The Royal Scroungers, Why I resent the Civil List

In the United Kingdom the civil list is the list of recipients of taxpayers' money that is given to the monarch and immediate members of the royal family so as to perform their state duties and keep the royal household. The civil list is effectively the royals' salary. In 2002, the civil list was £8,153,000 (GBP).

The civil list is funded in accordance with a 1760 settlement in which the monarch hands over the income from the Crown estates (£170,800,000 in 2003).

THE SCROUNGERS AND HANGERS-ON RAKE IT IN,

THE following snouts are buried deep in the Royal Trough. as the Duchy of Lancaster provides the Queen with a private investment fund of shares which give her an income of about £6m a year which she hands out to her family as follows
To Prince Andrew £249,000
To the Princess Royal £228,000
To Prince Edward £96,000
To Princess Alexandra £225,000
To the Duke of Kent £236,000
To the Duke of Gloucester £175,000
Now that Prince Edward has given up trying to play on the Royal name with his unsuccessful TV company Ardent, he will, no doubt expect to be paid more than his paltry £96,000, but that will be no problem as Princess Margaret popping off has freed up £219,000 a year allowing adjustments to be made.
It has to be said that the Royal Family have made real savings in recent times hiring green tents rather than white ones for garden parties and even remembering to turn off the lights now and again. Giving up the Royal Yacht and burying the Queen Mother has also helped but, isn’t it time that we called a halt to the Civil List (public money) giving £350,00 a year to the racist reactionary known as the Duke of Edinburgh.

THE HALF-WIT OF THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH

As long ago as 1966, he was already insulting his own countrywomen, with the remark, “British women can’t cook.”, though what he knew about cooking is a mystery - eating, yes, cooking NO!
It was in the 1970s that he started to have a go at the Welfare State In 1971, he argued that people ought to be taxed for having children “because they are being subsidised to breed”, without noticing the irony that he was being heavily subsidised himself. He got on his hobby-horse again when he told businessmen that “The Welfare state is a protection against failure and exploitation. A national recovery can only take place if innovators and men of enterprise and hard work can prosper” (1976)
And back in 1981, when his country was enduring a deep recession, he remarked, “Everybody was saying we must have more leisure. Now they are complaining they are unemployed.”
In 1986, he exhibited his casual racism while on a visit to Beijing, where he jovially told British exchange students, “If you stay here much longer you’ll all be slitty-eyed.” His ability to offend his hosts abroad is legendary, as when in 1993 he told a Briton in Hungary: “You can’t have been here long. You’ve not got a pot belly.”
In the past, he has ignored the storm generated by his remarks, which included asking a Scottish driving instructor, “How do you keep the natives off the booze long enough to pass the test?” (1995)
His sensitivity to others is not exactly a strong point either as he offended many grieving parents after Dunblane in responding to the call for control of hand-guns. “But I’m not altogether convinced that it’s the best system to somehow shift the blame onto a very large, peaceable part of the community. If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat, which he could do very easily ... I mean are you going to ban cricket bats?” (December 1996)
Disability is not something he understands very well, either. In Cardiff in 1999, he told some deaf teenagers near a loud steel band: “If you’re near that music, it’s no wonder you’re deaf.”
But, his racism keeps coming back to haunt the Royal Family. As he toured a high-tech company near Edinburgh, Scotland, and noticed a poorly wired fuse box. ‘It looks as though it was put in by an Indian.’ he said to the factory manager.(1999)
And its not as if he has learnt anything either. Last year he asked a 13yr.old boy about a spacecraft they were looking at, before saying: “Well, you’ll never fly in it, you’re too fat to be an astronaut.” (2001)

A Taxi Driver writes on a topic of importance

Phil the Greek, (Cab No.1)

I had the wife’s Mum in the back of the cab recently and she was knocking back the gin while phoning the bookies on her mobile. You wouldn’t believe the money she put on some no-hopers. I ask you, Charlie Boy odds-on to be King - she has to be joking - more money than -sense if you ask me.
And then she suddenly goes all croaky, saying that she is dying. Well, I’ve heard that one before - you take them to the hospital and they do a runner while you’re not looking. Anyway, I got back to her apartments and what does she do but die on me. I tell you, some people will do anything to avoid paying their way and I should know!
Never mind, I can always claim it as a tax expense, not that I pay taxes, but its the thought that counts.

Taken from various sources on the net.

What do you think people😄

nice i used to live there

Don´t forget these "royals" bring in a lot of tourist money.
Nevertheless its out of date and the monarchy should be abolished.

What bothers me most is the Lords, I saw a docu on this subject, there was one unelected lord who hardly ever was in the UK, got his mega pay check and didn´t even pay tax on it because he lived on some island near the UK, TAX haven. That is sad.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Don´t forget these "royals" bring in a lot of tourist money.
Nevertheless its out of date and the monarchy should be abolished.

What bothers me most is the Lords, I saw a docu on this subject, there was one unelected lord who hardly ever was in the UK, got his mega pay check and didn´t even pay tax on it because he lived on some island near the UK, TAX haven. That is sad.

They would still bring in the money without the civil list 😄

Your opening paragraph solves the issue. They had the right to that Crown estate income. Instead, the state gets it, and they get a paltry sum in reutn. it is hardly unfair.

170 million given up to 8 million gotten back. Oh woe.

Stop the Civil List and you would be morally obliged to give them the income from their land back. We would lose far more than we gained.

And the proportionate value of the money is bugger all anyway.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Your opening paragraph solves the issue. They had the right to that Crown estate income. Instead, the state gets it, and they get a paltry sum in reutn. it is hardly unfair.

170 million given up to 8 million gotten back. Oh woe.

Stop the Civil List and you would be morally obliged to give them the income from their land back. We would lose far more than we gained.

And the proportionate value of the money is bugger all anyway.

Only whilst the Queen remains constitutional head of state 😖hifty:

The opening paragraph only annoys me more🙂

-Kuntz 🍺

It's THEIR land! It belongs to them as a family! If you are on a crusade to seize all private property and give it to the state, good luck in yuor revolution. Meanwhile in the real world, that they give us these millions of pounds which, in any other circumstances would be due to them, in return for a relative pittance, is absolutely nothing to moan about.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's THEIR land! It belongs to them as a family! If you are on a crusade to seize all private property and give it to the state, good luck in yuor revolution. Meanwhile in the real world, that they give us these millions of pounds which, in any other circumstances would be due to them, in return for a relative pittance, is absolutely nothing to moan about.

No your mostly wrong, no biggie, its state land (only hers by right of being sovereign) on the whole, she generally gives most profits back for this reason🙂 Why do you get so aggressive? Are you Prince Philip 🙂

What land does the Queen own?
As hereditary sovereign, the Queen owns the crown estate - almost 120,000 hectares of agricultural land, plus the seabed around the UK. Its statute includes some archaic rules: through the crown estate, for example, the Queen can claim ownership of all whales and sturgeon that are washed ashore. But the estate did turn a profit of £147.7m in 2000-01, all of which was credited to public funds.

Also held by the Queen as sovereign are the occupied royal palaces, such as Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Kensington Palace and Windsor Castle. The Queen's private property includes the palaces at Balmoral and Sandringham.

Much of the Queen's private income comes from the Duchy of Lancaster - an estate comprising more than 19,000 hectares of land, which made the Queen £7.3m before tax in 2000-01. The Duchy of Cornwall, which comprises more than 50,000 hectares, funds the Prince of Wales.

How much does the monarchy cost to run?
The Queen's "head of state expenditure" - official expenditure relating to her duties as head of state - is met from public funds. The total spend in 2000-01 was £35m, a figure which excludes the cost of security from the police and army, and of soldiers on ceremonial duty. Apologists for the monarchy point out that this figure is much lower than the profits of the crown estate.

The most controversial part of the expenditure is the Civil List, the money provided on a 10-year cycle for the running of the Queen's household. The spend was £6.5m in 2000-01, but has been fixed at £7.9m per year until 2011 - despite the fact that the Queen made a £35.3m profit out of the money provided for the previous 10 years.

The £35m for 2000-01 also includes almost £1m which went to the Queen Mother and Duke of Edinburgh; £15.3m spent on funding the occupied royal palaces (listed above), and £5.4m spent on travel (much reduced since the decommissioning of the royal yacht). The rest went on pensions and other expenses incurred by government departments, including postal services, "equerries and orderlies", and the administration of honours. £1.5m went on the Palace of Holyrood House, Edinburgh.

Balmoral and Sandringham are maintained out of the Queen's personal income.

Does the Queen pay tax?
The Queen pays tax on a voluntary basis from her private income, but not on "head of state expenditure". But she did not pay almost £20m of inheritance tax after the death of the Queen Mother: this, says the royal website, is primarily because "constitutional impartiality requires an appropriate degree of independence for the sovereign".

