Royal Gossip

The British Royal Family *Windsor* => HM Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip => Topic started by: spookyboo on November 10, 2010, 05:55:04 pm



Title: British Royal Finances
Post by: spookyboo on November 10, 2010, 05:55:04 pm
the Express - ROYAL BLOG: GEORGE OSBORNE'S BLUNDER OVER QUEEN'S INCOME (http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/blogs/post/267/blog/2010/10/27/207908/Royal-blog-George-Osborne-s-blunder-over-Queen-s-income-)

Quote
CHANCELLOR George Osborne thought he was being clever linking the Queen's future income to the Crown Estate but he has made a big mistake.


Under plans announced in the Government's October 20 Comprehensive Spending Review, the Royal Household's income will be linked to a percentage of the profits from the £6.6 billion property empire, which nominally belongs to
the monarch.


I say nominally because since 1760 the profits from the Crown Estate have gone straight into the Exchequer under the terms of a deal agreed between George III and his ministers. In return, since 1760, the Government has paid
the monarch an annual income, known as the Civil List, to cover the costs of being head of state.
READ MORE (http://www.sundayexpress.co.uk/blogs/post/267/blog/2010/10/27/207908/Royal-blog-George-Osborne-s-blunder-over-Queen-s-income-)


Title: Re: GEORGE OSBORNE'S BLUNDER OVER QUEEN'S INCOME
Post by: YooperModerator on November 10, 2010, 06:05:28 pm
The way I see it, this way of funding makes her financial business simpler, no? :think:
It looks to me as if she'l be a share holder in 'crown estate inc.'!  :tehe:
If their annual profit is high she'll get more if it's low she'l get less.
Sounds fair to me!  :thumbsup:


Title: Queen’s windfall pay deal will be capped
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 24, 2010, 08:45:44 pm
Queen’s windfall pay deal will be capped after claims Chancellor's austerity formula was actually worth more

Quote
The Royal Family’s new funding formula will be capped, after complaints that the change could see a huge rise in payments to the Queen.

Chancellor George Osborne unveiled the new scheme last month, claiming future payments to the Royal Household would be tied to profits from the Crown Estate’s £6.6billion property portfolio.

The plan was initially to give the royals 15 per cent of profits from the Estate, the proceeds of which currently go to the Treasury.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332171/Queens-pay-capped-claims-Chancellors-austerity-formula-worth-more.html#ixzz16EcT0KQ8

Yeek. Why do I think that all this is happening because of Kate? Initially there was no complaints from politicians, now there is a cap.


Title: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 05, 2011, 01:45:24 am
I noticed some interest in royal finances so I decided to make a topic on it.

Let's start with HM and her income.
HM has two main sources of income: the annual donation from the government called the Civil List and the income she gets out of the duchy of Lancaster.  
Now the Civil List is a construction that was invented when George III handed over the Crown Estates to the government because he was unable to manage it himself, (he nearly went bankrupt due to mismanagement of the portfolio!) in return for managing the estates the government would get the surplus they got out of it and give a certain part to the monarch as allowance (pocket money if you will).  
The amount of said allowance was discussed and decided in parliament every ten years.
Recently there has been talk about changing that system because they found it annoying to have the same long discussions in parliament every ten years!
The new system would become simpler and fairer, in short: instead of a fixed amount every year that is reviewed every ten years, the monarch would receive a fixed percentage of the yearly income of the Estates, so if the income is good she will have more and in poor years she will have less. (Personally I think that is a good system :thumbsup:)

The Crown Estates has a large portfolio that includes:
Urban estate (big parts of West End London and parts in other mayor cities belongs to the Crown Estate, 75% of the total yearly income of the CE is made out of this part of their portfolio! :eyes:)
Marine estate (according to ancient law the first 12 nautical mile of seabed around the UK belongs to the Crown),
Rural estate (146000 hectars of agricultural land, mines, residential property and forests in England, Scotland and Wales)
And last but not least, Windsor estate (6300 hectares consisting of Windsor park, the Ascot race court, and other properties in the Berkshire county)

The urban estate makes most of the money from office (101,3£ milj) and retail (80,9£milj), basically they own the building and rent it out to firms and shops in London and other cities like Oxford.
They have mayor interests in shopping streets like Regent street and Picadilly and own a part of Bond street. (it's a bit like the game monopoly, I guess lol)

The marine estate get their main income out of dredging (17.5£ milj) and coastal (13.6£ milj), they own a lot of harbours and marina's around the English shore.
Another part of there effort in the marine estate goes to renewable energy in form of windmill's. that part of the portfolio has grown hugely over the last couple of years: nearly 45% to 2.6£ milj! (yay good for them and the planet!(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/Smileys/happy0158.gif))

The rural estate consists manly out of agriculture (17£ milj) and residential property (5.1£ milj)

The Windsor estate has residential property (1.9£milj) and Saville garden and building (2.1£ milj) as main parts of interest.
That last part is a fancy title but mainly means the money from the entrance tickets from opening up parts of Windsor park to the public and the prices for passes that allow you to ride on horseback in parts of the park .

Well that's a short overview to Crown Estates the first part of HM income
for more details check out the Crown Estate website: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/annual_report/overview/index.html


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 05, 2011, 04:34:52 am
CRIKEY! That is a HUGE chunk of change. If HM has managed ot stay in budget for as long as she has, she will be off of taxpayer living (removing a lot of scrutiny) and go figure, she will have so much more to work with.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 07, 2011, 03:03:25 am
Ok so now I'm gonna explain the duchy of Lancaster.

The Duchy of Lancaster, now this thing started waaaaay before the Civil List,
In 1265 to be exact, when king Henry III had a dispute with a couple of his vassals.
He fought them, won the battle and as punishment seized their lands and gave them to his youngest sun Edmund.
After approximately a hundred years the estate was know as duchy of Lancaster and the grandson of Edmund, called Henry (it was and still is, quit a popular English name) became know as the first of Duke of Lancaster  :wellduh:.
It was a very wealthy (read large) body in the kingdom and after 50 more years, in 1399 the second duke of Lancaster became king Henry IV.
From that time on al the reining monarchs automatically inherited the duchy.
The duchy at this moment owns appx 20,800 hectares (80.3 sq miles) of land across England and Wales. (To give you an idea of the size, the city of Amsterdam is 84.6 sq miles!)
It consists of historical buildings, urban development, farmland and 'places of natural beauty' (I didn't make that up, it says so on their site!)
It's split up into 5 parts called surveys named after their geographic placement, so we have:
Lancashire survey: 5 estates between Lancaster and Preston, good for 4.650 hectares
Yorkshire survey: 5 estates between Pickering and Scarborough, the major part of the duchy nearly 6,900 hectares of land, part of it is a moor
Crewe and South survey: 5 areas good for nearly 6,200 hectares.
Needwood survey: used to be a large forest that over the ages was turned into farming lands covering a bit more then 3,000 hectares
Urban survey: The main urban holding of the Duchy of Lancaster is the Savoy Estate. This is the single most valuable block of property in the Duchy of Lancaster. It's situated near the Strand in London.

I'm gonna continue this tomorrow, ok guy's, it's nearly 4 at night  (again :rolleyes:) I'm sleepy!  kisss



Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 07, 2011, 07:23:37 am
I sometimes think that if the RF detailed expenditures, there would be a lot less criticism. I mean, a huge problem comes from the public not knowing how the money is spent. If the Palace showed how much they are spending in regards to trips, security, and explained that the Foreign Office provides an allowance for clothes for foreign tours (as they do to all heads of state and spouses), then there would be less resentment since people would understand more about the workings of the government. And about the workings of all the other issues surrounding the running of the monarchy.

If they did a comparison/contrast chart and showed how much the monarchy spends and how much the govenrment spends, there would be a lto more understanding as well. If the monarchy can stay within budget and maintain themselves, then the monarchy will be of good value. It will prove itself. The monarchy MUST stop pretending they don't have to justify themselves. These days they can bypass the press and go straight to the people.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Alexandrine on February 07, 2011, 03:02:20 pm
^^
Really? I thought that the BRF had to say where they spend every penny of the money they receive. At least in my country it is used as an example of how royal finances should be controled. The SRF recieves aprox 10 millions euros and no one knows where it goes.  :wopedo:


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 07, 2011, 07:17:01 pm
I od'nt pay all that much attention to the finances of the BRF, but if they do publish it, they should spend time marketing the details to combat press/republican criticism.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Yooper on February 07, 2011, 10:27:26 pm
All I know, from far too many years of experience, is that no one (except Lee Iacocca) ever comes in under budget. In fact, looking back? Whatever I've been told I expect at least 25% overage. And that's with Darth Vader as the comptroller, so expect deception, or more diplomatically, discrepancies. I'm referring to the wedding costs here.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 08, 2011, 04:37:21 pm
euhm I thought that first I'm gonna list the income and then the expenses...
It's as important to know where the money comes from before you search what it's being spend on.
You can find that info, it's all published, (if you know where to look for it. :whistle: ;))

So back to the duchy of Lancaster, I told you what it is and how it started, now I'm gonna give you some numbers to go with it, ok!

In the end of march 2010 the duchy had £350m of net assets under their control, both in property and financial investment
It can be divided in rural estates, urban estates and development land.
This chart shows how the mix changed since 2009 
http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/upload/asset_mix.gif

As you can see the financial part got smaller and that the rural and urban estates became more prominent.
They reinvested in safer options like farms and real estate rather then risk money on the exchange market! (lesson learned after the collapse in 08 I guess :thumbsup:)
Here a graph that shows the changes and growth of assets over the last decade. (yikes 09 was not a good year for HM!) current assets is actual cash money!
http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/upload/asset_growth_net.gif

While reading through the financial info I noticed something odd: the value of the Duchy portfolio grew but the net income went down!
Here have a look: http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/upload/Financial_Results.gif

The net revenues from the property and investments are paid to the Keeper of the Privy Purse, the member of the Royal Household who manages HM finances. Revenues presented to HM are currently in the region of £13.2m per year.
HM is not entitled to the Duchy's capital, nor it's profits because the Duchy needs to provide income for future generations of HM's in this case Charlie and Will's, (It's not Lilibet's money it's money for 'the King' or 'the Queen')
The Duchy of Lancaster does not pay tax, but the income receivable by the Privy Purse (read, what they give to HM) is taxable, after the deduction of official expenditure.
So she does pay taxes and a lot of it if you ask me! (£13.2m income can you imagine how much you have to pay on that!  :o)

So to conclude HM's yearly income lies by aprox £43.2m (£30m from civil list and £13.2m from Lancaster) that she still has to pay taxes on!

Coming up next, her expenses.....(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/Smileys/evilgrin0010.gif)
You can run but you cannot hide, I will find your little black book HM !(http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/Smileys/sign0151.gif)  lol

 kisss


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 08, 2011, 09:12:42 pm
grmbl  :pc-problem:  :hiss:
Ok I'm a bit annoyed at the moment, I'll tell you why.
I went to the main page for the British monarchy  in search for HM expenses, you know the actual numbers.
And what I found....well it was a bit disappointing to be honest.. :thumbsdown:
I did find a summary of expenditure for the year 07! (that's old) and it really doesn't tell you that much.. :(  (it's like a two page pdf file! :rolleyes:)
I'll give you the link but it looks as if I have to dig a bit more on this (http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/Smileys/confused0083.gif)
http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Annual%20summary%20of%20expenditure%202006-07%202.pdf

I'm not giving up on this tough !


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 08, 2011, 10:36:47 pm
hmm OK 
I found some info on property-in-grant a yearly balance report for the year 07 (I know it's old but at least it's something)
The Property-in-grant seems to be an additional government funded source used for the maintenance of the buildings of HM.
In short it's the department of Culture media and sport who give them yearly funds to cover the costs of the Public Royal Palaces like Windsor castle, BP, CH and SJP and part of it's staff. (neither Balmoral nor Sandringham fall under this fund, as they are private family estates)
This report is a loooong pdf file (46 pages) and it's rather dry stuff  :wellduh: :study: 
But I'll give you the general idea..
Ok so, in '07 funds: £15.2m, expenses: £14.5, a saving of £ 0.7m   :thumbsup:
They managed to stay well within budget and looking at the years before they usually do so!

'06 funds £15.1m expences £14.3m, saving £0.8m
'05 funds £14.5m expences £13.9m, saving £0.6m
'04 funds £16.0m expenses £15.2m, saving £0.8m
'03 funds £15.4m expenses £15.6m, saving -£0.2m (oopsy, I wonder what happened in that year?)
'02 funds £15.5m expenses £15.4m, saving £0.1m

I'm rather impressed by this to be honest, they are doing a very good job, the palaces look amazing and as far as I can tell they managed to save mainly on heating and electricity costs which means 20.7% less carbon emissions :thumbsup: (I bet Charles will love to hear that lol) and not on staff payment or basic renovations/repairs needed in the castles.




Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 09, 2011, 06:18:19 pm
YES! Sing hallelujah!
I found it! :JOY:
Thank you Google  :worship:
Aha! woot woot! :spooky: :bouncy:

http://www.monarchist.org.uk/#/royal-finances/4544581968
This web site gives us a full report of HM's finances from the year '09 (starting from march 2009 till march 2010)
You can download the 5 parts of the annual finance report in pdf file (which I did)
So I'm gonna  :study: it very carefully and of course give you gals the short version of the whole thing ok!  :thumbsup:
 kisss


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Yooper on February 09, 2011, 06:54:50 pm
Thank you, Akasha!  Very informative.  I'm assuming that any overrage goes back into their general fund.  They must amass a great deal of interest.  Good job!!!


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 09, 2011, 08:57:44 pm
Okidoki let's get started! 'rubs hands together'

So the annual financial report has five parts:
1. Introduction and overview
2. Civil list
3. Grand in aid Royal travel
4. Grand in aid Maintenance
5. Appendixes

Lets start at the beginning
The first page of the report shows us a picture of a smiling HM with above the picture her weapon 'dieu et mon droit' on a lovely Bordeaux coloured background and the title 'Royal Public Finances: annual report 2009-2010 (looks rather nice if you ask me  :flirt:)
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/firstpageannualreport.png
(I know I know, you guy's don't read this for the pics, but still...)

Then we get a graph that shows us where the public money comes from and how big each part is in the total, for the last 5 years
You can see that Civil list and the grands in aid make up a good 90% of the total funds given by the government, for a total of £38.2m in 2009.
Which is less then the two years before.
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/expendituremetfromPF.png

Euhm on a side note
Has anyone of you ever wonders what HM duties where?
I now know the answer, it's in the report! lols (William read carefully! You'll need to know this one day!)
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/queensduties.jpg




The rest of the introduction and overview part is mainly text not numbers, they explain each part of the public fundings, what it is used for and who is responsible for what part.

