Jump to content

The Royal Family Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, alchemist said:

Must admit it took longer than I expected for the typical anti-royal backlash to turn up!!

As a matter of interest, how much each is that when spread out amongst the taxpayers?

Not the re-furb, but the total Royal cost is reported on Sky as £1.24 per person (not per taxpayer).

Lots of costs can be wittled down to so much each.

 

When their income is so vast, from wealth of dubious origin, there's no reason for the refurb to be publicly funded.

53 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Royal family should be like the TV license fee. Those who want that service, pay for it.

Is there an option for just Kate and Meghan? 😜

Edited by Voice of reason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Borista336 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48746609

 

more leeching on taxpayers from the minor royals, i would love to have 10% of that to re-furbish our house.

when are the royals going to join the real world.

When you pay £343m into the Treasury through a commercial enterprise like the Royal Family do via the Crown Estate, I'm sure you wouldn't see a problem taking back less than 1% of it to restore a property to live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

When you pay £343m into the Treasury through a commercial enterprise like the Royal Family do via the Crown Estate, I'm sure you wouldn't see a problem taking back less than 1% of it to restore a property to live in.

They've worked damn hard to build that enterprise up. Late nights, weekends the lot. Oh, hold on.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, the_bloke said:

When you pay £343m into the Treasury through a commercial enterprise like the Royal Family do via the Crown Estate, I'm sure you wouldn't see a problem taking back less than 1% of it to restore a property to live in.

When your family have jurisdiction over a country that features the burned out wreck of Grenfell Tower, maybe you should show better judgement.

 

They already had a palace to live in anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pettytom said:

When your family have jurisdiction over a country that features the burned out wreck of Grenfell Tower, maybe you should show better judgement.

 

They already had a palace to live in anyway.

Why would they have any sympathy when their temporary accommodation is one of several palaces and the one that caught fire is repaired poste haste at public expense and one reluctantly agrees to pay some tax

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, the_bloke said:

When you pay £343m into the Treasury through a commercial enterprise like the Royal Family do via the Crown Estate, I'm sure you wouldn't see a problem taking back less than 1% of it to restore a property to live in.

The crown estate isn't owned by the royal family though, it's owned by the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

The crown estate isn't owned by the royal family though, it's owned by the state.

No it isn't.

 

https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/en-gb/resources/faqs/#whoownsthecrownestate

 

Quote

 

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, so not owned privately by the monarch, and excess revenue IS owned by the state...  The independent board was established by statute (ie the thing the government creates)...  To all intents and purposes it is owned by the state, although the specific legal arrangement is as you've described.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Right, so not owned privately by the monarch, and excess revenue IS owned by the state...  The independent board was established by statute (ie the thing the government creates)...  To all intents and purposes it is owned by the state, although the specific legal arrangement is as you've described.

I do believe it explicitly says it is owned by the Monarch. It is not owned by the state. How it operates on a day to day basis is up to those board members, who operate independently and who saw fit to spend £2.4m on restoring a property they manage, which is what they are duty bound to do as per the 1961 Crown Estate Act.

 

The only way you can say it's taxpayers money is that by spending £2.4m on restoring a property they have reduced the surplus revenues that gets fed back to the Treasury for that year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not "PRIVATELY" owned was what I said.

 

Quote

in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

 

Yes, the argument that they had an obligation to restore the property is a good one.  But I can see why people find it rather perverse that private individuals get to benefit in this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can never get animated by Royal Family discussions.  It's such a minor side show to much more important issues.  It's like getting worked up over what happened on last night's Love Island.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

Not "PRIVATELY" owned was what I said.

 

 

Yes, the argument that they had an obligation to restore the property is a good one.  But I can see why people find it rather perverse that private individuals get to benefit in this way.

Depends if you consider that the money the Crown Estate earns and the properties it owns to belong to the state or not. I don't, any more than I consider the state to own Channel 4.

 

I think if people find it perverse or not is a reflection of their viewpoint on the Royal Family itself, not about the fact that someone actually gets to live in this restored building.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.