What is the Guardian's position on the Queen?
The Guardian has launched a legal campaign against the 1701 Act of Settlement - which excludes Roman Catholics, Muslims and other non-Protestants from succeeding to the throne. It is also campaigning against the Treason Felony Act of 1848, which inhibits discussion of republican forms of government.

A Guardian editorial in December 2000 hoped that "in time we will move - by democratic consensus - to become a republic".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,716637,00.html

Kuntz

It's only State land because it was TAKEN from them in the Act of Settlement!

It belongs rightfully to them. They inherited it like any property. Break the terms of that Act, you should give the land back. Else it is simple seizure of property, morally wrong by any standard. I suppose you want to seize the land belonging to all rich people?

If feeble calls for Republicanism- especially from a feeble paper like the Guardian- are going to be made they should check facts properly first.

I am sorry you resent rich people being rich. But we have already forced them to give up the money from their own land in return for much less- an agreement the Monarchy made by agreement in the name of the public good. Wanting more is simple greed.

The miniscule outlay on the Royal Family is more than made up for by the constitutional and financial benefits they give back- quite aside from the money they have an absolute moral right to that they instead give to the State.

Your view of the act of settlement is somewhat skewed🙂
I don't resent the rich, just the monarchy🙂

The Act of Settlement of 1701 was designed to secure the Protestant succession to the throne, and to strengthen the guarantees for ensuring parliamentary system of government.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,407239,00.html

Some Canadians have good ideas

http://www.monarchyfreecanada.org/

I guess you read the telegraph 😄

-Kuntz 😄

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's only State land because it was TAKEN from them in the Act of Settlement!

It belongs rightfully to them. They inherited it like any property. Break the terms of that Act, you should give the land back. Else it is simple seizure of property, morally wrong by any standard. I suppose you want to seize the land belonging to all rich people?

If feeble calls for Republicanism- especially from a feeble paper like the Guardian- are going to be made they should check facts properly first.

I am sorry you resent rich people being rich. But we have already forced them to give up the money from their own land in return for much less- an agreement the Monarchy made by agreement in the name of the public good. Wanting more is simple greed.

The miniscule outlay on the Royal Family is more than made up for by the constitutional and financial benefits they give back- quite aside from the money they have an absolute moral right to that they instead give to the State.

All of which is totally irrelevant to any of the points I made. The Crown Estates were land owned by the Royal family, much as any family can own land, and the subsequent additions to the Act of Settlement involved the State taking the income of that land, by agreement.

The State has no call on that land, any more than it has call on any privately owned land. So to break their agreement and take it would be theft.

If you remove the Civil List, breaking one side of the bargain, then the whole bargain falls apart and the monies from that land returns to the Windsors.

Simple as that. We make far more money out of them than we pay to them.

So what your saying is in 1701 the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family owned this land 😕 Am I the only one who can see some confusion here🙂

Do I need to explain the relevance of that comment😄

The house of Hanover 😂 52 in line, they did well out of the act of settlement 😄

-Kuntz🙂

Originally posted by Ushgarak
All of which is totally irrelevant to any of the points I made. The Crown Estates were land owned by the Royal family, much as any family can own land, and the subsequent additions to the Act of Settlement involved the State taking the income of that land, by agreement.

The State has no call on that land, any more than it has call on any privately owned land. So to break their agreement and take it would be theft.

If you remove the Civil List, breaking one side of the bargain, then the whole bargain falls apart and the monies from that land returns to the Windsors.

Simple as that. We make far more money out of them than we pay to them.

Originally posted by Whirlysplatt
So what your saying is in 1701 the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family owned this land 😕 Am I the only one who can see some confusion here🙂

Do I need to explain the relevance of that comment😄

The house of Hanover 😂 52 in line, they did well out of the act of settlement 😄

-Kuntz🙂

Oh well guess this thread can be closed now 😄

I think it works out that each inhabitant of the UK actually only gives something like 32 pence to the royal family. I used to be OK with that coz it's about the price of a snickers and princess diana looked as though she could have done with one of them.

Originally posted by amity75
I think it works out that each inhabitant of the UK actually only gives something like 32 pence to the royal family. I used to be OK with that coz it's about the price of a snickers and princess diana looked as though she could have done with one of them.

I take it you not ok with it know though 🙂