I already explained the finer details of the Civil List to you guy's before so I won't repeat my self here.
In the rapport they also make specific mention of the fact that the money from the CL is not used for other members of the BRF.
The Duke of Edinburgh has his own public income which is set apart from the civil list, it's called a Parliamentary Annuity.
The Grands in Aid, yes there's more then one, three different ones to be exact: the GIA for property service, the GIA for royal travel, the GIA for information and comunication
The Grand in Aid for Property Services money comes from the dep of Culture, Media & Sports and it's used to meet the costs of the maintenance of BP, SJP, CH, KP (Kensington Palace), MH (Marlborough House) the Royal mews and Windsor castle, but you already knew that part. (that is if you read my other posts)
The Grand in Aid for Royal Travel get the money from dep of Transport  :wellduh: to cover the costs of official (work) travel by air and rail (so not if they go to Switzerland to go skiing or something)
The Grand in Aid for communication and info receives there funds from parliament (they don't mention a specific dep) to meet the cost of the Press Office and the websites.
The last small part is called 'Expenditure met directly by the government and the Crown Estate', it's a long title for 'other public funds' and it's mainly smaller amounts and services that can't be put under either of the above like military assistance during state visits (not exactly travel or communication, right! :KEZZA:) or the maintenance of Holyroodhouse (because it's in Scotland and they've got their own parliament so..)

So let's get to the numbers
The Queen's CL:             £14.2m
Duke of E annuity:          £0.4m
GIA property:                  £15.4m
GIA Royal travel:             £3.9m
GIA comm& info:             £0.4m
Other PF                         £3.9m

Total public funds:        £ 38.2m

So now we know their budget in total (38.2) let's see how much they spend, whether they are able to keep in budget and what exactly they spend it on.








Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: True Brit on February 10, 2011, 05:08:33 pm
 :thumbsup: Good stuff.

Here's a few items I bookmarked and forgot about but of great interest.

http://axiomatica.org/revealing-the-matrix/royal-families-and-elites/1159-the-crown-jewels-the-queen-is-the-ultimate-insider-trader

This one gives some background to how almost bankrupt the RF were after the War

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dab07c16-ecb2-11dc-86be-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz1DPeeiqxs

There has been a new development which has turned the clock back 300 years by giving the RF a slice of the Crown Estates income and no questions asked. It won't be scrutinised by Parliament and I believe this to be a very bad development

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=517003&in_page_id=2

As does the author Doug Sanders (scroll down it's the second story after a long one on the EU)

http://dougsaunders.net/page/4/

The RF is quite simply stinking filthy rich. And when people on other forums start saying stop moaning they bring you in tourism money they are a) not there to promote tourism and b) why are people on low, average or even no income expected to give money to the fabulously wealthy? This is goingt o come to a serious crunch probably when HM passes away. The staggering thing is the Crown Estates agreement went through Parliament without a complaint.

There is a Republican movement which has started up and they are challenging this sort of thing

http://www.republic.org.uk/


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 10, 2011, 11:39:26 pm
Well True Brit my dear
It seems we are at the opposite sides of the table when it comes to the Crown Estate slice!
I mean for years I've heard ppl complaining about how much the Queen costs to the public and how they should change the system of the Civil List.
And now that they are about to change it it's not good either?
You can't please everyone it seems!
What would you perfer then huh? You want her to work for free?
That she gets no part at all from the Crown Estate?
An estate that belonged to her family for so many centuries!
She represents the British ppl just like your PM and mp's do, you would want them to do that job without payment as well?
Because you also pay for them with your tax money you know! (and they are by far more expensive than one King/Queen!)
Let's not forget that it was her ancestor who handed it over to the state willingly 300 years ago, they didn't have to!
And remember that without it the British government would lose a lot of income from the profit of the estate (neary £2bn)
I think it's more then fair that she get a share of the CE, she works hard enough for it!


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: True Brit on February 11, 2011, 03:27:14 am
Akasha you are missing a very vital piece of information here. The Crown Estates do not belong to the Queen's family. The title may well say Crown but the estates belong to the people of Great Britain. Prince Charles has been pushing the line that his family and not the people own the Crown Estates for the past twenty years however there is a major constitional problem with the RF claiming it is theirs when it is not.

These estates date back to William the Conqueror who, as ruler of the land, appropriated (stole)vast amounts of land from the existing landowners in the name of the state and they have remained the property of the state ever since along with the Church lands impounded by Henry VIII etc etc. The monarch and the state were, at this stage one and the same and the rents were used to run the country, finance wars etc etc.

What has changed is the monarch and the state are now not the same. We have an unwritten constition and a constitutional monarch as  symbolic head of state and symbolic keeper of the estates. When George 111 gave up the Crown Estates it was because he was broke and a hopeless manager and he gave them to the Govt and the nation in exchange for a generous stipend (the Civil List) which would give him a much greater income than the rents. Even at this stage the separation of state and monarch wasn't as it is today and he still wielded considerable power.

It's only in the late 20th century that these rents have become big money spinners with high value properties across the West End etc and the income has grown exponentially and thus have caught the attention of the Royal Family particularly after the 1950s when the Queen Mother was almost bankrupt. Various Govts allowed a secret deal with the Windsors which allowed them to build up a fortune and avoid taxation. Doubtless PoW would have taken up the torch at his Grandmother's knee. Although many eyebrows raised when this came out in the press a few years ago I think most people agreed with the principle that it was  ajust reward for George V's selfless rule throughout the war. That income has helped them build up vast personal fortunes. As I said before they are filthy rich.

However, it was the PoW who began plugging the line that the estates belonged to their family and they repeat this on the various web sites that its is their hereditary estate. I suspect the spectre of near ruin is still clear in the family memory and my own feeling is the monarchy may be coming to an end and they are intent on shoring up their financial position whilst they can. I feel it's no coincidence that it is PoW leading the charge as his position is in question what with Camilla and his increasingly eccentric ways - not to mention his political interference. For instance he took himself off to the European Parliament (uninvited) on Wednsady to address them on climate change and exprssed his admiration for the EU - which is not a reflection of the UK public and Parliament tonight voted against an EU ruling.

It has been the work of Sir Michael Peat (recently retired) who saw through the recent changes giving the RF a share of the Crown Estates income and reduced Civil List. When he first raised this in 2001 there were a number of people onto him.

In the New York Times Dr Joanne Horton, an accounting expert at the London School of Economics called this claim “propaganda” and “a public relations stunt.” She was not the first to see things that way. In an internal Treasury memo in 1952 a senior civil servant, Burke Trend, wrote that “ … the hereditary revenues which it is now customary for the Crown to surrender at the outset of each reign are simply a historical relic from much earlier days.”

The writer who uncovered this memo, Phillip Hall, calls the arrangement “historical fiction.” He notes that the Estate only belonged to the monarch when the monarch was responsible for all civil government expenses, which ended at the end of the 18th century.

And yet the wily Peat managed to make this arrangement with George Osborne the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is even talk that they used the Royal Wedding as a smokescreen to sneak it through. What's wrong with it? Apart from the Windsor claim that it's their family heritage any payments are to be given without any scrutiny by Parliament so they can spend it on anything they like Ferraris for Kate and William; mink blankets for the corgis - I know I jest but the reality is they should be open to scrutiny in their contract with the British people but this is turning the clock back over 300 years and is positively feudal.

There's much much more to it than this and I will share with you the reasons why PC has pushed so hard for this but that's for another post and I am away for a few days. However read the above links and google The Queen owns the seabed" as to how anyone can claim to own the UK coastline and 12 odd miles of the seabed all around is just risible but the Scots Nats are already kicking off about that one.

It is a fascinating and complex story of which we know a fraction and please be careful of their official websites etc as they are carefully revealing only what they wish us to know and nothing more. Afore I go I have great admiration for the Queen and PP. They have given fantastic service to the nation and of course they should be well remunerated for their public service. It's what comes next that's the tricky part.

Hope this helps us all develop a good and well considered debate and greater understanding of our monarchy.  :thumbsup:



Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 11, 2011, 06:30:54 am
To me, restoring the Crown Estates would once and forever shut a lot of ingrates up. On the other hand, Parliment having control over hte income does act as a check against the RF acting up.

Lets go with two options:

1) The Crown Estates: The benefit would be that the RF will operate on a budget that is strictly under their control, ensuring that they will have to run things more responsibly and look after their own affairs and pay themselves for the upkeep, giving them more ownership and funds with which to work, letting the RF repair things wihtout going ot Parliament cap in hand. They would have more money at their disposal and it would ensure that they could deal with problems like maintenence discreetly and immediately, preventing HM from having to ask, especially during these hideous economic times.

The problem with it, is that the Civil List deos act as a leash that ensures the good beahvior of the RF and ensures that if they act out, Parliament can bring them into line and make amends. It also ensures a lot of accountability and that money is being spent where it should be spent.

2) The Civil List: Again, the benefit is that the RF is kept in line via Parliamentary grants. The problems come when a palace needs to be properly repaired and the RF goes cap in hand, but there is an uproar. BUT it constantly exposes the RF to accusations of parasitism and other stuff that always escalates during bad eocnomic times. The RF is often impaired from doing their job, soemtimes via cutbacks and the constant pressure to produce, but with the barest possible minimum.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Alexandrine on February 11, 2011, 11:56:00 am
But True Brit brings to the debate a very interesting point: Can they be considered to be owned by the crown or the state? Why should the BRF have control over those estates if they don't own them in reality?

And they will still get subsidies from the government, I'm sure that when a building or something has to get repaired they will not pay for it.

Thank you for all the informative posts.  :flower:

 


Title: EU farming subsidies for the Royal family must stay secret
Post by: Nighthawk on February 20, 2011, 01:08:23 pm
EU farming subsidies for the Royal family must stay secret
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358746/EU-farming-subsidies-Royals-stay-secret.html#ixzz1EVJcY7W9
Quote
Ministers have ordered an information blackout on the massive farming subsidies paid to the Queen, Prince Charles and dozens of other wealthy landowners.

Payouts, which in past years have amounted to £500,000 to the Queen and more than £100,000 to the Prince of Wales, will remain secret because publication has been deemed an invasion of privacy by the European Court of Justice.


Title: Re: EU farming subsidies for the Royal family must stay secret
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 22, 2011, 03:56:40 pm
People will find out sooner or later. I bet some Russian hackers (like the ones who exposed Climategate) or Chinese will find out and publish them.


Title: Royal family braced for cut in funding
Post by: Nighthawk on May 08, 2011, 02:50:42 pm
Royal family braced for cut in funding
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/8500765/Royal-family-braced-for-cut-in-funding.html
Quote
Treasury sources have made clear they are planning for the Queen and her family to lose a significant amount of their £39.9 million annual income. The Royal household would be subject to spending cuts “of the order” of those to be imposed across Whitehall.

Overall Whitehall spending is to be cut by 8.3 per cent over the next five years.



Title: Re: Royal family braced for cut in funding
Post by: benign on May 08, 2011, 10:11:39 pm
so does this mean the BRF gets all the money earned from the Crown Estates and then just pay the govt a percentage of the profit or something?


Title: Re: Royal family braced for cut in funding
Post by: YooperModerator on May 08, 2011, 11:14:53 pm
Nope it's the other way around, as far as I can tell.
The BRF will become one of the 'share holders' of the crown estates if you will, but the British state will still hold the mayor part of the shares.
The monarch will have a fixed percentage of the Crown Estates profits in their portfolio (say 5%)
If the Crown Estates do well they will have a lot of income if the estates do poorly they will have less.

If you wanna know more details about the Crown Estate or the royal finances
Here's the link to the CE website: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/annual_report/overview/index.html
And a link to a topic I started on this a while ago (which reminds me, I still have to complete my research on that one.. :shy:) : http://royalgossip.forumprofi.de/index.php/topic,896.0.html


Title: Re: Royal family braced for cut in funding
Post by: Earth Angel on May 09, 2011, 02:00:15 am
I think this is PR. Kate doesn't want to work much and now they're saying that overall, royal duties will have to be scaled back. How convenient!  :sly: All the while, they're planning an unnecessary trip to the U.S. for the newlyweds.  :-  Besides, when the form of allocation to the monarch changes, their set to gain more of the crown estates profits, especially since their supposedly starting an off shore wind farm.  This article is shady and not the complete truth. :think: ...


Title: Re: Royal family braced for cut in funding
Post by: Yooper on May 09, 2011, 02:13:54 am
Jimminy Crickets, cry me a river.


Title: Re: Royal family braced for cut in funding
Post by: True Brit on May 10, 2011, 10:16:38 pm
It's very misleading this story. They are ending the Civil List and giving the Rf a share of the Crown Estates which means they will increase their income from £7million odd to (potentially) £68 million PA AND Parliament won't scrutiny it. So the taxpayer will stump up for security and they can spend the money on any thing they like...anything at all and no-one wll be any the wiser.

This can't last. It still has to go before Parliament but, at the moment, the Coalition can probably get it through. However if there was to be a General Election before this legislation comes in and, say for the sake of argument there is then a Lab/Lib Coalition then it could be another matter.

Everyone was shocked when this was announced as it has put the nation back 300 years. Personally I think it's agolden handshake for the end of the Monarchy as Charles knows which way the wind is blowing.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 23, 2011, 09:31:00 pm
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20finances/index.php

Quote
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).
The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall.
Civil List expenditure has increased by 94 per cent in real terms over the last two decades.
£202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses, 8,200 police officers and more than the total annual Ministry of Defence spending on food. The total cost is also equivalent to a number of high profile government cuts, including cuts to the Sure Start programme.
The British monarchy is 112 times as expensive as the Irish president and more than twice as expensive as the French semi-presidential system.
Britain's royal family is the most expensive in Europe at more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.
Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: True Brit on June 23, 2011, 10:14:23 pm
Republic has an uphill struggle with this although the public comments flying around of late seem to be increasingly questioning of the cost of it all. There's a very good point made in their summary and that is whenever the Royals go on a visit to some town or other it is the local authority and council tax payer who will meet those costs.

I am originally from a part of the world where deep mining once took place and as a girl I recall the stories of mineworkers actually having to paint coal white for a Royal visit; another was a factory where they had to install a special washroom for either HM or Margaret (I forget) and it cost thousands...and she never used it. The reason I raise this is there are hidden costs that aren't revealed and this is what Republic is highlighting.

A big worry is the Sovereign Support Grant which is due to come in by 2013. Primary legislation is to be introduced into the House of Commons later this year but my understanding is it will go through without debate.

See this briefing document

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-00819.pdf

This is a good story which will tell you more about what's going on. As much as I value HM this really is shameful.

Prince Charles has earned more than £1billion from the Duchy of Cornwall and he doesn't own any of it. He is just allowed to take the profit.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall--owns-seabed.html

P.S. A really annoying argument about havinga  President is how much it costs the US. The US is waaay bigger than the UK and this comparison is just ridiculous yet it keeps getting batted around.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: True Brit on June 23, 2011, 10:25:50 pm
Wthin the Parliamentary briefing paper (linked above) there are a number of reference links.

