The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Royal family - value for money

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Royal family - value for money

Post by tigger on 25.12.12 9:02

This is a really good little video by an American I believe - he has lots more of short fun ones, one on the extremely confusing Netherlands/Holland/Dutch question and an interesting one on Father Christmas, who used to be green in the UK and have nothing to do with Santa Claus whatsoever.

I will post that one on the Christmas topic.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

the royals

Post by Observer on 26.12.12 19:57

Simple question, why we should be supplying one of the wealthiest families on the planet with State benefits?

Observer

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-12-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by PeterMac on 26.12.12 22:31

Because without them we would be a Republic, ruled by a Berlusconi, or a Nixon, or a Blair, or a Stalin, or a Putin, or a Kim Jong Il, or a . . .
For that alone, for keeping politicians as transitory mortals, never letting them rise above the status of Chair of a very small executive committee, the Royal Family serves a vital function.
And their "wealth" exists largely only on paper. The Monarchy cannot "sell" Windsor, or Buckingham Palace, or the Crown jewels, any more than the Anglican Church could 'sell' Durham Cathedral. It is just a convenience to say that they are owned by the Crown or the Church.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by Hobs on 27.12.12 5:03

@Observer wrote:Simple question, why we should be supplying one of the wealthiest families on the planet with State benefits?

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 (as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List). 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.[1]

The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.0 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.179 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012.[2] The majority of the estate by value is urban, including a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also owns 144,000 ha (356,000 ac) of agricultural land and forest,[3] more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, for example Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park.


The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[1] This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.

In late 2000, a £35.3 million reserve was established. The reserve was created from surpluses in the 1991-2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient. For the period of 2001 to 2010, the Civil List continued to be fixed at £7,900,000 annually, the same amount since 1991.

Only the Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as head of state, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.In the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that from 2013 the Civil List would be abolished. In its place, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate." On 18 October 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received Royal Assent. Under this act, the Sovereign Grant will fund all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure currently borne by the Civil List.

The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but not the Prince of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, or Prince Harry) are funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which is fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.[2] The Queen is permitted to claim this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and other sources - the net amount, after deductions, is subject to normal income tax.

As you can see we do not support the queen by giving her our hard earned money, she in fact supports us by giving us the profits from the crown estates and paying tax.

Would you be happier if the Queen said ok i will no longer have a civil list and will instead use the funds from the crown estates.

You just cost the goverment and the country a loss of £203,000,000

The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/

Hobs

Posts : 710
Reputation : 280
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 52
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by Woofer on 27.12.12 11:00

Whether they are value for money doesn`t really concern me but what does is that many people look up to this family as figureheads. And if they care to scratch the surface, they would see that what they are celebrating and waving their flags at are extrememly right wing, verging on fascist, individuals who enjoy killing animals. Princess Diana was different as we know and she hated their ingrained and inbred disregard for humanity, which is not that far removed from the mentality of those despots PeterMac has listed above - I suppose we should give thanks that they don`t have too much influence.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by tigger on 27.12.12 11:50

@Woofer wrote:Whether they are value for money doesn`t really concern me but what does is that many people look up to this family as figureheads. And if they care to scratch the surface, they would see that what they are celebrating and waving their flags at are extrememly right wing, verging on fascist, individuals who enjoy killing animals. Princess Diana was different as we know and she hated their ingrained and inbred disregard for humanity, which is not that far removed from the mentality of those despots PeterMac has listed above - I suppose we should give thanks that they don`t have too much influence.

It beats me how the public and press have sanctified a publicity hungry royal, who got photographed with more dying black children in her arms than any other royal. She also had plenty of opportunities to sit with people dying from aids. To the extend that on one occasion she phoned a journalist that she was going to a hospice to do so. No photo opportunity lost it seems.
She thought nothing of washing her dirty linen in public and nothing of being the first to be unfaithful in the marriage with a man who taught her to ride.
I've not seen any evidence that Princess Diana was particularly fond of any kind of animal, she certainly never spoke out against the hunt. Imo she was mainly concerned with herself, a distressing young woman who was basically rather dull.

Personally, I'm against the fox hunt, for the swine hunt and for culling deer. I'm against pheasant shoots too, however, I don't think that everyone who takes part in those weird rituals is necessarily a fascist. The fox hunt would be more sporting without so many dogs and if the earths weren't stopped up. But foxes need culling too, since they have no natural enemies. I'd go for shooting as the best option.

