[Closed] and the Queen gets a 6% rise on 40 odd million a year

This would be the same queen who applied for a poverty hardship fund to heat her palace, despite being one of the wealthiest women in the world. Meanwhile my local special school who do great work is having its staff decimated resulting in significant reduction in quality of life/education for lots of vulnerable young people.

We're all in this together my arse. We should take the French approach....

I get the dichotomy with them getting a rise, but given that the estates pay taxes nowadays, and the tourist income the Royal family and palaces generate, I think there are bigger wastes of public money to worry about

[quote=grum said]This would be the same queen who applied for a poverty hardship fund to heat her palace, despite being on of the wealthiest wine in the world.

Some of those vintage clarets are very temperature sensitive.

the tourist income the Royal family and palaces generate

Not the old tourism myth again

I get the dichotomy with them getting a rise, but given that the estates pay taxes nowadays, and the tourist income the Royal family and palaces generate, I think there are bigger wastes of public money to worry about

It's less about the quantity of money and more about the message. Same goes for the 10% MPs pay rise if that goes through.

Yes the tourism myth. Visitors come to the UK just to see the royality? The French have higher tourist numbers and their visitors come to see the royal palaces not the irrelevant head of state.

It's less about the quantity of money and more about the message. Same goes for the 10% MPs pay rise if that goes through.

This

Not the old "confirmation bias" again. No one can possibly tell how much tourist revenue the queen and her shit generate, so the anti royalists pick the reports that say she does nothing, and the pros choose those that say she generates loads.

Think about your thinking!

The tourism argument was invented by members of the royal household in the 1960s and they have never produced any evidence to support it. I'm a fairly active traveller and I've never met anyone who came to the UK to see that lot. Has anyone else? I used to drive past BP frequently and there would only be a handful of people hanging about but places like Tate Modern get mobbed and do much more for the exchequer. The arts and galleries, however, are seen as a 'bigger waste of public money' by the Tories and are being cut.

but given that the estates pay taxes nowadays

the tourist income the Royal family and palaces generate

Apparently she's got a fair few armies so who's going to tell her she can't have a pay rise?

I used to drive past BP frequently and there would only be a handful of people hanging about

It was rammed, jam-packed, with tourists on Sunday, watching the changing of the guard. I guess some of them may have been hoping for a glimpse of a Royal?

Given the adoration for the Royal Family in many parts of the world I think it must have a tourism benefit - how much it would be affected by not having them I have no idea but that's not going to happen anyway.

I doubt the Queen gets too involved with the finances - she has a man for that who is duty bound to do his best for her - it's up to Gov't to do what's right. I hear a lot of work is needed in the palaces so money gets spent on that.

Is it right? Dunno but it's a tiny amount of money compared to so much that's wasted and we love 'em (mostly).

how much it would be affected by not having them I have no idea but that's not going to happen anyway

That's what your french counterpart said in 1787 and then along came Monsieur Guillotin.

That's what your french counterpart said in 1787 and then along came Monsieur Guillotin.

Madame Guillotine, surely?

and we love 'em (mostly).

This is one of life's mysteries I'm never going to be able to fathom. And seemingly the further down the socio economic scale you go the more the love increases. Incomprehensible to me.

Dr Guillotine.

Madame Guillotine, surely?

Monsieur Guillotin lived at number 42, just down the road from Madame Guillotine. She hated him and he was a big supporter of the Sun King and nobles in general so she decided to take him down a peg or two by shortening royalty/nobles a bit. Hope that helps.

Regicide. It's the only way.

Under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, she gets a sum equal to 15% of the income of the Crown Estate.

If the income of the Crown Estate has gone up, then the Sovereign Grant goes up.

The Crown Estate's income typically increases more than GDP, inflation, your pension, your wages or anything else, because very large concentrations of capital tend to generate bigger returns than smaller ones, or indeed labour.

I'm no fan of there being a queen, but HRH getting an extra 6% this time around isn't a product of gittish Tory gits being gits, it's a product of a good annual return on investments that her income is linked to.

🙂

The Royal family is a massive draw for tourists.

I'd happily see a larger increase in spending to support the Royal Family.

I've no doubt at all that it costs the French state multiple times more to maintain all their grand state owned buildings. The town hall where I was married is grander than Kensington Palace. There are 1000's of such buildings in France.

BigDummy, don't let common sense get in the way of a bit of frothing!

The Royal family is a massive draw for tourists.

What evidence do you have for this?

You'd be amazed how much wealthy Americans love the Royal family, and will come to the UK to do "royal" stuff. As one example my in-laws named their daughters Elizabeth and Victoria because they love the royals so much. This sort of tourist will spend a fortune to come to the UK (next year they're off to Ballater so they can see Balmoral. They'll spend a few thousand to do it, a lot of it going into the local economy.

I'm ambivalent, there's not that many of them, it's not that much money and I don't subscribe to the theory that they have any worthwhile political influence.

I mostly feel sorry for them tbh, I'd hate all that attention, it must be dreadful.

I suspect the most ardent anti royals would be disappointed that none of society's woes are suddenly solved should they be removed, it's a handy focus point but I suspect they don't make a blind bit of difference.

Not from us Northern Britons she isn't 😀 Times reporting that the Scottish Government aren't chipping in.

This is one of life's mysteries I'm never going to be able to fathom. And seemingly the further down the socio economic scale you go the more the love increases. Incomprehensible to me.

^This. Something I don't think I will ever understand.

Just a thought. That's Buck House place? It's a council house isn't it? Is she paying bedroom tax?

the Scottish Government aren't chipping in.

Not true as explained by both the Scottish Government and the Queen's spoke person. However, it does allow the papers to carry on presenting the idea down south that the Scottish are tight and selfish.

I guess it's very hard to work out the true cost of a Monarchy compared to whatever would replace it if the Monarchy went.

I don't subscribe to the theory that they have any worthwhile political influence.

It's not really a theory is it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9801835/Queen-and-Prince-Charles-using-power-of-veto-over-new-laws-Whitehall-documents-reveal.html

The idea that they have any political power whatsoever in the 21st century is utterly ridiculous.

dragon - Member

Not true as explained by both the Scottish Government and the Queen's spoke person

Sorry,I had read the direction it had gone and assumed it was about the upkeep to her houses,the Scottish Government are not contributing to the increase in the costs of upkeep of the crown estates. We are still chipping in to her increase in allowance.

The Queen can take what she jolly well wants, it's Her Government after all

you can bet that Blair and his misses would trying hard to get in as head of state. then the cost would really mount up.

I'll keep the Queen if the alternative was some .... like Blair, Brown, Thatcher, your politician of no choice.

One person BORNE to rule over me , I THINK NOT.

We're still no closer to getting a definitive answer regarding the [url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/15/queen-veto-war-powers_n_2477422.html ]Queen's role in the Iraq war[/url]...

The Queen also vetoed entirely a private member's Bill, the Military Actions Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill 1999, that would have transfered the power to authorise military strikes against Iraq from the monarch to Parliament

It is widely assumed that the royal prerogative, the authority to declare war, rests now with the prime minister rather than the Queen herself.

However, these documents raise questions about how much power the monarch still has over the elected government of the day.

Lib Dem MP Julian Huppert said the fact there had been a "fight to to keep this quiet" showed the significance of the Whitehall document

Not that we're likely to, given the secrecy surrounding the Queen's weekly meetings with the Prime minister of Her Government and [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-granted-new-right-of-secrecy-2179148.html ]the monarchy in general[/url]

The Queens role in the Iraq war is supposed to be secret, having sad that the rumour is the at she lead a crack team of commando's to blow up any of Sadams palaces that were better than Buck house. Apparently she is a highly trained explosives expert, it's all in the Snowden documents that Guardian has...................................................................allegedly. 🙂

Guillotine? What are the betting odds of there being a revolution with the monarch's head ending up in a basket?
As a nation we seem to love 'em. Not too bothered myself though Kate seems a good sort.

Everyone understands that there's a difference between the Crown Estate and the Queens private estate, right?

jambalaya - Member

The Royal family is a massive draw for tourists.

Well they should be on display a bit more often. I've been outside Buckingham Palace quite a few times and I've never seen any of them 🙁

Perhaps they could take it in turn to wave from the balcony ?

Everyone understands the role of the Queen's [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Secretary_to_the_Sovereign ]Private Secretary to the Sovereign right[/url]?

to act as a channel of communication between the Sovereign and his or her governments

you can bet that Blair and his misses would trying hard to get in as head of state. then the cost would really mount up.

I'll keep the Queen if the alternative was some .... like Blair, Brown, Thatcher, your politician of no choice.

Don't worry, think of all the inheritance tax due in the near future.

I saw the Queen the other day at Ascot. Treasonous thoughts passed through my mind and then I realised that, by being there, I was part of the problem.

So I cut off my own head and put it on a spike.

Don't worry, think of all the inheritance tax due in the near future.

The Monarch doesn't pay inheritance tax - what a surprise!
Not content with dodging income tax for most of her life - what about some back tax, interest and fines?

So I cut off my own head and put it on a spike.

Very magnanimous of you!

If we didn't pay the agreed payments we'd have to give back the Crown Estate I suppose. We'd be worse off if that happened.

The Monarch doesn't pay inheritance tax

Well not qualifying for inheritance tax shows just how skint they are. They need to generate more income.

OMITN earlier:

Lawyer: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "Did you check for breathing?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?"
* Witness: "No."
* Lawyer: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
* Witness: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
* Lawyer: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
* Witness: "Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law somewhere."

I hear a lot of work is needed in the palaces so money gets spent on that.

mudshark - Member
If we didn't pay the agreed payments we'd have to give back the Crown Estate I suppose. We'd be worse off if that happened.

Yes, I wonder how much they bring in to the Exchequer? I bet it's increased by more than 6% since the last royal allowance change.

Not that I'm a monarchist, either, but the financial argument against Brenda Windsor's family doesn't stack up.

40 million a year is a lot of coke and hookers.. the old girl and her fella are worth every penny he served in the war got seriously shot at and came through with a smile.. hes 90 odd now and liz ant far behind and while most folk there age are dead and buried or in a nursing home they still turn up to open every fete and gala going..

If we didn't pay the agreed payments we'd have to give back the Crown Estate I suppose. We'd be worse off if that happened.

We could just keep it, kick them out of our newly acquired castles and let them fend for themselves on a southern sink estate.

the old girl and her fella are worth every penny he served in the war got seriously shot at and came through with a smile..

Which side was Philip Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg on?

let them fend for themselves on a southern sink estate.

Balmoral was purchased privately by the Royal Family and therefore not Crown property, so Her Majesty and the RF are perfectly capable of fending for themselves in their north of the border bolthole

BigDummy - Member

Under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, she gets a sum equal to 15% of the income of the Crown Estate.

If the income of the Crown Estate has gone up, then the Sovereign Grant goes up.

The Crown Estate's income typically increases more than GDP, inflation, your pension, your wages or anything else, because very large concentrations of capital tend to generate bigger returns than smaller ones, or indeed labour.

I'm no fan of there being a queen, but HRH getting an extra 6% this time around isn't a product of gittish Tory gits being gits, it's a product of a good annual return on investments that her income is linked to.

Tory plans to increase subsidies for offshore wind are certainly directly beneficial to the Crown Estate. I don't see why governments think the crown should receive payments equal to 15% for development in the sea within 12 miles of the coast.

I would rather have seen onshore subsidies maintained.

Although not a money earner, why should the Crown Estate receive any money from any gold/silver discovered in a persons land?

Ah, **** it - it's 59p I can afford.

As others have said, unless we're prepared to strip the crown of its assets its self funding - they get 15% of the income the estate generates. It doesn't go into Liz's post office account it pays for things like maintence on Buck Palace, some of which hasn't been touched since the 50s.

You can bleet all you like about 'privilege of birth' but try telling someone trying to feed themselves by picking a landfill in Lagos that your hard done by because you weren't born Royal.

Can we not privitise them?

The Queen bought to you by Pepsi?

I mean, if they're that much if a tourist draw then someone will be prepared to pay them a wage, surely?

Yes. That I would privatise. And tax!

You can bleet all you like about 'privilege of birth' but try telling someone trying to feed themselves by picking a landfill in Lagos that your hard done by because you weren't born Royal.

I keep seeing this kind of argument and it's a really bad one. It's a fundamental misunderstanding (being generous) to suggest that people who dislike ludicrously excessive disparity of wealth are pissed off and jealous because they want to be richer themselves.

I don't want any of the royal family's money for myself, I'm fine - but there are people in this country genuinely struggling and even dying through poverty. It's obscene to see the queen preaching austerity surrounded by gold, wearing a hat worth £1000000.

Yes the poor in this country don't have it as bad as the poor in developing countries but that's just 'whataboutery'. It's still wrong.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefit-cuts-deaths-revealed-how-5939071

'We're all in this together.'

You can bleet all you like about 'privilege of birth' but try telling someone trying to feed themselves by picking a landfill in Lagos that your hard done by because you weren't born Royal.

So something is ok if something unrelated is worse. Wow thats convinced me!

Wow thats convinced me!

It's telling that that remark was so daft that no-one's bothering with jive even.

😉

Very much personal experience on the Tourist thing as I used to work for a Japanese company, the people in Japan were interested in the Royal family when speaking to them in Japan, but it was all about the shopping when the were actually in London.

About 15 years ago whilst visiting London we wandered past BP and there were a lot of tourists around as usual. There seemed to be some security movement going on around the entrance to the palace and the gates, we then noticed a couple of blokes walking across the courtyard they then walked out the gate and across to Green Park, both myself and the Missus found it very amusing that we seemed to be about the only people there who realised one of the blokes was Price Andrew.

royal family = the big flash criminals/drug dealers in YOUR town flashing around in all their fancy stuff, living in their massive houses going on their expensive holidays .... while all the time living off the misery of the town around them! and some people love them and some hate them.
THATS the royal family!
IMO of course 😉

the only people there who realised one of the blokes was Price Andrew.

To be fair, that's a bit like recognising one of the members of Take That who isn't Robbie Williams or Gary Barlow while walking around a branch of JD Sports in Leominster. Good knowledge, but you can't really expect the less-dedicated fans to get very excited.

😉