This one is particularly interesting and does show that HM and the Govt were enagaged in quite a battle over finances.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Magnolia on June 24, 2011, 02:44:52 am
Quote
The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, around five times the official figure published by the royal household (£38.3m last year).


Taxpayers are kept in the dark about the exact cost of the monarchy, due to the royal household's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstanding about the nature of the royal family's finances.
[/quote]
IMO_Alot of shady stuff behind closed  doors and the public in the dark.
Even their "charities" and where all the money goes is questionable.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 25, 2011, 04:19:21 am
If the taxpayers are paying for all of that, plus the main government of the UK, that is utterly obscene and ridiculous; if they are paying that much, they deserve the best possible representation that money can buy. Secondly, why aren't staff paid a lot better if that kind of money is coming in?


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Yooper on June 25, 2011, 05:58:52 am
'Obscene' is the minimum.

I need to see the staff breakdown.  If, what I see, is true, then I honestly have to file a grievance against bloody humanity.  WTH?!

I'll give you my salary, without benefits:  $88K.  Plus full health benefits.  Plus 20% retirement. 

If they mess with that?   :tehe:

That's BEFORE taxes.



Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 25, 2011, 08:41:12 am
Considering the BRF's work sschedule, I would have to state that they ave no business paying so little. I remember William and Kate posting a job about staff and the pay was twenty-thousand a year, with no room and board. Basically a staff member would have to live in Central London on twenty-thousand a year. Talk about being deliberately out of touch and Kate should know better since her ancestry is working class (nothing wrong with that) after all. These days it's not such an honor to work for the RF and the RF could easily afford fifty thousand a year with room/board included.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 26, 2011, 08:55:41 pm
Republic campaigners protest against Royal finances - London

http://www.demotix.com/news/734775/republic-campaigners-protest-against-royal-finances-london


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2011, 04:24:45 am
They should stop playing at being poor and stop grubbing about for more money; if they can afford to work on these palaces, it would go a long way towards increasing public opinion in a positive way.


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 30, 2011, 04:18:39 pm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0213/cbill_2010-20120213_en_1.htm

Sovereign Grant Bill (HC Bill 213)


Title: Re: royal finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 09, 2011, 10:31:50 pm
Queen switched to charter flights after Government ordered RAF to increase charges eightfold

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011366/Queen-switched-charter-flights-Government-ordered-RAF-increase-charges-eightfold.html#ixzz1Re7W1F00

Queen needs more money to maintain Royal homes

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8615892/Queen-needs-more-money-to-maintain-Royal-homes.html

Queen's travel expenses rise

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10736418

Queen's expenditure falls by £1.8m in a year

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14011631

More than ever, the Royal Family is worth every penny

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/8627800/More-than-ever-the-Royal-Family-is-worth-every-penny.html


Title: Queen's Windsor estate gets £224k annual farming subsidy from EU
Post by: rogue on September 25, 2011, 11:53:42 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041502/Queens-Windsor-estate-gets-224k-annual-farming-subsidy-EU.html



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 02, 2012, 06:26:23 pm
I'm reading this report posted by TB http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubacc/313/313.pdf

I will try to post the highlights:

- in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall there should also be clarity about which assets  belong to the Duchy and which belong to The Prince of Wales. The need for this clarity is illustrated by the Duchy’s purchase of timber from The Prince. The timber had previously appeared as an asset on the Duchy’s balance sheet.

- The Committee was also interested in the arrangements for The Prince of Wales’s occupancy of Highgrove. The Duchy of Cornwall explained that it had purchased  Highgrove and that The Prince pays a full market rent, assessed by two separate valuers. The present rent for Highgrove House and land is £336,000 a year.  The Committee was surprised to learn that the rental income is credited to the Duchy’s revenue account as this must mean that it contributes to the surplus and therefore effectively goes back to The Prince.

- Q4 Chairman: He pays it, I think, on a voluntary basis but it is not taxed in the same way as a plc would be taxed for corporation tax, is it?
 Mr Ross: The Duchy of Cornwall is exempt from the taxes and the taxes are paid on a voluntary basis.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on April 02, 2012, 11:33:09 pm
wait, so he pays whatever he feels like paying?  :-
wicked! 
I wish I could do that with my taxes as well!


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 03, 2012, 02:14:56 pm
He also gets the revenue he wants by doing tricks with his accountancy.

I'm at the half of the interview and wow it's a wonderful read I love how the interviewers try to get as much info as possible but the duchy's workers try to justify the unjustifiable. Especially the moment when one of the interviewers say that he would like a job when he retires similar to the Duke of Westminster who works for Charles through the Duchy.  :tehe:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on April 03, 2012, 02:35:50 pm
Do you know I think PC is a cunning as cunning fox on a cunning day. Have just found this...the only paper produced on the role of the Prince of Wales. It seems he did actively start meeting with Ministers and pushing his agenda over and above his right to do so.

The author shows how he has established a convention for himself and the daft Ministers didn't dare say no or nip it in the bud and now it has become his way of doing things. He must ignore HM and the PM's permission under the guise of having established this convention.

This is from the Aberdeen Law Review. The workings of the Crown Estates and the Monarchy are coming under increasing legal scrutiny in Scotland as, if they do go down the independence route, it will have to be disentangled.

I am sure this is why PC has been delighted to geta slice of the Crown Estates. The RF Have absolutely no rights to the CE they are, basically a portfolio of land ownings which work for the benefit of the nation. By being given access to this, if it goes bottoms up for the Monarchy PC will have established a right to the CE for the future. He's running rings around them.

Here's the academic paper starts on PC on page 4 but it's all worth a read.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/aslr/Volume2Issue1/ThePrinceofWales.pdf

And I think you'll find that all the RF "Make an offer" on their tax bills. I read this recently re Beatrice.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 03, 2012, 02:38:06 pm
What do you mean make an offer? That they only give to the state the amount the want?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on April 03, 2012, 02:56:35 pm
Yes!

I'll try and find the figures/info but it stems from 1992 when the then PM, John Major, had to tell the Queen that public opinion on her not paying tax was lethal and he couldn't defend her any longer. She then started to pay tax but not at the full rate. Charles ditto a couple of years afterwards.

There's also something iffy about Balmoral and Sandringham. Balmoral in particular. It is her personal property except it was put into a trust which means she won't pay death duties on it when she dies. In fact no-one will it remains in a trust. I think Sandringham is the same.

Charles' was also slippery with Highgrove as to all intents and purposes it's his private property. Except it's not. He included it in the Duchy's estate and so no anything will be due.

Clever stuff but the only people on to it all is Republic and the press ignore them - deliberately.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 03, 2012, 03:56:38 pm
I thought that some law had been passed where they regulated that they should pay taxes an all that.

I remember reading some poster saying that probably Harry would get Highgrove when Charles died but it's impossible isn't it? It must go to William or to the heir.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on April 03, 2012, 04:08:34 pm
Hi! :hi: No I don't think there has been any law passed re their tax situation. I'll take a look at Republic - if anyone knows they will.

Good point re Highgrove. Suspect a property will be found for PH when he gets married. He doesn't need one for now. Who nows though PW might not want Highgrove.



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 03, 2012, 04:13:42 pm
 :flower:

But if it's part of the Duchy they will have to do something "strange" to give it to Harry. I see that when the Queen dies we will get to know more things about Charles dealings.  :cookie:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on April 03, 2012, 11:04:52 pm
Not really they could set up a symbolic rent and give Harry and his kid's living rights or something like that.
That's what they are doing with the apartments in Kensington no?
They pay a symbolic rent but do official duties in return.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 12, 2012, 10:04:11 pm
If the RF tried that here, the IRS would be into fits of ecstasy over being able to plunge in and find everything out.

The RF seems ever inconsistent and I find it odd that the travel expenses for HM have for one reason or another gone up and yet, she seemed to have enough in the past.

There is also the money that the RF members get from the foreign office to pay for wardrobe expenses when on tour.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on April 13, 2012, 12:39:17 am
Ah well that's because you yanks (unlike the brit's) have a written constitution that makes it clear that everybody from the potus to the poor bugger making 15$/h is an equal in the eye's of the IRS
You see the royal's are the exception on the rules when it comes to taxes,
In the old day's they were the ones who got all of the taxes
So it made no sence for then to pay taxes to themself,
Then 'goverment' happened (not sure who ever had that brilliant idea! :tehe:)
And that turned thing around a bit because they now 'gov' get the taxes and decide about it not the royals.
But because nothing was ever written down in a clear way it became a grey zone, royal's aren't in charge any more (they don't rule they reign) but they are not like us either.
So the taxes they pay are a bit of good will they show, to placate the people.
There is no taxrule for them, it's the stuff of dream's (or nightmares) for any accountant! lol


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 13, 2012, 12:47:02 am
I wonder, if the finances were discovered and exposed, if HM was caught taking taxmoney and then putting it in her private bank account, if that might very well trigger complete and full blown revolution.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on April 13, 2012, 12:55:32 am
hmm not sure if that's possible really
money from the Lancaster duchy yeah I could see clever accountancy happening to that (it was build as a private income for HM so..)
but the 'gov' is keeping a close eye on the taxpayers money from the civil list!
I don't think she can trick with that.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 16, 2012, 09:18:32 pm
yep she can... but the gov would know but wouldn't say anything (it's happening in Spain)


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on April 16, 2012, 09:36:12 pm
hmm good point but don't think the gov would stand for it in the UK


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 16, 2012, 09:39:23 pm
well they do agree with many things Charles does that may not be totally legal with his duchy.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on April 16, 2012, 10:23:37 pm
true..


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on April 19, 2012, 09:22:45 pm
Quote
The supposition that Primrose Hill is owned and maintained by the Corporation of London is an error that has been the subject of successful Crown litigation in both in the High Court and Court of Appeal.[citation needed]

Anyone knows more about this? I noticed this little tidbit in here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent's_Park when I was looking for info on who owns the Regent's park. That would be my second question, it's owned by the crown? But as part of what? And who manages that type of land?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: MOSAIC on April 19, 2012, 09:52:23 pm

Just to hazard a guess Alexandrine, the Crown Estates?


Title: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: Alexandrine on April 20, 2012, 11:02:43 pm
Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy: 45 wind turbines described by Charles as a 'horrendous blot' to be built on Crown land

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132878/Royals-1m-wind-farm-hypocrisy-45-wind-turbines-described-Charles-horrendous-blot-built-Crown-land.html#ixzz1scXYxcVV


Title: Re: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: meememe on April 21, 2012, 12:56:16 am
Someone who doesn't understand what the Crown Estates actually are.  They are the lands the monarchs have given to the government for nearly 300 years in return for which the government has paid the monarch the Civil List and from next year or 2014 the monarch will get a set % return (or about the same amount they are getting now from the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid etc).  In other words they are lands whose profits go to the government not the monarch.  But a nice chance to have ago at Charles of course.  The royal family have no say over what happens on these lands - they are controlled by an independent trust with the profits going to the nation.


Title: Re: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: True Brit on April 21, 2012, 08:35:47 am
The problem with this wind farm nonsense is that they attract massive EU subsidies and so they are encouraging major landowners to build them and yet they have been proven to be ineffectual. The Duke of Edinburgh has the measure of them. If you read the various stories below the peasants are revolting over the issue and the RF needs to tread carefully as what may have seemed like a good deal seems to be falling foul of the law of unintended consequences.

And there is a growing lobby against them across the UK. The writer does understand the running of the Crown Estates from what little has been written here about a very complex subject. The CE is run by a Trust but the Queen makes the appointments when they should be made by the Public Accounts Committee or some such body. You may well get the same people in place but it has to be seen to be open and accountable and not the result of patronage. It's nothing to do with Charles bashing again which I guess would be the stock response if you put these issues to Clarence House directly.

One of the few things I do agree with the Republic lobby is that there should be a separate Govt department set up to deal with all aspects of the Monarchy which is run on the same lines of all other Govt departments, is run by civil servants and is answerable to MPs and Parliament. The Queen objected to such a move years ago but its day is coming.

The Sovereign Support Grant which replaces the Civil List with income from the Crown Estates was rushed through Parliament last year and although a good number of MPs protested there weren't enough to postpone the changes until they had chance to fully examine the issues. There is a full report of this elsewhere on the forum.

But here are some stories about the wind farm scandal which may or may not involve the Crown Estates.

The Duke of York seems to be taking a pretty pro-active stance on something the RF supposedly has no say over.

Quote
Backers of the huge turbines can, however, turn to the Duke of York for support. Mandrake learns that Prince Andrew held a meeting at Buckingham Palace last week with senior officials from the Crown Estate to discuss the expansion of its wind farms programme.
 

“The Duke sees renewables as an important opportunity for the UK,” confirms his spokesman.
 

From January, the Royal family will receive 15 per cent of the profits of the Crown Estate as a Sovereign Grant. It will replace their Civil List payments and various “grants in aid”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9164800/The-Duke-of-York-puts-the-wind-up-turbine-opposers.html

Even the Royal Yacht Squadron is up in arms with the CE over wind farms (read some of the many links in  this piece too)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9192277/Worlds-biggest-wind-farm-planned-for-off-south-coast-of-England.html

Louise Mensch - Conservative MP for Corby and the Duke of Gloucester.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9173642/Wind-farms-We-are-baffled-that-a-prince-of-the-realm-would-ruin-our-land.html


Some of the stuff wind farm developers are getting up to in Scotland


http://www.scotsman.com/news/environment/lone-turbines-spark-feeding-frenzy-for-taxpayer-handouts-1-2208230


Title: Re: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: True Brit on April 21, 2012, 09:09:14 am
Timed outI meant to add this link to say this comes on top of another EU scam involving land being registered as farm land yet not producing any food or raising livestock. Panorama exposed this recently.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-17252035

And the writer of today's Daily Mail article did fail to mention that the Crown Estate Act 1961 requires that the "independent" trustees are all perosnally appointed by the Queen and there are eight of them. That part is misleading as they are clearly not at all independent.


Title: Re: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: June on April 21, 2012, 10:40:58 am
Someone who doesn't understand what the Crown Estates actually are.  They are the lands the monarchs have given to the government for nearly 300 years in return for which the government has paid the monarch the Civil List and from next year or 2014 the monarch will get a set % return (or about the same amount they are getting now from the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid etc).  In other words they are lands whose profits go to the government not the monarch.  But a nice chance to have ago at Charles of course.  The royal family have no say over what happens on these lands - they are controlled by an independent trust with the profits going to the nation.

Thanks for that - you clearly know your royal history. But can you tell me how they got the land in the first place. Lots of blood shed from the poor peasants?  :June:

@ TB: thanks.  :thumbsup:


Title: Re: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: meememe on April 21, 2012, 01:16:24 pm
Of course there was lots of bloodshed to get the Crown lands, or the lands held by any of the nobility although this land is actually 'government land' not personal property.