I certainly wouldn't call the royals fascists. They've been born into the 'job'. Most of them do it pretty well, Princess Anne actually does do a lot of unseen work for the Save the Children Fund. Imo they should drop Andrew and Edward now that the Cambridges are a fixture. I think your Queen does the job extremely well, you're lucky to have her.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by aquila on 27.12.12 12:28

@tigger wrote:
@Woofer wrote:Whether they are value for money doesn`t really concern me but what does is that many people look up to this family as figureheads. And if they care to scratch the surface, they would see that what they are celebrating and waving their flags at are extrememly right wing, verging on fascist, individuals who enjoy killing animals. Princess Diana was different as we know and she hated their ingrained and inbred disregard for humanity, which is not that far removed from the mentality of those despots PeterMac has listed above - I suppose we should give thanks that they don`t have too much influence.

It beats me how the public and press have sanctified a publicity hungry royal, who got photographed with more dying black children in her arms than any other royal. She also had plenty of opportunities to sit with people dying from aids. To the extend that on one occasion she phoned a journalist that she was going to a hospice to do so. No photo opportunity lost it seems.
She thought nothing of washing her dirty linen in public and nothing of being the first to be unfaithful in the marriage with a man who taught her to ride.
I've not seen any evidence that Princess Diana was particularly fond of any kind of animal, she certainly never spoke out against the hunt. Imo she was mainly concerned with herself, a distressing young woman who was basically rather dull.

Personally, I'm against the fox hunt, for the swine hunt and for culling deer. I'm against pheasant shoots too, however, I don't think that everyone who takes part in those weird rituals is necessarily a fascist. The fox hunt would be more sporting without so many dogs and if the earths weren't stopped up. But foxes need culling too, since they have no natural enemies. I'd go for shooting as the best option.

I certainly wouldn't call the royals fascists. They've been born into the 'job'. Most of them do it pretty well, Princess Anne actually does do a lot of unseen work for the Save the Children Fund. Imo they should drop Andrew and Edward now that the Cambridges are a fixture. I think your Queen does the job extremely well, you're lucky to have her.

Bravo Tigger,

I think the UK are very lucky indeed to have our Queen who does a good job. I fear when the Queen dies we will see politicians and the media descend like a pack of vultures to 'redefine/kill off' the monarchy. Lord help Prince Charles when his mother dies. The media will have a field day on whether the monarchy should skip a generation and put a far prettier and deliciously more marketable couple on the throne. Camilla will no doubt take an absolute bashing even though in my opinion she is actually far better suited to be the wife of the future King than Diana ever was/could have been. I was never a fan of Diana. I found her pursuits shallow and she foolishly courted the media. I don't believe she was the little lost, mistreated princess in the tower. To me she was calculated, destructive and not up to the job - yes it is a job. You marry the heir to the throne to provide an heir and a spare. You are selected because you have little to no skeletons in your cupboard. Diana may have been a young woman but she was aristrocratic with much more experience of living within these circles than a commoner and I refuse to believe she was completely without support from the royal family.

I'm a royalist because the alternative doesn't bear consideration.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by Observer on 27.12.12 12:42

@Hobs wrote:
@Observer wrote:Simple question, why we should be supplying one of the wealthiest families on the planet with State benefits?

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 (as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List). 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.[1]

The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.0 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.179 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012.[2] The majority of the estate by value is urban, including a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also owns 144,000 ha (356,000 ac) of agricultural land and forest,[3] more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, for example Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park.


The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[1] This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.

In late 2000, a £35.3 million reserve was established. The reserve was created from surpluses in the 1991-2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient. For the period of 2001 to 2010, the Civil List continued to be fixed at £7,900,000 annually, the same amount since 1991.

Only the Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as head of state, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.In the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that from 2013 the Civil List would be abolished. In its place, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate." On 18 October 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received Royal Assent. Under this act, the Sovereign Grant will fund all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure currently borne by the Civil List.

The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but not the Prince of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, or Prince Harry) are funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which is fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.[2] The Queen is permitted to claim this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and other sources - the net amount, after deductions, is subject to normal income tax.

As you can see we do not support the queen by giving her our hard earned money, she in fact supports us by giving us the profits from the crown estates and paying tax.

Would you be happier if the Queen said ok i will no longer have a civil list and will instead use the funds from the crown estates.

You just cost the goverment and the country a loss of £203,000,000

The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/
With regard to the recent diamond jubilee.

The culture department has estimated that the extra bank holiday could cost Britain's ailing economy £1.2bn.
And thats not to mention weddings, funerals and security amongst other things.
The culture department has estimated that the extra bank holiday could cost Britain's ailing economy £1.2bn.

Observer

Posts : 68
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-12-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by aquila on 27.12.12 12:56

@Observer wrote:
@Hobs wrote:
@Observer wrote:Simple question, why we should be supplying one of the wealthiest families on the planet with State benefits?

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 (as each monarch, upon accession, surrenders the surplus revenues in return for an annual grant known as the Civil List). 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.[1]

The Crown Estate is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom with a portfolio worth £7.0 billion, with urban properties valued at £5.179 billion, and rural holdings valued at £1.049 billion; and an annual profit of £240.2 million, as at 31 March 2012.[2] The majority of the estate by value is urban, including a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also owns 144,000 ha (356,000 ac) of agricultural land and forest,[3] more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, for example Ascot racecourse and Windsor Great Park.


