Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
😂 LOL Some people really do go too far.The security bill will be doubtlessly massive, though.
the peasants are being ripped off by the bankers to pay off their gambling debts, might as well fund a wedding party as well at least it will get peoples minds of the main problems in life for a few days.
Originally posted by Liberator
It's just tiring. It sincerely bothers me to know that money from hard-working people is being paid for these lazy twats who sit around in their money and do nothing.
I heard someone talking about how the royals are a fantastic investment. They bring in hundreds of millions in tourist money each year but only cost a few tens of millions to maintain.
They don't cost ANYTHING to maintain. The Civil List that funds the Royal Household is paid in return for them surrendering the income from the Crown Estates, which is worth much more.
(in fact, soon the arrangement will be changed so that their upkeep is handled entirely from a portion of the crown estate, which will be much simpler)
In short- all the natural, massive amounts of family wealth they should have they instead GIVE to the government, in return for which the Government gives the Queen an allowance.
William will be Prince of Wales, a position funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall so that costs the taxpayer nothing also.
They don't cost us a bean (in fact they give the government far more than they take), and they do indeed bring in a lot of money.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
They don't cost ANYTHING to maintain. The Civil List that funds the Royal Household is paid in return for them surrendering the income from the Crown Estates, which is worth much more.(in fact, soon the arrangement will be changed so that their upkeep is handled entirely from a portion of the crown estate, which will be much simpler)
In short- all the natural, massive amounts of family wealth they should have they instead GIVE to the government, in return for which the Government gives the Queen an allowance.
William will be Prince of Wales, a position funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall so that costs the taxpayer nothing also.
They don't cost us a bean (in fact they give the government far more than they take), and they do indeed bring in a lot of money.
Sort of right and sort of wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm
In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.
As for bringing in money, yes the crown is big with other monarchy driven countries, like the despots of the middle east. France seem to do O.K. without a monarchy.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
They don't cost ANYTHING to maintain. The Civil List that funds the Royal Household is paid in return for them surrendering the income from the Crown Estates, which is worth much more.(in fact, soon the arrangement will be changed so that their upkeep is handled entirely from a portion of the crown estate, which will be much simpler)
In short- all the natural, massive amounts of family wealth they should have they instead GIVE to the government, in return for which the Government gives the Queen an allowance.
William will be Prince of Wales, a position funded entirely from the Duchy of Cornwall so that costs the taxpayer nothing also.
They don't cost us a bean (in fact they give the government far more than they take), and they do indeed bring in a lot of money.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Sort of right and sort of wrong.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm
In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.
As for bringing in money, yes the crown is big with other monarchy driven countries, like the despots of the middle east. France seem to do O.K. without a monarchy.
Very interesting. Thanks for the info, guys. 👆 I was confused on how that operated. It seems like a "who's on first" system, you know?
Also, it makes absolute sense that the crown is not a drain on the UK taxpayers: gone are the days of massive palace construction projects and monarchal-driven wars. I like how some claimed that they are parasites and others show that there is clearly a large net contribution from the monarchy's existance. This very wedding should be a very obvious example of a massive revenue contribution.
Originally posted by Daemon Seed
Sort of right and sort of wrong.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8124022.stm
In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown. Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally. It is managed by an independent organisation headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. The surplus revenue from the Estate is paid each year to HM Treasury. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to Parliament, to which it makes an annual report.
As for bringing in money, yes the crown is big with other monarchy driven countries, like the despots of the middle east. France seem to do O.K. without a monarchy.
No, I am entirely right. The Crown Estates are, by any legal right, their land. The agreement that the money would go to the Government is one that was signed BY the Monarchy.
If you got rid of the official Monarchy, those lands and that money would still morally belong to them. The government has no legal right to take the money from those lands save for this voluntary agreement.
So again- the Monarchy just gives the Government all that mloney.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, I am entirely right. The Crown Estates are, by any legal right, their land. The agreement that the money would go to the Government is one that was signed BY the Monarchy.If you got rid of the official Monarchy, those lands and that money would still morally belong to them. The government has no legal right to take the money from those lands save for this voluntary agreement.
So again- the Monarchy just gives the Government all that mloney.
It could easily be argued, that the monarchy are lucky the civil war in the U.K. allowed them to keep anything, I know this has nothing to do with management of the crown estates which is a modern way of allowing them to exist as a semi palatable constitutional monarchy, despite the fact we still don't have a constitution. Mr. Cameron where is your bill of rights?
Had our revolution happened a hundred years later like in France they would not have kept their heads, led alone property. It could also be argued anything they have really belongs to the people and a redistribution of wealth is in order.
A King is a thing men have made for their own sakes, for quietness' sake.
- John Selden, Table Talk (1696 edition)
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
I thought the kind did lose his head?
Yeah Charles the first did; however, we allowed through the constitution and restoration Charles the second to become a constitutional monarch. In France they just offed the aristocrats on mass. Good call? Probably in terms of equality.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What about Louis XVIII?
He was a way to transition the country and appease some parts of the society. He also ran away to save his head when Napoleon returned. I think we can say he was lucky. He also has a lot to thank the 'duke' of Wellington for. He also kept appeasing the populace... He knew the monarchy was on borrowed time.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But it still existed is what I'm saying, the Revolution didn't "do away" with the monarchy. Just paved the way for a new one. Which gave way back to the old one. Which swing round back to the new one again.*sigh* F*ckin French...
Actually it would have done had Napoleon not lost. It did pave the way for the removal of the monarchy and the execution of Louis XVI was quite a statement in itself as was the execution of Charles I, we should have gone further in the U.K. i'm not saying execution was the way, just removal. :-)
Originally posted by steverules_2
I'm not watching it
Good lad!
Re: Royal Bloodlines Deano. It’s difficult to breed out late onset disorders such as HFC (horse faced ****) syndrome even though they follow simple Mendelian inheritance. The phenotype typically shows well after reproductive age has been reached and by then it is too late. Shooting people, burning their bodies and throwing them down a mine shaft did show some promise in the Russian revolution. Maybe it’s time we tried that again?