In the past millenium it was this land that was given by grateful monarchs and the nation to the most loyal and ruthless supporters.  What is left now provides a large part of the income of the government with 15% of it being returned to the monarch in replace of the Civil List and other funds - one grant instead of many smaller grants to carry on the work of the Head of State and maintain the properties the monarch holds in trust for the nation e.g. BP and Windsor.


Title: Re: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 23, 2012, 06:42:05 pm
Someone who doesn't understand what the Crown Estates actually are.  They are the lands the monarchs have given to the government for nearly 300 years in return for which the government has paid the monarch the Civil List and from next year or 2014 the monarch will get a set % return (or about the same amount they are getting now from the Civil List and Grants-in-Aid etc).  In other words they are lands whose profits go to the government not the monarch.  But a nice chance to have ago at Charles of course.  The royal family have no say over what happens on these lands - they are controlled by an independent trust with the profits going to the nation.

Thanks for that - you clearly know your royal history. But can you tell me how they got the land in the first place. Lots of blood shed from the poor peasants?  :June:

@ TB: thanks.  :thumbsup:

Oh don't be silly, the royals also killed the nobility and the nobility killed each other.


Title: Re: Royals' £1m wind farm hypocrisy
Post by: Alexandrine on May 15, 2012, 11:30:27 pm
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/320039/The-turbine-toffs-cash-in-on-wind-farms

THE TURBINE TOFFS CASH IN ON WIND FARMS


Title: Britain’s Queen Elizabeth gets bumper pay rise
Post by: Nighthawk on June 21, 2012, 01:11:33 pm
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth gets bumper pay rise
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/britains-queen-elizabeth-gets-bumper-pay-rise/
Quote
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth has another reason to be cheerful in her Diamond Jubilee year — her annual pay is about to jump by 20 per cent to £36 million (RM180 million).

Her property holdings, known as the Crown Estate, posted a record profit of £240.2 million, a net rise of 4 per cent in the year through March 2012 largely due to strong tenant demand for its shops in the upmarket Regent Street and St James’s districts of London.

At a time when Britain is in recession and many families are feeling the pinch of higher household costs and taxes, the Queen’s allowance will rise to £36 million from £30 million, the level at which it was frozen in October 2010 under new laws which peg her pay to the estate’s profits.

“It’s a great set of results and I’m sure everyone’s going to be happy,” Crown Estate Chief Executive Alison Nimmo said   

Ah yes sure everyone's going to be Happy about the Queen being able to spend 6 million more each year while others are struggling to put food on the table...or trying to keep a roof over their heads  :thumbsdown:


Title: Re: Britain’s Queen Elizabeth gets bumper pay rise
Post by: True Brit on June 21, 2012, 03:05:21 pm
Thanks for this Nighthawk  :thankyou:

So why isn't it being reported anywhere here in the UK?


Title: Re: Britain’s Queen Elizabeth gets bumper pay rise
Post by: Nighthawk on June 21, 2012, 04:53:40 pm
^^maybe their afraid that riots will break out  :dontknow:


Title: Re: Britain’s Queen Elizabeth gets bumper pay rise
Post by: rosielinks on June 21, 2012, 04:59:02 pm
It is sickening. Really hope when HM passes that the public demands a republic.

They run through so much cash. Pageants, castles, security, staff, clothes ......

And for what. A bit of tourism and entertaining of foreign top bods.


Title: Re: Britain’s Queen Elizabeth gets bumper pay rise
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 22, 2012, 06:31:09 pm
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth gets bumper pay rise
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/world/article/britains-queen-elizabeth-gets-bumper-pay-rise/
Quote
Britain’s Queen Elizabeth has another reason to be cheerful in her Diamond Jubilee year — her annual pay is about to jump by 20 per cent to £36 million (RM180 million).

Her property holdings, known as the Crown Estate, posted a record profit of £240.2 million, a net rise of 4 per cent in the year through March 2012 largely due to strong tenant demand for its shops in the upmarket Regent Street and St James’s districts of London.

At a time when Britain is in recession and many families are feeling the pinch of higher household costs and taxes, the Queen’s allowance will rise to £36 million from £30 million, the level at which it was frozen in October 2010 under new laws which peg her pay to the estate’s profits.

“It’s a great set of results and I’m sure everyone’s going to be happy,” Crown Estate Chief Executive Alison Nimmo said   

Ah yes sure everyone's going to be Happy about the Queen being able to spend 6 million more each year while others are struggling to put food on the table...or trying to keep a roof over their heads  :thumbsdown:

I don't know how on earth HM looks at herself in a mirror and thinks of herself as a good person and a good monarch. She sits on a stack of cash the size of Mount Rushmore and she has the nerve to ask the public (who is starving) and the government (which is two steps from bankruptcy) to end up giving her more money.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 22, 2012, 09:35:27 pm
Errr frankly it wasn't HM who pushed this new law through it was her eldest son!
Yeah she get's the money but she didn't ask for it (I think)
Throw your glares at the parliament who voted for the payraise!


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 22, 2012, 09:57:09 pm
While it is true that the things that are being done lately have Charles's fingerprints all over them the Queen doesn't seem to be doing anything to stop any of it.   :cookie:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 22, 2012, 10:43:29 pm
er dude for 6 mill extra a year I'd shut my gob too! #justsaying! :June:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Magnolia on June 23, 2012, 01:40:41 am
Quote
Wow,the royal scam continues,the royal household get a raise (for their official dress up and waving duties) and the royal subjects get austerity.Oh well,the royals will regret the raise when it comes time to pay taxes...Oh wait,they wont.Mike,New York
As long as they are still there and are not shipped out the spongers will continue soaking in more mula.


Title: The royal pay freezes
Post by: royalfanPKLS on November 13, 2012, 03:20:28 am
Okay so sometime last year or year before I heard something about the Queen, PP, and few others in the royal family were getting a 2-year pay freeze because of the recession, is that pay freeze still in effect or about to expire?


Title: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: mrharrywales on January 02, 2013, 07:45:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw&feature=youtu.be)


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: buflesse on January 02, 2013, 07:55:55 pm
I don't like this video. It's funny but also pretty flawed and at times inaccurate. I wrote a response to it a few years ago but have no idea where it is now...


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: mrharrywales on January 02, 2013, 08:01:45 pm
What is inaccurate in that video?


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: buflesse on January 02, 2013, 08:49:01 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2IO5ifWKdw pretty comprehensive summary of the inaccuracies. As for the tourism argument, he's addressed that too and I'm not even going to bother to pick the tourism argument apart properly because as a Brit I find it frankly insulting to suggest that people only visit our country for the RF, something which is contested by tourism research, and as a lover of stately homes I would much rather the royal residences were more open to the public so I could actually see what's inside beyond a few State Rooms.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: mrharrywales on January 02, 2013, 09:21:12 pm
Thank you for the video.
I'm going to watch it now.

Ps: I love your avatar :P


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: buflesse on January 02, 2013, 09:27:55 pm
Thanks! I love Victoria and Daniel :flower

My feelings towards the RF in general have changed a lot. I love HM, and I have a soft spot for several other members (Anne, Bea, Eugenie etc. I never believed the royals were particularly cost effective and I always felt uncomfortable about the idea of one family being born into such privilege (the BRF is one of the most extravagant in Europe) but the hard work of HM et al combined with the tradition justified it all in my eyes. But the BRF is becoming a joke and especially in these harsh economic times and with people like WK representing the future of the monarchy, I'm struggling to see the real advantages.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: mrharrywales on January 02, 2013, 09:42:48 pm
^ I see your point.

I think it's worth the money tax payers pay to the BRF for the hard working royals, like HM and Philip, Charles and Anne for example, the most hard working ones.

But I think it's a nonsense to pay for someone who doesn't want to do their job and only spend the money with clothes and make up so they can play to be a princess. IMO that is the biggest issue with having a royal family.
You don't get to pick and choose who your king/queen or duke/duchess is going to be and that sucks to a point that you feel like you have worked very hard to earn your money yet you are obligated to give a part of it to a person who doesn't want to work and feel like you owe them respect only because they married into that one privileged family.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: Snokitty on January 02, 2013, 09:58:05 pm
It was a good video buflesse and explains it so even a sycophant should be able to understand.

I used to think the Queen should be allowed to keep the throne throughout her life but now looking at what is going to follow her she might as well spend her last bit of time doing all the things she finds pleasurable instead and just finish it now.

The country could use the money and the royals that whine about being in a gilded cage could be set free.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: FrillyKnickers on January 03, 2013, 12:15:44 am
@buflesse:

 :thankyou: for the video, kid!

I saw the other more humourous video a few months ago, and I NEVER felt that it was accurate.

I'm gobsmacked at TRF and their avarice :thumbsdown: . They give nons for the public and I bet they  :laugh: everytime they get increases from Parliament.

And what TRF "give" in return nowhere nearly matches what the British people have to put out. Visitors and the citizens should get to ride that Royal helicopter as part of their visit to The Palaces.

I mean, the people PAY for it! :snob:

Why do the keep feeding the British people such lies about the importance of a Monarchy? I guess EVERYONE in the Conservative party wants a "Sir" or a "Dame" in front of their names! :wopedo:

Still, lies, lies, lies :angry: and SO much money WASTED when The U.K. could be taking care of their debt, creating jobs, fixing education.  :thumbsdown:

I'm TIRED of hearing the argument that TRF is so much better to have than a President.

I'll tell you what; at least our President works and pays his taxes (hopefully) fairly :snob: .

TRF are no different than our corrupt politicians in the U.S.  :thumbsdown:

Let's just vote them ALL out on their    :*butt*:


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: MOSAIC on January 03, 2013, 12:40:31 am

That's just the problem Frillyknickers, we can't just vote 'em out.  I don't know just what the mechanism is but its not that.  I think it may have to originate from Parliament, so this latest Princess Consort, no Queen Consort is interesting, and maybe a forerunner for the future.  One can but hope.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 03, 2013, 07:41:45 pm
Quote
I'm TIRED of hearing the argument that TRF is so much better to have than a President.

I'll tell you what; at least our President works and pays his taxes (hopefully) fairly

I wish people would understand that "President Blair" is not a guarantee if there is no monarch; Blair will not get in unless voted in and every taxpayer in Britain can have the chance. Besides, so much is spent protecting a President because they actually RUN the country, they don't just represent, they do both.

I used to think the Queen should be allowed to keep the throne throughout her life but now looking at what is going to follow her she might as well spend her last bit of time doing all the things she finds pleasurable instead and just finish it now.

The country could use the money and the royals that whine about being in a gilded cage could be set free.

I agree; frankly since HM "never wanted" the job, she should be released from it. If it's such a misery, she should be let out and given the precious freedom she so enjoys to be the countrywoman she has always been yearning to be. Then someone who wants to represent and considers it an honor can do it.

Quote
I would much rather the royal residences were more open to the public so I could actually see what's inside beyond a few State Rooms.

Tours should be given of more rooms and with better time frames so people can actually sit about and then see the places, not just stand behind some rope and get rushed through like cattle. Frankly the fact that the public can't even see the Royal collection is an insult; besides, the money goes to the RF anyway.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: FrillyKnickers on January 04, 2013, 03:23:55 am
Quote
I'm TIRED of hearing the argument that TRF is so much better to have than a President.

I'll tell you what; at least our President works and pays his taxes (hopefully) fairly

I wish people would understand that "President Blair" is not a guarantee if there is no monarch; Blair will not get in unless voted in and every taxpayer in Britain can have the chance. Besides, so much is spent protecting a President because they actually RUN the country, they don't just represent, they do both.

(^^ @ Admin: I wasn't given quote credit here, by @KF. It was probably an error. But, just pointing it out because I'm always being called out for my errors... :thankyou: )

"President Blair?" The U.K.'s 5+ years past that one! :laugh:
 
I get that the President runs our country.  :thumbsup:
 
That was my point in saying that I'd rather have one and am happy to have one vs. a monarch.
 
Because, he WORKS for the money we give him, rather than plays President.

No argument. Just my extra two cents.  :thumbsup:


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 04, 2013, 02:04:27 pm
Oh I know, it was just to refute the arguments I see on the DM; it steams me up that people think that Blair would automatically be elected.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: Adeline on January 05, 2013, 03:24:50 am
As an American, I know that my tax money gets wasted on a lot of things, but at least I can say the RF isn't one of them. I feel bad for those of you that are British or in the Commonwealth. I don't care if only one cent goes towards them, that's one cent too many.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: June on January 05, 2013, 07:05:28 am
I'm very torn about the monarchy.  :sob: I greatly admire the Queen and respect Charles for his work ethic and commitment. One never gets the impression Charles is just indulgent without taking the downside to his position.

I know some brilliant Australian monarchists, who raise very good intellectual arguments in favour. But then, by virtue of royal forums, I know too much about the hedonism, indulgence, laziness and general lack of value William and Kate provide to the British taxpayer.

Then there is the other issue of having our very lazy, emotionally stunted future Queen Consort flashing her wares to the entire world.  :ick:

On an intellectual basis, there are good reasons for maintaining the monarchy in Oz. But as for common sense, and on the principles of equality and meritocracy, it really ought to be abolished. In fact, the monarchy was past its expiry decades ago. Most have moved on.

Everyone else in the world needs to earn their keep - outside of royalty. Yet we in the Commonwealth cling to this archaic notion of taxpayer-funded privilege and public office by birthright.  :dontknow: On any rational submission, it holds no basis in reality. But in Oz, the intellectual arguments do not provide on this basis. The counter arguments do proscribe on this basis. So, there is a disconnect over the issues at hand.

So, supposing we subscribe to the tourism argument for a moment. It is not quantified and therefore holds no validity whatever.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: Jane23 on January 05, 2013, 04:09:42 pm
It's not like a President and Prime Minister wouldn't cost so I will never get people who whine about the costs of Monarchy because a Republic costs even more just saying...


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: Snokitty on January 05, 2013, 11:05:01 pm
What makes you think a Republic would cost more than a Monarchy?

A Prime Minister is already being paid and in exchange for that payment he helps run the government.

If the Monarchy was abolished it would stop sucking monies from the taxpayers for what is the essential the work of cutting ribbons.

How would it cost more if the Freeloaders were dumped?


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: buflesse on January 05, 2013, 11:45:01 pm
It's not like a President and Prime Minister wouldn't cost so I will never get people who whine about the costs of Monarchy because a Republic costs even more just saying...

Not true. The monarchy does not cost each person 67p a year, as the palace claims. This figure is reached by dividing £40m (a woefully inadequate figure) by 60m people, which includes every man, woman and child in the country (rather than just every taxpayer). No other public expense is justified by dividing it among the total population. The estimated total cost for the maintenance and lifestyles of the royals, £150m per year, is 100 times the cost of the Irish presidency, 17 times the cost (per person) of MPs, and more than twice the cost of a French semi-presidential system.


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: June on January 06, 2013, 10:50:33 am
It's not like a President and Prime Minister wouldn't cost so I will never get people who whine about the costs of Monarchy because a Republic costs even more just saying...

With respect, you have really whitewashed the issue.

We, in Oz, understand that it would cost us billions to become a republic, but that is not the same thing as running our country as a republic. Politicians do not live in the same majestic style as royals do offering very little in return. And, as stated, they are merely ornamental. They simply do not earn their keep.

No one in business looks at the absolute cost of an asset or any expense. It's the return on that asset, or the income derived by the expense which matters. It's about ratios and comparative returns on investment which matters to a business.

But the real problem many republicans have about the monarchy is not strictly about money, IMO.

@ Buflesse:  :thumbsup:


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: YooperModerator on January 08, 2013, 01:36:47 am
Ahh well technically nearly al UK ppl are tax payers (VAT is a tax so each time you buy something you pay tax :P)
But I guess you mean the working and thus income taxpayers in UK, that amount is approx 26M ppl
Now you say the royal cost is 40M (which is just the civil list amount) that would be 1.53£/head for just the civil list.
We all know that palace maintenance, transport, security and various other costs are partly met by different gov departments as well
I'm not sure what the numbers on these extra costs are exactly but I'm pretty sure it's more then a 100M/year (chopper fuel, fulltime security, 5* hotels, special food, fresh flowers etc ain't cheap!)
that 'hidden cost' would be 3.84£/head

So I guess the whole 'royal cost' more like 5£/a head every year which still isn't that much of course, but that whole 67p talk is just crap!


Title: Re: The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 09, 2013, 02:39:20 am
Quote
You don't get to pick and choose who your king/queen or duke/duchess is going to be

Or who they are going to marry; it steams me up to see women like Camilla/Kate/Snakey of Sweden get rings and are foisted on a public that isn't even able ot choose. It's all because the royal in question has 'fallen in love' and the public is not just supposed to accept it, but also PAY for it. The public is never consulted.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 12, 2013, 01:07:19 am
UK watchdog looking into Queen Elizabeth's finances

Quote
The Public Accounts Committee, a powerful House of Commons panel responsible for overseeing government expenditures to ensure they are effective and honest, is expected to scrutinize the queen's expenditures to determine whether the monarch and the royal family provide value for money to the taxpayer, The Telegraph says.

The committee will focus on the queen's use of public money to perform her official duties, including official receptions, investitures, garden parties and maintenance of the royal palaces, according to the Daily Mail.

The committee will decide on the scope of the inquiry after national auditors are granted access to the queen’s finances next month, according to The Telegraph.

http://news.msn.com/world/uk-watchdog-looking-into-queen-elizabeths-finances

So the access will be granted next month and then there will be an official investigation. I am eager to find out what they find and what they have to report. There will be questions asked, people interviewed, and I look forward to a lot of things being exposed. It's about time the truth came out in regards to value.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Bella on February 13, 2013, 06:07:00 pm
KF, I'd say it's going to be time to pull up a chair, get the popcorn ready since a lot will be exposed and I fear their subjects are going to be very angry..


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on February 13, 2013, 09:00:08 pm
I'm glad they are not shirking this in deference to HM; flame me, but HM has failed as a monarch in a lot of ways and I am tired of the whole "never wanted this job" schtick. I am sure Christ never wanted HIS job, but he did the right thing and never ended up whining about it.

HM has to answer for a lot of expenditures that haven't brought any return to Britain.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on February 14, 2013, 01:17:14 am
Christ is not an historically proved person (yet), according to classic archaeology and history.
Besides comparing a 86 yo married mother of four who is figurehead over nearly 80 m ppl in a time where 'news' spreads faster then disease due to technology to a single unmaried guy who told some Jewish farmers and fishers nice moral stories 2000 years ago is kinda weird to me.  :dontknow:
Jesus would be utterly lost and laughed at in modern age Israel if he came round with the same stories he did back then.
He would probably end up in jail or a mental ward after telling ppl he was the son of god!

Different times, genders, and very different lives: comparing the two does not make much sense to me.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: buflesse on April 02, 2013, 04:53:41 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/queen-gets-5m-payrise-taxpayer?CMP=twt_gu

Queen gets £5m payrise from taxpayer
Grant to cover household running costs rises to £36.1m – up from £31m in diamond jubilee year

In other news, there are talks of freezing or lowering the minimum wage...


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 02, 2013, 07:54:53 pm
Christ is not an historically proved person (yet), according to classic archaeology and history.
Besides comparing a 86 yo married mother of four who is figurehead over nearly 80 m ppl in a time where 'news' spreads faster then disease due to technology to a single unmaried guy who told some Jewish farmers and fishers nice moral stories 2000 years ago is kinda weird to me.  :dontknow:
Jesus would be utterly lost and laughed at in modern age Israel if he came round with the same stories he did back then.
He would probably end up in jail or a mental ward after telling ppl he was the son of god!

Different times, genders, and very different lives: comparing the two does not make much sense to me.

I was just using it as an analogy; I wonder if many past great people wanted to be in their respective positions, but they manned up and took on the role.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on April 02, 2013, 08:31:02 pm
I am seeing a whole new light, after moving from Oz to Uk. Why a pay rise ? what is her actual return ? are their numbers on this
and verus opening all the palaces to tourists and charging entry ALL year round. What does the Duchy or Cornwell purse bring to us. It was ours as in the British before Charles got hold of it.
If they want privacy and do not want to do duties.................. get rid of them
Who do we pay for now with public money ? Liz, Phil, Chuck, Cammie, Wimpy, Waity and ?
UK cannot afford them, show me the austere Royal measures ?

Let them eat cake is what they think
Queen Liz did not show any balls with allowing wedding to Cammie and Waity. Am damn sure Quenn Mother and Diana would have stopped this rubbish


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 02, 2013, 09:04:33 pm
The Queen Mother was the one thing holding that family in a healthy dynamic, by making sure that mistresses stayed mistresses and that the Prince of Wales didn't wreck the relationship with his sons by marrying his mistress. Second, Diana kept him from marrying Camilla, who has messed things up for him and the boys.

BOT, this is just getting worse and worse. IF they are going to end up getting that money, they had better account for what was already spent. I remember Fergie running up debts and HM paying them off and I wonder, where is all that money they already get going? Until there is accountability, no more money.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: buflesse on April 03, 2013, 09:52:45 pm
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/12488_588980357793367_105638140_n.jpg This has been circulating on Facebook, it's a parody of the DM's awful headline which suggested that the sick man who set fire to his house and killed his kids did it because of welfare culture.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snork Maiden on April 03, 2013, 10:06:57 pm
I like it! Wish that was really the front page.  :gotcha:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on April 25, 2013, 08:27:24 am
I thought this might be interesting to read in this thread as a comparison between the Dutch monarch's state funding and our own.

Quote
(Reuters) - Dutch republicans will launch a campaign on Tuesday to cut the salary of the next monarch to a fraction of the 850,000 euros ($1.11 million) that they say Queen Beatrix now receives.

Campaigners for the New Republican Fellowship pressure group are collecting signatures to force a parliamentary debate on a motion that would cut the new king's salary to 150,000 euros, bringing it into line with the prime minister's wages.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/15/us-dutch-monarchy-salary-idUSBRE93E0HO20130415


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on April 25, 2013, 10:44:35 am
bringing it into line with the prime minister's wages

That would be a good start. The public should also be receiving monies from the Duchies and the royals can be put on an allowance and start learning to live frugally like they expect the public to do.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on April 25, 2013, 01:39:56 pm
^ It's utterly ridiculous that the symbolic head should earn far more than the PM and the entire Cabinet. The RF have stacked up the riches over the past century in particular and haveaid as little tax as possible and so, as a result, are fabulously wealthy.

All these engagements they undertake have little to do with the workings of Government and everything to do with their own PR and to ensure we don't start asking akward questions.

But just why PC should receive £18 million in personal annual income and offset all his living costs against the tax bill (and only make an offer on his tax) just for waiting to inherit the throne is beyond all comprehension.



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 25, 2013, 02:22:54 pm
bringing it into line with the prime minister's wages
That would be a good start. The public should also be receiving monies from the Duchies and the royals can be put on an allowance and start learning to live frugally like they expect the public to do.

It would also keep them on a leash; if they act out, they lose or get a reduced income. The public cannot afford to give them any more money and as a lot of people suggest reducing benefits for those on the public dole, they should end up getting less themselves. Or better, get paid in proportion to how much they work.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on April 25, 2013, 03:16:53 pm
^ It's utterly ridiculous that the symbolic head should earn far more than the PM and the entire Cabinet. The RF have stacked up the riches over the past century in particular and haveaid as little tax as possible and so, as a result, are fabulously wealthy.

All these engagements they undertake have little to do with the workings of Government and everything to do with their own PR and to ensure we don't start asking akward questions.

But just why PC should receive £18 million in personal annual income and offset all his living costs against the tax bill (and only make an offer on his tax) just for waiting to inherit the throne is beyond all comprehension.



I totally agree   Even though I want the Monarchy abolished I would be accepting of an allowance that they are required to earn, do no royal duties and receive no compensation.

Both Duchies and any properties bought with Duchy monies should be returned to the tax payer. Such as Highgrove and very possibly Raymill.

It is really time for someone to get a grip on the BRF and exercise some control over their rights and privileges. Laws should be repealed that give them special circumstance positions.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 26, 2013, 04:55:57 pm
All the royals do is make appearances; even the President of the US doesn't make a million a year, they make 250K and they actually run a country, not just represent.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on April 26, 2013, 11:28:25 pm
Of course giving the Queen a salary similar to that of the PM would be a pay-rise for her as currently she doesn't get anything from the government in the way of a salary.

She gets money to run the office of Head of State -

1. to pay the salaries of those people who work for her - would still have to be paid by someone
2. to maintain the royal palaces - again would still have to be paid as these palaces are the property of the government
3. to pay the expenses of official duties - e.g. The Queen will be using money from the Sovereign's Grant to pay for the State Visit this week - all the costs from the arrival to the departure - again would have to be paid by someone.

The Duchies give her and Charles a private income so that they have independent means without having to rely on the government for a salary to represent Britain. That they weren't required to pay tax is the fault of the laws in the UK - laws that have made them exempt from tax - laws passed by the representatives of the people in the past.

Take away the income from the Duchies and the royal family would be unable to operate as it does - with about 4000 engagements a year - and just because many people here don't get what they do many people do - they lift people's spirits, they do raise the profile of causes, they do attract business to Britain - e.g. the opening of the Warner Bros thing has received worldwide attention because of the presence of the young royals - that means people planning a visit to the UK may think about adding that to their tour - not everyone but some. The same with the visits to charities - raises the profile so people thinking about donating to a cause may remember the one that just had the publicity due to their presence and choose that charity over something else.  Without the income from the Duchies only The Queen and Philip would be able to carry out duties as the rest would need to earn a living from other sources - taking jobs from other people in the process or being on welfare or old age pensions e.g. the Kents would all be on aged or military pensions as they would have retired from work but that isn't the case with the Duke of Kent back doing royal duties after a three week lay-off with a stroke - attending the Dawn Service in London on Thursday for ANZAC Day - now to someone who has nothing to do with Australia or New Zealand that would have no meaning but to an Aussie with an ancestor still at Gallipoli and where he will stay for all eternity - having a former serving soldier member of the royal family make the effort to get up to go to a Dawn Service is a recognition of our important day to us.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on April 27, 2013, 04:21:54 am
The Duchy monies should be given back to the people.

People lift our spirits everyday but we don't set them up in Palaces and pay for all their needs. What the royals do is not worth the money wasted on doing it. Everything you cited can be done by someone else and a lot cheaper.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 27, 2013, 08:15:58 am
HM doesn't need so many palaces/castles at her disposal. She does not need private flights and does not need private transport and does not need masses of money. She is not someone who makes major decision that affect the nation and she is not someone who is even all that educated. She needs at most is Buckingham, Windsor, and Balmoral and that should be all. She needs nothing else and her function is purely what the First Ladies of other nations do. Handle the social aspects.

She should get a yearly amount, but that should be all and nothing more. She also has a huge stack of cash in her private accounts and has no business asking for more. A lot of people have every reason to ask where it is going. She still doesn't have enough money to maintain her palaces? She should let some go and make do like everyone else. I for one am sick of this 'simple woman who would prefer to live in the country' schtick and make her own way and disclose how the finances are spent.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on April 27, 2013, 12:08:09 pm
^ KF and ^^ Snokitty

Most of the engagements the RF undertake are for their own PR and to keep them visible and in the public eye so that the public doesn't start to question the finances. If you strip down the engagements required by the monarch as Head of State that's a completely different thing and would be state banquets for foreign heads of state/VIPs, opening of Parliament etc etc.

HM also takes the £6million profits of the Duchy of Lancaster as salary (although they may call it something else). Some of this is used to pay for costs at Balmoral and Sandringham so public money is still involved even in private estates.

And we need to remember that the Commonwealth visits are supernumary to the role of Monarch as the role as Head of Commonwealth is not hereditary and may not pass to any of HM's descendants.

The whole nonsense about people coming to Warner Brothers Studios just because the three musketeers were photographed there is just that...nonsense and even the Palac doesn't claim to attract tourists as they know it's nonsense too. Most of the visitors to WB will be from the UK - it's a day trip - and it's been open for some time now and is established on the Visitor Attractions map.

The NT or Historic Royal Palaces could easily take over the running of all the residences and open them fully to the public displaying the phenomenal range of art treasures that is held in trust for the nation and yet none of us will ever see - now that really would do wonders for tourism.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 27, 2013, 02:56:16 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23065599

Quote
The Queen will receive a 5% rise in her income after the Crown Estate, from which she is paid, reported an increase in its profits.

The Sovereign Grant, which funds the Queen's spending as Head of State, will rise in 2014 from £36.1m to £37.89m.

The grant is calculated as a percentage of profits from the Crown Estate, which includes properties such as Windsor Park and covers most UK coastline.

It announced on Thursday its profits had risen 5% to £252.6m.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: buflesse on June 27, 2013, 03:46:42 am
This is disgusting, especially in a time of austerity when so many people are losing their jobs or falling into poverty.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2013, 04:40:14 am
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23065599

Quote
The Queen will receive a 5% rise in her income after the Crown Estate, from which she is paid, reported an increase in its profits.

The Sovereign Grant, which funds the Queen's spending as Head of State, will rise in 2014 from £36.1m to £37.89m.

The grant is calculated as a percentage of profits from the Crown Estate, which includes properties such as Windsor Park and covers most UK coastline.

It announced on Thursday its profits had risen 5% to £252.6m.

HM is such a money grubbing pig; worse than Charles since she as someone who should be supposedly keeping herself up to date and is already supported amply by Parliament and the Crown Estates. HOw much more does that sow need? Flame away, but I'm sick of her hype.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on June 27, 2013, 11:08:19 am
PLus all the money from the Duchy of Lancaster. Does she pay tax ? no she does not
Where are everyone else's 5% increase


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2013, 01:57:54 pm
She has:

Her own prviate fortune (handled by two accountants who are forbidden to meet)
Duchy of Lancaster
Crown Estates (given to her by her toady Cameron)
Civil List
Money from the Foreign Office to pay for trips and wardrobe expenses

She does pay tax, but not nearly enough.