The Crown Estate is now a statutory corporation, run on commercial lines by the Crown Estate Commissioners and generates revenue for HM Treasury every year (an income surplus of £210.7 million for the year ended 31 March 2010).[1] This income is received by the Crown (i.e. the state) as a result of the agreement reached in 1760 that has been renewed at the beginning of each subsequent reign.

In late 2000, a £35.3 million reserve was established. The reserve was created from surpluses in the 1991-2000 Civil List caused by low inflation and the efforts of the Queen and her staff to make the Royal Household more efficient. For the period of 2001 to 2010, the Civil List continued to be fixed at £7,900,000 annually, the same amount since 1991.

Only the Queen officially receives direct funding from the Civil List. The Queen's consort (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh) receives £359,000 per year. The Queen, as head of state, receives £7,900,000 from the Civil List to defray some of the official expenditure of the monarchy.In the spending review statement to the House of Commons on 20 October 2010, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that from 2013 the Civil List would be abolished. In its place, "the Royal Household will receive a new Sovereign Support Grant linked to a portion of the revenue of the Crown Estate." On 18 October 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 received Royal Assent. Under this act, the Sovereign Grant will fund all of the official expenditure of the monarchy, not just the expenditure currently borne by the Civil List.

The state duties and staff of other members of the Royal Family (but not the Prince of Wales, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, or Prince Harry) are funded from a parliamentary annuity, the amount of which is fully refunded by the Queen to the treasury.[2] The Queen is permitted to claim this amount as a deduction against her gross income from personal investments and other sources - the net amount, after deductions, is subject to normal income tax.

As you can see we do not support the queen by giving her our hard earned money, she in fact supports us by giving us the profits from the crown estates and paying tax.

Would you be happier if the Queen said ok i will no longer have a civil list and will instead use the funds from the crown estates.

You just cost the goverment and the country a loss of £203,000,000

The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels - part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/
With regard to the recent diamond jubilee.

The culture department has estimated that the extra bank holiday could cost Britain's ailing economy £1.2bn.
And thats not to mention weddings, funerals and security amongst other things.
The culture department has estimated that the extra bank holiday could cost Britain's ailing economy £1.2bn.

The Culture Department did not however mention how much our own government costs and let's face it no-one actually knows how much the EU costs. I doubt anyone would come to UK to visit our illustrious government, they're not really a tourist puller. I also doubt any of our non-royal ambassadors have the impact our royal family has on promoting UK.

What's wrong with flying the Union flag on the streets of a royal celebration? No-one forces anyone to do it. It's fun for a lot of people.

aquila

Posts : 7952
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by tigger on 27.12.12 14:36

I don't know how they come up with these numbers. On these extra bank holidays, petrol stations, all catering outlets, all people selling bacon butties from market stalls will do very well, so that should help the economy. Tax wise and so on.
Souvenir emporia will do terrific business and so will the pubs. I'm sure that 1.2 billion will be balanced by other factors.

That sort of misinformation is usually trotted out by those who still have a framed poster of Che Guevara on the wall...... big grin imo


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Royal family - value for money

Post by Hobs on 27.12.12 15:01

Diana like the rest of her family was completely crackers.



Remember the silent phone calls and stalking of a married male friend Oliver Hoare, she was never charged although if it had been you or i we would have been.

Everything diana did was to get diana publicity, she even resorted to telephonong journalists to announce she was visiting some hospital at some hour so she could be photographed doing good deeds and to piss off Charles.

Princess Anne is one of the hardest working Royals and does much work for overseas chiildrens' charities.

She was the hardest working royal but was overtaken by Charles in 2010

She doesn't dress up fancy and get pictured cuddling sick child of the day, she admits she isn't child friendly and doesn't do the hugging thing, she however dresses for the climate ie practical.

She raises huge amounts for charity without broadcasting how hard she works and without demanding journalist be at her beck and call.

She is very grounded and raised her 2 children the same way.

The Queen does much for this country, she has dedicated her life to it and us.

She made a vow and has kept it unlike many in power here and around the world.

Being a monarch isn't easy, it is a job, albeit one she was born into.

She could have refused to be queen, she could retire, she won't i don't think simply because of the vow she made when she ascended the throne.

Nobody goes to visit the states to see the president and we have all seen how much politicians cost us and give little to nothing in return ( the eu is a classic example)

Millions visit this country to see our history, our palaces and the Royal family bringing huge amounts of money.

She is worth every penny of the few millions we pay her, i wish we could say the same for all the elected officials that run this country.

Hobs

Posts : 710
Reputation : 280
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 52
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum