reviewNot surprised funding has had to increase. We, the public taxpayer, are supporting the medds as well these days, and continue to do so at the moment it would appear.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Tpearl on June 17, 2015, 02:35:12 am
________________________________________
True
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 21, 2015, 02:24:50 pm
________________________________________
So folks, here we have it, what we will get when the royal finances are revealed.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11689154/Queens-finances-are-safe-from-cuts-for-two-years.htmlThen there is chucky, spending like there is no tomorrow
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132814/Charles-s-heir-miles-bill-soars-1million-Cost-green-Prince-s-globetrotting-risen-100-000-year-thanks-28-seat-luxury-jet.htmlAnd of course, no wander she is happy to have call me dave cameroon remain in power, keep it in the family what!
scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10426328_10207363321468106_691714848246595468_n.jpg?oh=984b4e0e72d13adbc4b2d75586ff2cd9&oe=56341A08Then we have of course the other end of the scale for the man in the street.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/21/osborne-to-proceed-with-12bn-welfare-cuts-despite-anti-austerity-protestsRealy quite sickening isn´t it. No wonder they have been hauled sprog I out of hiding to try and bolster some ah factor, think they need more thank sprog I for that, not even a little elastoplast on this lot.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on June 21, 2015, 04:22:38 pm
________________________________________
Given ER's wealth and the financial state of the UK and most people's finances it's a great pity ER can get here hand out of her pocket and pay for some of their expense herself- mind you there would be such a profusion of moths if she did. There will, no doubt, be the usual whingeng from ER on being short of money
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 21, 2015, 04:
:27 pm
________________________________________
Thank you for the articles I hope there will be more detailed ones soon.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on June 21, 2015, 08:12:07 pm
________________________________________
If she asks for money to repair the roof it should be pointed out to her that she was given that but chose to spend it on willy and waity's apartment at KP - yes folks, the one they hardly ever use.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on June 21, 2015, 10:15:51 pm
________________________________________
This is really disgusting.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on June 22, 2015, 10:13:07 am
________________________________________
This is worse than disgusting - it is a 2-fingered salute to all who work hard (esp tjoe struggling to amke ends meet), are being denied hospital treatment due to lack of NHS funding etc etc.
NB The Sovereign Grant does NOT cover security costs
republic.org.uk/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=205&qid=927855________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 22, 2015, 10:58:56 am
________________________________________
Thanks Marion. Read it.The true cost of the royals to the traxpayer is 300 million GBP. No matter about the poor man on the street, who has to wait for surgery, denied cancer drugs for their kids because of the cost. No, let us keep paying for paedo pandy to travel the world, for the lamebridges to have two home, and to support the meddledooms who are living at AH. And they wonder why people want rid of the monarch, there are hundreds of reasons, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on June 22, 2015, 12:04:42 pm
________________________________________
^^^^gingerboy^^^^^
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 22, 2015, 01:47:11 pm
________________________________________
The rf excelling themselves at being greedy. Such an awful disease greed, not an attractive trait at all. HM is sat on billions of pounds, but she never wants to dig into her own pocket.
Royal rip off as residents told to buy Crown Estate houses and then kicked out
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-rip-residents-told-buy-5925722#ICID=sharebar_facebookNo doubt we can expect a press release saying HM knew nothing about it. Hmm, she knows everything, I never believe it when it is stated she did not know. Bit like the staff being sacked, never in a month of Sundays will I believe she didn´t know, they. They have to cover her backside to make her look sweet and innocent - even though she isn´t.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Fly on the wall on June 24, 2015, 01:59:11 am
________________________________________
Royals' globetrotting that gobbled up £5.1m: Charles spends almost £500,000 on one trip alone as figures show 63 journeys cost more than £10,000
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136845/Royals-globetrotting-gobbled-5-1m-Charles-spends-500-000-one-trip-figures-63-journeys-cost-10-000.html________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Fly on the wall on June 24, 2015, 04:33:04 am
________________________________________
Find Out the Palace's Official 'Allowance' (in Millions!) for Princess Kate, Prince William and Prince Harry
www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,20395222_20932721,00.html
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: leogirl on June 24, 2015, 05:59:12 am
________________________________________
Such a big allowance for people who are supposedly full time military and a stay-at-home mum. :thumbsdown:
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 24, 2015, 04:03:22 pm
________________________________________
I posted this, I think it was yesterday. Talking about it via email with a couple of friends, and below are the responses I received from them. Interesting, and we all live in different parts of the UK and have different views on quite a few things.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-rip-residents-told-buy-5925722#ICID=sharebar_facebookThis story is utterly priceless as it says quite clearly the Crown Estate is a commercial business paying profits into the Treasury for the benefit of the nation and ab-so-bloody-lutely- no mention of belonging to the RF. Bet the Mirror has been sitting on this story for the right moment i.e. NOW!
In fact as these disgusting forced sale stories show the Rf will be backing away from any claim that they own the CE like a rat up a drainpipe.
No wonder they've been pimping george out dressed as a 50´s throwback.
****************************************
They are starting to look desperate if they need to sell properties to fund them. What always gets overlooked is the huge amounts HM and PC get from the Duchies. HM is now almost the same as PC in this respect he gets approx. £20 MILLION A YEAR!!! to support himself and she is on around £16 MILLION!!!. If they took the Duchy of Lancaster away from HM I've a feeling she would have to sell Balmor@l and parts of Sandringham.
There's no wonder none of them seem to put their hands in their own pockets and spend their tax payer funded (directly or indirectly inheritances. they don't need to they can just keep stashing it away and spend public money and yes the middletons are well and truly on board this gravy train by connection.
________________________________________
Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 24, 2015, 07:22:43 pm
________________________________________
So, where, we ask ourselves, has the funding for the maintenance of these place gone? What has it been spent on? We know over 4m HM authorised to be spent on KP renovations for the lazy duo. The other question is why has it been allowed to get like this. In the first piccie I saw there is allegedly scaffolding to the right of the BP balcony as we look at it. Never noticed it last week after Trooping the Colour.
Here are photos of some of the problems.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/buckingham-palace-needs-150-million-5938912Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint
)
)
, I will find your little black book HM !(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/Smileys/sign0151.gif) lol
(it's like a two page pdf file! :rolleyes:)
tale BS.
#JamesMiddleton