All the while she stiffs her staff out of a good salary and apparently cuts down on their perks.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 27, 2013, 02:01:25 pm
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/1m-renovation-to-make-kensington-palace-fit-for-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridges-baby-8676386.html



Quote
Prince William and Kate’s new London home is under-going a £1 million taxpayer-funded renovation before they move in with their baby, Buckingham Palace accounts revealed today.

They show that the overall public bill for running the  monarchy was up £900,000, or 2.6 per cent, at £33.3 million during a “challenging period” that included major events such as the Diamond Jubilee and Olympics.

But  the Palace insisted that the net expenditure for  2012-13 was a small reduction in real terms after inflation and £3.2 million less than the £36.5 million bill in 2008-9.

Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse, said: “The Royal Household has continued to reduce its expenditure funded by the taxpayer in successive years since 2008-9, achieving a real terms reduction of 24 per cent over the last  five years.”

Much of last year’s rise in the “cost of the Queen” was accounted for by a £9.1 million bill for maintaining and repairing palaces and other royal properties.

The 21-room Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace has been gutted under a major restoration project that is due be completed in the autumn.
Quote
Courtiers said that the £33.3 million overall cost to the taxpayer is the equivalent of 53p a year to every person and represents an 80 per cent fall in real terms since 1994.

The Duke and Duchess are currently in temporary quarters, the two-bedroom Nottingham Cottage in the grounds of Kensington Palace, or “KP” as William’s mother Princess Diana called it. The work on their new home, last lived in by Princess Margaret, includes £600,000 spent on internal works including complete replacement of plumbing and boilers, re-wiring and removal of asbestos.

A further £400,000 has been spent on replacing much of the badly-damaged slate, tiles and lead roof over the four-storey apartment, which has not been refurbished since the early Sixties following her marriage to Lord Snowdon.

The work means that  William, Kate and Prince Harry can also accommodate their private office and press office at the west London palace as they establish their own court.

Quote
The Grant is now calculated as a 15 per cent share of the income generated by the Crown Estate – which owns huge swathes of the West End including Regent Street and much of St James’s.

The Crown Estate for 2011-12 – the reference year for setting the royal funding – was £240.2 million.

Latest figures, also announced today, show the Crown Estate’s surplus has risen to £252.6 million, meaning the funding of the Head of State will rise to £37.9 million next year.

The report also reveals the Queen carried out 288 public engagements last year.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on June 27, 2013, 02:29:52 pm
It also excludes a few things including security and many other things. THis is the number they could get away with releasing

How about this, it is  a win win
 :king: :Kate:

We pay for all the staff and pay them a higher salary in line with the rest of the UK. So the poor slaves getting £8,000 pa for a 60+ hour week are paid correctly and are pay direct from the govt not via the palace.
cut all other payments and cancel the civil list the duchy etc and they pay themselves, not accountable and they can stay private, so we wont have their photos

If they want to smooze with Politicans or other Royals, they pay for it

If that spoilt wimpo kid wants to upgrade, then he pays for it or it is a public house or museum or I want my house renovated on the public purse

These Germans forget , they are not the right accessors to the Throne


So the question is what do they really ask,demand and get paid on top of the Duchy money ?
I would say closer to £80 million GBP plus Duchy of Cornwell and Lancaster

so for this money what do we get ?
think hard, what do WE the people get ?
What do they add ?
Does it make much difference to boats,ribbons, opening buildings etc we could get our Olympic athletes in place of disgusting adulters and common gold diggers. They lie to us and it will never come out until they are gone

How much do they add in real £ terms for tourism.Is there a real honest study done on this ?
Remember most tourisst do not see HM and she usually is not in BP, as the flag is down more often than up. I live close by, so I know
Would this make one jot of difference if she was not the figurehead of the UK and Commonwealth ( who do not want her anyway )
BP would remain and be view - status quo
Tower of London is much older history - status quo
so on. It is the pre 1800 that much of the tourists like
Imagine the increase in tourism if all the palaces were opened up and all rooms , nothing off limits ?
revenue of BP,Windsor,Sandringham and use of beaches, Balmoral - all opened up
No 10 could move to BP and have everyone under one roof and visiting Prime Ministers and Presidents could go there and meet our PM PLUS ballroom is also there and they can even stay in place of a hotel


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 27, 2013, 02:46:26 pm
Quote
How much do they add in real £ terms for tourism.Is there a real honest study done on this ?

Versailles has more tourist visit each year than all the palaces in GB has. We all know what the French thought of their benefit scroungers ummm I mean royalty.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2013, 02:47:10 pm
IF HM and the rest of the RF entertained tourists during the tourism season, then certainly the funds would increase.

Tourism is a tiring argument and not one that stands up to scrutiny. The entire RF spends so much all on their own estates that the public barely gets to see anyway.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 27, 2013, 02:51:13 pm
Peter Hunt ‏@BBCPeterHunt 3h

Quote
Buckingham Palace's laundry bill went up in the Diamond Jubilee by 200k.
When Prince Charles got on the royal train to Bishop Auckland it cost £34,547.
Graham Smith from @RepublicStaff says the royals are "taking more money from the public purse" at a time when the public is facing cuts.
Graham Smith from @RepublicStaff tells @BBCNews re: royal finances: "the whole deal stinks. The royals should hang their heads in shame.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Freya on June 27, 2013, 03:06:48 pm
Quote
57 rooms for 3 people.........that will be how much in bedroom tax??........and how much is the energy to heat and light this palace costing???.................makes me so ANGRY that we are all being taken for fools!!!!!! .................and to all the red arrow royalists if you are so keen to support these expensive spongers care to increase your contributions to keep them in their cosy and extravagant luxuries???........thought not!

-


I had to laugh at this remark. It is so true. If a person on housing benefit was in a house that was considered too big for them they lose housing benefit.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 27, 2013, 03:20:51 pm
http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Financial%20reports%202012-13/Sovereign%20Grant%202012-13%20-%20web.pdf

Andrew Child ‏@andrewjchild 10m

Quote
How can Prince Andrew spend 86K on attending a funeral in Saudi Arabia and why is the taxpayer being billed? http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Financial%20reports%202012-13/Sovereign%20Grant%202012-13%20-%20web.pdf …

Anthony Bonnici ‏@Anthony_Bonnici 7m
Quote
Buckingham Palace insists that royals are spending les in real terms after inflation. Love to see them survive on minimum wage. #iwantavote


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on June 27, 2013, 04:28:22 pm
Then lets talk about the art WE , the people of UK own that have never seen !
All that art that could be view, the masters and the damn Fab eggs and anything else we have bought and never seen


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 27, 2013, 10:34:01 pm
Andrew Spooner ‏@andrewspoooner 31m

Quote
French President is paid £153k a yr. UK head of state, the Queen, gets almost 250 times that - £38million. Which country gets most tourists


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on June 27, 2013, 10:48:19 pm
He runs the country and she doesn't
It is more like 83p from each legal and illegal person in UK to place a silk cushion we bought under her a**
It is 38million plus security plus this and plus that. £38 million is only a part of it and she does not bring the tourists in, it is the people , the pubs and buildings
I do not think the French President brings in the tourist, it is Arc, E/Tower , Loire etc

France gets many more than UK and maybe if people could go into the palaces and see the art etc we would get a lot more tourists


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: rogue on June 27, 2013, 11:01:37 pm
It really pisses me off seeing how little they care for their countrymen.They are soo far removed from what is going on outside the gates .It is a shame. :sigh:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Anne-Elliot on June 27, 2013, 11:20:14 pm
Excellent posts everyone!  Still too angry about this to post a coherent opinion, but just one observation.
Anyone else notice that the renovations to W&K home is the main focus of the story? Me thinks they're being made scapegoats, & I wonder if TPTB will use the public outrage as a way of preventing Wasty getting her hands on KP?



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2013, 11:37:16 pm
He runs the country and she doesn't
It is more like 83p from each legal and illegal person in UK to place a silk cushion we bought under her a**
It is 38million plus security plus this and plus that. £38 million is only a part of it and she does not bring the tourists in, it is the people , the pubs and buildings
I do not think the French President brings in the tourist, it is Arc, E/Tower , Loire etc

France gets many more than UK and maybe if people could go into the palaces and see the art etc we would get a lot more tourists

It cheeses me off that the people bash the US President, but never take into consideration that presidents deteriorate almost immediately after they take office and as for tourism, France and the US have so much to offer that they sell themselves. HM hasn't aged as quickly and I'm getting mighty tired of my US taxmoney protecting her and her ungrateful husband. Apparently Prince Philip screamed at the Secret Service and hit an officer on the head with a newspaper and whined about a variety of other procedures and HM just sat and let him. What HM does is what the First Lady does as well, along with the President who has numerous ceremonial duties. 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: buflesse on June 28, 2013, 03:02:11 pm
People over here are expected to live on £50 a week after the bedroom tax. My friend's parents have worked round the clock, 7 days a week all their lives, her dad has TWO jobs and together they earn less than £20,000. No amount of 'hard work' will justify the amount that the RF gets. Their sense of entitlement is not welcome here.

This says it all: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html

Quote
Queen tried to use state poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace
Ministers were asked if money earmarked for schools, hospitals and low-income families could be used to meet soaring fuel bills

If the Queen's gas and electricity bills are too much then she should either downsize on her number of properties or fork out for the remaining bills with her own personal fortune. It's like they don't see why their wealth supply should deplete at all and just want to get richer and richer through land ownership while forcing other people to maintain their lifestyle for them.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2013, 06:29:25 pm
I'm beginning to wonder if whether or not the government will start actually dealing with the royal family decisively. The RF is too out of control and I am certain that at some point there will have to be a limit set. It's too bad Parliament has to spend all this time dealing with the RF's excesses.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: rogue on June 28, 2013, 06:50:59 pm
Its like the Goverment is working for the Queen when it should be the other way around.I'm not surprised to see where the Windsor offspring get their sense of entitlement get from.She is weak nothing like her ancestors who had it more difficult.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2013, 06:53:48 pm
She is weak isn't she?

As fr Toady Tory Cameron, it's like he can't do enough for the RF and can't help but bend over so she can shove her scepter up his arse.

You wouldn't know HM is Queen of England the way she dresses, always for a garden party.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on June 28, 2013, 07:11:16 pm
38 million plus extra cash from govt to pay for security and her heating

I am about to vomit..we need them removed but how ?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2013, 07:32:45 pm
Removal is a very big thing, but it can be done with the money from the royal estates going into the national treasury, the palaces being maintained and open all year round for tourists, the jewels displayed, the carriages being used as transport for ceremonial occasions, this time by politicians and visiting dignitaries, and the vast grounds open for tourists and a strict code of dress and behavior and people can still work at these palaces to maintain and keep them clean, but at a higher and much deserved salary. The thing would be, what would be done with the RF? They could live quietly in the country, or they could be made to go into temporary exile until the government is firmly and securely established.

I don't understand why many think a dictatorship or Puritan republic would be established, mainly because the main thing about a republic is checks and balances. Besides, the US President costs a lot less to maintain and the only reason security is so high is because the US President is made aware of all state secrets! He has to RUN the country, in addition to representing. Besides, it's not like HM stays up all night pondering an ounce of what her ancestors had to. It's not like she has ever sat in a daily session of Parliament going over things, listening, or moderating discussions/debates. She should in fact be paid a lot less than she is and be living a lot more modestly.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on June 28, 2013, 07:56:16 pm
 :goodpost:


100% correct KF and perfect solution. All those employed and more, could be paid a good salary and work less hours.

Opening everything to view all the art and jewels would be fab for the UK economy , more than ribbon cutting

They must own a house somewhere, Upchuck has been buying in Romania
send them out for 10 years and then they can come back and live in the country with a house they have bought



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 28, 2013, 07:58:41 pm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2350699/First-Queen-Prince-Charles-enjoys-pay-rise-Welcome-boost-meet-growing-demands-William-Kate-Harry.html

Quote
A spokesman refused to be drawn on why or how, but in previous years aides have admitted the prince has looked at bringing down his day-to-day living expenses. His Principle Private Secretary, William Nye, said yesterday: ‘It’s a whole mixture of things to do with the way they live their lives.’

Of his £19,051,000 annual income, Charles was able to write off more than half - £10,952,000 in all – against tax as business expenses.

Clever accounting means that the future king charges everything from the cost of his offices and staff to even the upkeep of his gardens at Highgrove, his private home in Gloucestershire which he also uses for official entertaining, as legitimate working expenses.

Shameful

Quote
He also received a 47 per cent decrease in funding from taxpayers to £1.15 million. This is because his travel bill was significantly cheaper last year, as many of the countries he visited – including Canada and Australia – also have the Queen as their head of state and therefore meet the costs of such tours themselves.

It is still the taxpayers paying for his jolly jaunts.
Quote
He has the equivalent of 125.4 official full-time staff including 1.3 butlers, 4.3 chefs and kitchen porters, three chauffeurs, ten house managers and housekeepers and  20.2 garden and estate workers.

He also employs 22.0 staff of a personal basis including 7.0 secretaries, chefs and valets and 15 ‘estate, farm, garden and stable staff’.

William, Kate and Harry have a further 10.5 full-time office staff paid for by Charles.







Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on June 28, 2013, 08:15:03 pm
Does this include the man paid to put paste on his toothbrush..now that is the big question
and
the man that wipes his as*


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2013, 10:27:26 pm
So when is the supposed Finance committee supposed to present their findings to the public?

Remember, there is an investigation going on and soon people will have to answer questions publicly.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: MOSAIC on June 29, 2013, 01:43:18 am
A great radio programme every Friday night on Radio LBC, presented by Nick Abbott, with a number of people very hostile to the announcement of increases to money for the Queen and POW.  They are shooting themselves in the foot.  One suggestion was that only royalists should pay for the RF.  And this is without people knowing the truth about WK etc.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 29, 2013, 03:35:34 am
The BRF loves to play at being poor and not having money; Charles can blow thousands on his garden and couldn't 'afford' a tennis court for his own wife. He can afford a mistress and now wife that drains his wallet, but not to pay his own way. They can afford private dressers, but not to build some sort of practical heating/cooling system that will end up making living their more healthy and less spartan. They can't afford a lot of things like paying their own way (relying on rich friends to provide yachts and private islands and donations), but worry all the time about gold diggers and social climbers. They can't pay good wages for staff, but can afford to buy all the best foods in the world.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: buflesse on June 29, 2013, 03:53:43 am
Reminds me of my university days...college apparently couldn't afford to scrap the obscene catering charge lumped on all students, because the fellows wanted their free formal dinners 4 times per week.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Tatiana on June 29, 2013, 04:28:23 am
  If we are going to maintain an "institution" , then we must financially support it.

   Saying that, the gravy train must be brought to a stop, and the RF has to give up some things.. Camilla's own Manor House and her security ... things like this must stop, people are losing patience, the British are slow to anger, but watch out when they do.

   I really think talks are needed, and the people should be able to vote on who succeeds HM, and how much money the Monarchy is is going cost etc.

      Charles and The Mattress would not have a doggie's chance.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 29, 2013, 06:32:24 am
You know, people on welfare get complained about all the time, but the people on it often need it.

People on welfare don't have large houses, security to protect them, vacations to exotic locales and don't have much of a chance in life. They don't have scholarships to college/university, much less it being paid for and have bullet proof windows and a posh flat their last couple years of schooling.

A lot of these people are so badly broken in life that they just can't keep going.

The RF has a lot of gall acting like they have and I find it a bitter irony that the so called 'down to earth' women (Camilla and Kate) are costing their husbands a lot more in regards to PR and so many other issues that Diana never cost. Diana cost a fortune, but she earned and didn't require a PR squadron to end up brushing up her image before marriage. She also never demanded her own private estate if she felt pressured.

I don't ask how they do this to themselves, mainly because anyone can justify anything in their minds if they want to, but I am simply tired of the hypocrisy. I mean, HM is lauded as working harder than most pensioners, working past 'retirement age' and Philip is excused for his piggish behavior.

Meanwhile Princess Anne is a rude witch and her daughter a temperamental brat, Andrew a leech, Fergie a leech enabled by Andrew, and meanwhile the Yorkies are getting jobs, but realistically they would be nowhere without their titles. Harry is throwing away all his accomplishments by serving in war and the older ones are okay, but won't be around for very long. I don't think the BRF has any business acting superior to other monarchies.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on June 29, 2013, 11:26:58 am
http://www.heraldscotland.com/comment/columnists/we-should-have-battle-royal-over-crown-estate-wheeze.21477950

Quote
You might have spent time during the week digesting the implications of George Osborne's latest cuts, all £11.5bn of them. But be reassured: the Chancellor isn't flint-hearted to all those he might otherwise call welfare-dependent.

There's one family, Scottish by some accounts, who are sheltered from Mr Osborne's storms. In fact, he has guaranteed that their household income can never fall. There will be no 1% pay ceiling for these public sector workers, nor will their automatic annual rises be abolished. For some, a very few, living off the state will carry no stigma as far as the Chancellor is concerned.

Call me churlish, but I wasn't the one who said we were all in it together. Nor did I come up with the bright idea of shielding the Royal Family from privation by guaranteeing them 15% of the Crown Estate's profits in exchange for the old civil list.

If that means there is an uncomfortable symbolism in the fact that £1m is spent doing up a flat for one young couple while their peers struggle to secure any sort of housing, the Chancellor can take the blame. His reform of the Royal finances, introduced last year, is going to come back to haunt the apostle of austerity as the beneficiaries grow ever richer. A Scottish government, devolved or independent, is also liable to find the experience disconcerting.

The royals themselves are not exactly tactful, but there's nothing new in that, or in their ability to spin the numbers. This might not have been the best moment to spend a million refurbishing a Kensington Palace apartment for William and Kate, as we are supposed to call them, but they have a lot of goodwill to fall back on. The Queen herself can depend on courtiers to talk about a monarch scrimping and saving just as the money begins to roll in. That's not really the point.

The Crown Estate, with vast expanses of farmland, huge tracts of London property, half of Scotland's coast, most of its seabed and much else besides across the UK, is valued at £8.1bn. In 2012/13 it returned a surplus of £252.6m. The sovereign grant is calculated from profits two years in arrears. This means that in a couple of years the monarch can expect to receive £37.9m.

Reports this week that the Queen "only" received £900,000 extra in 2012/13, and had to manage with just a 2.6% increase, do not quite tell the story, in other words. Her spending – "expenses" as the Palace would term the outlay – went up from £32.4m to £33.3m this time around. But with the Crown Estate outperforming even the London property market while involving itself heavily in offshore wind farms, the earning potential of that 15% "grant" is vast.

There is deviousness as well as money involved. Certain royals, the Prince of Wales in particular, have a bad habit of behaving as though the Crown Estate is somehow the property of the person who wears the crown. That hasn't been true since 1760, when a previous royal family was bailed out in exchange for the civil list. The Queen's true property is her private property. The rest – the bigger palaces, the art, the seabed – is ours.

In other words, the House of Windsor is in no sense entitled to any part of public – not Government – assets. Mr Osborne's deal, plus the frequent use of the magical word crown, are designed to persuade us otherwise. For those few who stand to gain, it's all working out very nicely.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: buflesse on June 29, 2013, 12:09:53 pm
You know, people on welfare get complained about all the time, but the people on it often need it.

People on welfare don't have large houses, security to protect them, vacations to exotic locales and don't have much of a chance in life. They don't have scholarships to college/university, much less it being paid for and have bullet proof windows and a posh flat their last couple years of schooling.

A lot of these people are so badly broken in life that they just can't keep going.

The RF has a lot of gall acting like they have and I find it a bitter irony that the so called 'down to earth' women (Camilla and Kate) are costing their husbands a lot more in regards to PR and so many other issues that Diana never cost. Diana cost a fortune, but she earned and didn't require a PR squadron to end up brushing up her image before marriage. She also never demanded her own private estate if she felt pressured.

I don't ask how they do this to themselves, mainly because anyone can justify anything in their minds if they want to, but I am simply tired of the hypocrisy. I mean, HM is lauded as working harder than most pensioners, working past 'retirement age' and Philip is excused for his piggish behavior.

Meanwhile Princess Anne is a rude witch and her daughter a temperamental brat, Andrew a leech, Fergie a leech enabled by Andrew, and meanwhile the Yorkies are getting jobs, but realistically they would be nowhere without their titles. Harry is throwing away all his accomplishments by serving in war and the older ones are okay, but won't be around for very long. I don't think the BRF has any business acting superior to other monarchies.

 :thumbsup: :goodpost:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Tatiana on June 30, 2013, 04:45:46 am
"The RF has a lot of gall acting like they have and I find it a bitter irony that the so called 'down to earth' women (Camilla and Kate) are costing their husbands a lot more in regards to PR and so many other issues that Diana never cost. Diana cost a fortune, but she earned and didn't require a PR squadron to end up brushing up her image before marriage. She also never demanded her own private estate if she felt pressured".

   well said Kui Fei


  The PR crew have been scraping the muck and mud off Camilla for years.. and it's still sticking   :laugh:

  I think Diana might well be alive today if she had demanded her own private estate ..  :sigh:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on July 05, 2013, 06:17:54 pm
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/debate/letters/counting-the-true-cost-of-our-monarchy-1-5821777

Quote
he members of the Royal Family are almost always pictured smiling. If I had to manage somehow, as does the Queen, on a budget of £36m this year, I would be smiling too.

If you add on the security bill, then even monarchists have to ask themselves the question “Is it worth it?”

Security has had to be considerably hiked since Harry Windsor decided to go to Afghanistan. Extra precautions will be in place for the rest of his life at our expense. Harry’s predecessors contented themselves with killing harmless foxes, deer and birds. The estimated total annual cost of the monarchy to taxpayers is £202.4m, over four times the official figure published by the Royal household.

The official figure excludes a number of costs, including round-the-clock security, lavish Royal visits and lost revenue from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall. £202.4m is equivalent to 9,560 nurses or 8,200 police officers. Our monarchy is 112 times more expensive than the Irish president, is the most expensive in Europe and more than double the cost of the Dutch monarchy.

We, the taxpayers, are kept in the dark about the exact costs of the monarchy. This is due to the Royal Household’s exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and widespread misunderstandings about the nature of the Royal Family’s finances.

Then we have the spectacle of the heir to the throne earning £19m off assets that don’t belong to him. He, his wife, sons and daughter-in-law have to manage on a staff of “just” 136. In these times of austerity, how do they get away with it? No wonder there is going to be an inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee.

Even if the monarchy were free, the cost to true democracy of having a monarchy is far too high.

From: Philip Taylor, Castle Hill, Settle, North Yorkshire.

Several pieces of recent news seem strangely linked. The Chancellor tells us that we need to keep tightening our belts for several years to come. The Queen will receive almost £1m extra from her subjects next year. Prince Charles has increased his earnings from his estates, but has paid less tax this year. Kate and William are having a £1m makeover of their home (Yorkshire Post, June 29).

Whatever happened to the Bank of Mum and Dad? Perish the thought that Charles might find a paint brush and give the nursery a fresh coat like any normal dad, or grandma might run up a pair of Thomas the Tank Engine curtains.

When we were told that we were all in it together, Messrs Cameron and Osborne clearly didn’t mean the Royal We.

MPs under fire on pay

From: Graham Branston, Rawdon, Leeds.

Like most people these days, I am sick and tired of issues around the remuneration of MPs.

In the present climate of austerity, as even some of them admit, it would be inept for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) to award them a pay increase of as much as £10,000 a year.

If they do, as Lord Sugar might say, “you are fired”. IPSA has around 70 employees and in my book is far too large, with academics and other well-paid board members.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Countess of Holland on July 05, 2013, 08:45:39 pm
The costs of the UK monarchy is more twice as high as the costs of the Dutch monarchy. The Dutch monarchy is about 60 million euro's a year, and that is including security etc.
202 million pounds is about 235 million euro's. That makes the UK monarchy almost 4 times higher.

Breaking it down per capita, the costs are about the same.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 06, 2013, 08:19:02 am
The BRF isn't justified in demanding more and more properties, jewels, money, benefits, and buying up more estates and pushing the established locals around.

Meanwhile, the BRF blows mounds of money, whines about being royal, they choose women with nothing practical behind them, the kids are walking disaster areas (not just in fashion) and distance themselves all the time from the people. I watched the WK wedding press coverage and in addition to the distance, there was a buffer barrier in addition. So really, could it be made any more obvious that the BRF is uninterested in having anything to do with the people? They aren't even accounting for all the money spent, they are just taking and demanding more and not at all letting the public know what is going on.

You know, that is disgusting considering that the Dutch monarchy is far more practical and in touch; Maxima is well experienced in practical finance and she's been nothing but a total show of strength for her husband and Beatrix. With her energy and flamboyance, she might have gone about the world stage on her own and tried to be the main star, but she hasn't dared usurp her husband, knowing that she's there to support him and she has never been a spoiled angsty brat. Her kids are energetic and healthy and well behaved and just so PERKY that Maxima is obviously concentrating a lot of time on her kids.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on July 06, 2013, 06:20:57 pm
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/184602/Our-Royal-Family-is-most-expensive-in-Europe



Quote
It found that British taxpayers have to pay more for their Royal Family than those in seven other leading constitutional monarchies, even though the Queen’s Civil List payment has been frozen for the past 20 years.

The findings, by a leading public finance expert, will come as a blow to the Queen as she prepares for the publication of the monarchy’s annual accounts on Monday.

There is also heightened pressure at Westminster for Buckingham Palace to take a share of the Whitehall burden as departments face budget cuts of up to 25 per cent.

Ministers in the coalition Government, which last month froze her Civil List payment for another year, want to simplify the complicated system of royal funding before agreeing a longer-term financial deal. A review may lead to cutbacks.

“The drumbeat from the Treasury is that the days of signing cheques and saying ‘thank you very much Ma’am’ are over,” one minister said yesterday.

Critics of the current system of funding the royals will be bolstered by the study by Herman Matthijs, professor of public administration and finance at the Free University of Brussels, who found that at an official cost of £41.5million last year the UK monarchy was Europe’s most expensive.

It was followed by the Dutch monarchy on £33.8million, the Norwegian on £23.9million and the Belgian on £11.7million.

The British royals ran up a bill to taxpayers four times that of their Danish and Swedish counterparts and almost six times that of the ruling families in Spain and Luxembourg.

Critics said the official figures for the Queen and her family gave only a fraction of the real cost of the British monarchy.

That is put at £180million at least when the cost of security, Armed Forces involvement in royal events and other sources of income, including the Queen and Prince Charles’s Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall property empires, are included.

So are there areas where money could be saved to bring down the total cost of the Royal Family to the taxpayer?

One possibility is that minor royals, such as the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra could be retired to cut costs.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 07, 2013, 12:33:43 am
Don't cut the minor royals; they do more than the main royals and frankly, are too old to support themselves.

It's not like Wk are working and it's not like the RF in general si giving value. The real cuts should come from the senior royals; staff salaries should be raised and yearly audits conducted. HM has been doing cuts in all the wrong places and really, is setting up some form of effective heating too difficult? Or air conditioner?

Seh has no business being in charge of how the money is spent either. A committee should be set up to handle the money and direct it to the most important areas.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: MOSAIC on July 07, 2013, 08:21:16 am
Don't cut the minor royals; they do more than the main royals and frankly, are too old to support themselves.


I totally agree with this.  I have been saying similar for quite some time.  These are the stoical members of the family who support HM and the monarchy year in and year out and they get no appreciation for it, except from HM.  Also their behaviour and demeanor has been faultless.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Jane23 on July 07, 2013, 09:55:51 am
I think both things should happen ... Senior Royals should cut back their spending ( especially ones like Boney that haven't earned anything yet) and Minor Royals should retire  :June: ...


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 07, 2013, 10:10:01 am
You know, family is family and the fact that HM would cut them out makes me puke. Right now the RF should be banding together, not being cut out. If anyone should have to experience cuts, make WK give up their Anmer Hall, the estate on Sandringham, the house the QM left William, and force them to live in the palaces.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Jane23 on July 07, 2013, 11:11:31 am
^ It's not like they would live in the streets  :June: ... plus her cousins and her three other children never joined the real World so they had to work for Liz ...


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 07, 2013, 11:34:11 am
The minor royals aren't the real problem; the main members are the ones who are out of control.

Princess Michael of Kent hasn't pulled half the stuff that Kate has and despite past antics, has settled down and been glad to do what HM wants her to.

I for one think that it would be a good idea for HM to look at the spending her children are engaging in and tell them to lose the numerous other estates and live in the palaces and castles that are already there and redecorate the palace rooms if they have preferences.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: buflesse on July 07, 2013, 02:56:15 pm
There is no need for any royal other than HM/PP, PC/Camzilla and PW/Waity to have more than 1 house or apartment. The minor royals may work harder than Waity et al but they have fortunes of their own and can pay for their own bills and butlers. HM should give up 2 of her properties seeing as the heating bills are supposedly crippling her finances. Charles and Camzilla should cut down on staff and expensive travel and entertainment costs, PW and Waity should move into KP without any fuss, and PH should avoid any more useless PR-oriented tours.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Royal Lowness on July 16, 2013, 10:26:54 pm
Another £5,000,000.00 per annum in benefits for Elizabeth.

Is the old dear going to be paying the bedroom tax?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on July 16, 2013, 10:34:45 pm
How about take it all off all of them.It is very expensive ribbon cutting


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kit on July 22, 2013, 03:04:43 am
As long as someone bails the RF out when they overspend they have no incentive to stop. 

I think it's time for HM to have a yard sale and get rid of some of her clutter...I mean treasures.

If HM expects the public to give up their hard earned money to keep their mistress in the lifestyle she is accustomed then HM needs to show she is willing to make some sacrifices as well. 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 22, 2013, 03:45:53 am
Most of the valuable 'treasures' already belong to the nation so she can't sell them.



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kit on July 22, 2013, 03:53:38 am
^ It's utterly ridiculous that the symbolic head should earn far more than the PM and the entire Cabinet. The RF have stacked up the riches over the past century in particular and haveaid as little tax as possible and so, as a result, are fabulously wealthy.

All these engagements they undertake have little to do with the workings of Government and everything to do with their own PR and to ensure we don't start asking akward questions.

But just why PC should receive £18 million in personal annual income and offset all his living costs against the tax bill (and only make an offer on his tax) just for waiting to inherit the throne is beyond all comprehension.



It's flipping ridiculous that an uneducated elderly woman has access to and contol over substantial sums of public money.

The Jubilee was not a success, the RF should have received a pay cut.

How much has she taken from the people during her reign?  It's time to look at the return on investment.  


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kit on July 22, 2013, 05:15:30 am
Most of the valuable 'treasures' already belong to the nation so she can't sell them.



True, but her personal assets are quite substantial. Her personal art collection is valued at £10 billion.  Her private property is valued at approx. £160 million.  So I don't think it would kill her to sell a few things.  I'm not suggesting she sell anything that belongs to the nation.  Just a few of her personal assets.  The least she could do is auction off a few letters or journals. 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Freya on July 22, 2013, 12:53:30 pm
IMO there should be a clear demarcation on what is the Queen's own property and what belongs to the state. On her own assets inheritance tax should be paid just like any other person would have to pay over a certain figure. If they cannot pay the IHT on the assets then they should transfer the assets into state owned property just as many aristocrats have had to do.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on July 22, 2013, 01:44:37 pm
^ Yes there should Freya. There was a move to have a Ministry for the Monarchy. Sorry can't remember if this was a serious attempt or just a discussion so that all the upkeep of royal palaces would be handed over to a government department but HM is supposed to have put the kibosh on this.

For good reason as it helps continue the blur of what really is theirs and what isn't.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kit on July 23, 2013, 12:42:57 am
IMO there should be a clear demarcation on what is the Queen's own property and what belongs to the state. On her own assets inheritance tax should be paid just like any other person would have to pay over a certain figure. If they cannot pay the IHT on the assets then they should transfer the assets into state owned property just as many aristocrats have had to do.

Agreed and the state should have the right to inventory, audit, and manage its property.  I wonder how many state owned items are "missing" or unaccounted for?  I think something should be done before Charles assumes the throne.  HM has integrity and would be mostly honest.  Charles would have no problem cheating the public. 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Snokitty on July 23, 2013, 08:32:19 pm
http://www.republic.org.uk/valueformoneymyth.pdf


Quote
This report is intended to give republicans, journalists and the general public the facts about how the royal household and the monarchy are funded. Buckingham Palace claims that the monarchy costs the taxpayer around £40m each year, representing excellent 'value for money'. In fact, our research shows that the British monarchy could cost as much as five times this official figure, making it one of the most expensive, wasteful and financially irresponsible institutions in the world.

The most obvious explanation for the royal household's continued profligacy and financial recklessness is the culture of secrecy and deference, fostered by both politicians and the media, which surrounds it. This has recently been heightened by the coalition government's decision to give the monarchy an absolute exemption from freedom of information rules. The result is that the monarchy remains largely unaccountable to the taxpayers who fund it.

Of course Republic's aim remains clear: the abolition of the monarchy. However, to ensure that taxpayers have all the facts to hand, we believe the financial management of the monarchy must be reformed now. The research presented here, against a background of drastic cuts to public services, makes the case for a radical
overhaul of royal funding more compelling than ever.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 25, 2013, 01:56:11 am
IMO there should be a clear demarcation on what is the Queen's own property and what belongs to the state. On her own assets inheritance tax should be paid just like any other person would have to pay over a certain figure. If they cannot pay the IHT on the assets then they should transfer the assets into state owned property just as many aristocrats have had to do.
Agreed and the state should have the right to inventory, audit, and manage its property. I wonder how many state owned items are "missing" or unaccounted for?  I think something should be done before Charles assumes the throne.  HM has integrity and would be mostly honest.  Charles would have no problem cheating the public.

If HM had integrity she would have willingly paid taxes before being forced.

As for property, until the public is enjoying the palaces beyond limited viewing hours, then it can logically be considered as belonging to the public; if the Prime Minister's wife is allowed to wear the jewels from the tower (it's not like HM is using too many different ones anyway), then they can be considered as belonging to the public. The Windsors use every perk and advantage, but don't pay in at all, which is a slap in the face to people who apparently pay for it, but don't enjoy it at all. The Windsors can change the decor, change the structure, end up all sorts of things, but the public never gets to decide if whether or not they want to fund it.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on August 11, 2013, 03:52:50 pm
By the time Parliament got round to abolishing Slavery in 1807 and again in 1833, the Royals had re-registered their fleet of Death ships offshore, putting them outside the jurisdiction of British law and leaving the Royals free to continue raking in their vast profits.

According to Hansard records, in 1841 Lord Broom reported that; “Many London companies are still supplying African slaves on demand, and slave ships are still being built in England”.

Never the less, despite the abolition laws, Slave-ships owned or part-owned by the Royal Family delivered slaves to South American mines and plantations owned or part-owned by the royals throughout Queen Victoria’s 64 year reign. Furthermore, naval records show that Slave Ships were still using Royal dockyards to make running repairs as late as 1907.

Another way that Queen Bizzy Lizzy adds to her immense fortune is by trading on the stock market. The fact that she uses insider trading information to do so is not only criminal; it ensures that she can’t lose. She then deposits these tax free, ill gotten gains in her own private bank.

Royal researcher Jim Hutchinson has this to say on the matter:

“Congress can discuss royal family business but it is forbidden for Her Majesties Parliament to discuss the family business, or the royals offshore fortune, or the fact that Her Majesty has illegally used her Law Lords to keep her obscene wealth a secret.

The Queen’s holdings in Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) was first brought to public attention by a leak from a source at the Bank of England to Andrew Morton, who wrote the authorized biography of Diana. Philip Beresford, author of The Book of the British Rich, written in conjunction with the Sunday Times of London, found that the Queen tends to invest in “blue chip” stocks, including:

Rio Tinto Zinc, General Electric Company of Great Britain
Imperial Chemical Industries
Royal Dutch Shell
British Petroleum
Among those acting as royal cut-outs and nominees are:

S.G. Warburg’s subsidiary
Rowe & Pitman
 Barings
Cazanove
Forbes magazine also reported that the Queen is a major RTZ shareholder, as is the Bank of England.
Charles Higham, co-author of Elizabeth and Philip, also states that the Queen is a major stockholder in RTZ, which, with her old friends at Anglo-American, controls 12% of the world’s precious, strategic, and base metals and minerals.

In 1976, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee found that an international cartel, of which RTZ was a major partner, had been formed in 1971 to fix the world’s uranium prices.A federal grand jury found corroborating evidence of RTZ’s role. To protect RTZ’s directors and their richest shareholder, the Queen, Lord Denning and the Law Lords quashed Westinghouse’s ability to take depositions in the United Kingdom.

On June 16, 1976, in hearings in the U.S. House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Subcommittee Jerry McAfee, chairman of Gulf Oil admitted that the cartel in which RTZ was his partner had  criminally conspired to falsely increase the price of uranium on world markets. When the Tennessee Valley Authority tried to sue RTZ for price fixing the U.S. Attorney General again demanded testimony from RTZ executives.

However, the directors of RTZ and their boss the Queen were once again protected by the Law Lords, who claimed RTZ directors did not have to appear before an American court, as this was “an unacceptable invasion of British sovereignty.”

RTZ was in on developing North Sea oil from the beginning. Writes Higham. “The Queen undoubtedly approved the heavy investment, which would enrich her in the immediate future.”

Starting in June 1975, RTZ and Texaco were spearheading shipments from the North Sea Argyll Field, to the refineries of British Petroleum, (BP) in which the royal family have a massive stake dating back to the Anglo Persian Oil Company set-up by George V and his bankers to violent physical attack the Iranian oil-fields. Anglo Persian evolved into into BP…

Colluding with the Queen, the Bank of England established a highly illegal nominee company, the Bank of England Nominees Ltd. (BoEN), to hide the Queen’s investments as well as the investments of those Heads Of State the Queen personally recommends. The Sultan of Brunei, King Bhumibhol Adulayadej of Thailand, the Kuwaiti royal family, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and his then friend Saddam Hussein all became clients of “Queen Lizzy’s private bank.”  BoEN is only one of the many cut-outs used by the Queen to hide her obscene arms, oil and nuclear profits.

About RTZ . Rio Tinto is a leading international mining group headquartered in the UK, combining Rio Tinto plc, a London and NYSE listed company, and Rio Tinto Limited, which is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.
Rio Tinto’s business is finding, mining, and processing mineral resources. Major products are aluminium, copper, diamonds, energy (coal and uranium), gold, industrial minerals (borax, titanium dioxide, salt, talc) and iron ore. Activities span the world but are strongly represented in Australia and North America with significant businesses in South America, Asia, Europe and South Africa.  more

The British monarch became the ultimate insider-trader in the reign of “The Mad King” George III, 1769-1815. King George III was perfectly sane when he gave some of the Crown Lands to Parliament in exchange for extravagant annual payments, of taxpayers money, to fund the monarchy and their palace-pampered-lifestyle of offensive luxury. These payments are called The Civil List.

The royals annual Civil List became an endless supply of money-for-nothing to be used for warmongering-for-profit and Empire money-grubbing-speculation. By 1936 when the Queen’s grandfather, George V, died the royals private (offshore) fortune was estimated at one billion Sterling.

A small part of the present Queen’s massive disposable wealth is the tens of billions amassed tax free between her Coronation in 1953 until the public demanded she pay tax in 1992. The Queen calls 1992 her “Annus Horribilis.” This was the year of the Windsor Castle fire.

Widespread public outrage erupted when the taxpayers were arbitrarily told they would have to pay approximately £30 Million for the fire! The outcome was a “memorandum of understanding” that the Queen would pay some taxes – at her pleasure. Although, the Queen can ignore this “memorandum of understanding” any time she pleases.

In 2002 it pleased the Queen to refuse to pay tax on the known £70 Million the Queen Mum left to the Queen. Prior to her death the Queen Mum was always said to be broke. It transpired that eight years before she died the Queen Mum had put £140 Million into Swiss Trusts for her grandchildren”…


Lies and more lies.Sorry for long post


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: CrystalEve on August 14, 2013, 05:14:35 pm



Lies and more lies.Sorry for long post

No need to be sorry, better information is available, rather than sealed away for X number of years, never to see the light again.  :flower:

We all have a natural right to express ourselves at our own peril, risk and hazard, if we are honest honest we cannot avoid offending, if we do not voice our opinions then we can expect to be silenced under a total authoritarian regime.
  
Unfortunately most people prefer to go with the tide and if something they don't want to air or like comes along, to make themselves feel good the tactic they employ is to indicate the faults of (someone or something) in order that their own weakness are not exposed.

I like this quote below.

“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”




Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: mysha on August 14, 2013, 10:49:05 pm
Thanks for that CE

I have always been in search for truth in all things, my opinion and I own it. There are so many things sealed on the RF
QM and Margaret are sealed beyond my lifetime
The way they are trying to qualify us and terminate is a worry for me and my family
The RF have served their purpose, they have now reached their sell by date. If they paid their way, and put back into the UK,
then fine.They could keep the castles and jewells.
Stealing and running the country into the ground and I do not mean just the civil list ( drop in Ocean )
Then if the rumors true, there are some very illegal shady business with Putin and co.
Who is whose father is not really that important compared to the other things.I dont care if Charles was fathered by George Bush or anyone else
WK having a baby or surrogate is neither here nor there. She can have another 20 surrogates, but be honest
It is lies , stealing , deception and they are the Royales and really do F*** all in work, just spend spend spend
I want my tax money go into helping my fellow Britons, to make their life better, paid more to nurses and spend on opening hospitals and not closing
More fine schools with the best of teaching
My friend to get real help with her sick child, Abby could not get a wheelchair
Yet they waste so much money on rubbish, train trip costing  £35,000
Ridding of the RF will help with this and all the secret money, secret dealings, and the huge domino effect
would help us, the every day normal struggling person of the UK and Northern Ireland

It would create more jobs if we made all palace public museums


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: CrystalEve on August 14, 2013, 11:25:24 pm
Thanks for that CE

I have always been in search for truth in all things, my opinion and I own it. There are so many things sealed on the RF


WK having a baby or surrogate is neither here nor there. She can have another 20 surrogates, but be honest
It is lies , stealing , deception and they are the Royales and really do F*** all in work, just spend spend spend
I want my tax money go into helping my fellow Britons, to make their life better, paid more to nurses and spend on opening hospitals and not closing


Really do agree, she could go on and have a palace full of baby surrogates, or whatever, but what staggers me is the deception too.

Most people would genuinely have reached out to them if they had been honest from the onset and let it be known that there were conception problems

Now it's too late!

It must indeed be a horrible feeling to let yourself down in this way.

Where does pride, integrity and values fit in, if you choose to live an unauthentic life?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on August 21, 2013, 09:06:51 am
Interesting article in the Daily Mirror.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/wonga-shock-queen-owns-loan-2180608


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: rogue on August 21, 2013, 10:17:56 am
..She doesn't own the Crown Estates  :sly:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: True Brit on August 21, 2013, 11:44:48 am
^ No she doesn't but many people think she does. The profits all go to the Treasury however their income (Sovereign Support Grant) which replaced the Civil List is pegged to the profits of the Crown Estate at 15% even though this money actually comes from the Treasury.

The story is either misleading or attempting to whip up outrage.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 10, 2013, 10:54:14 pm
Queen is given a 'pay-rise': Her Majesty to receive inflation-busting 22% increase over next two years

Monarch set to be given £37.9million next year, up from £31million this year
The Queen is said to be down to her 'last million'
But spending on Royal Household has fallen in last 20 years, claims report


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2452911/Queen-given-pay-rise-Her-Majesty-receive-22-increase-years.html#ixzz2hMIKBfDj


Title: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 01:11:26 am
Rent out your palace, Ma'am: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547087/Rent-palace-Maam-Royals-help-fund-repairs-crumbling-homes-say-MPs.html#ixzz2reQkmefj
Quote
The Queen should open up Buckingham Palace for longer and rent it out for commercial events, MPs will say today.

Commons watchdogs insist the royals need more money-spinning ventures to stop their palaces crumbling after years of complacency.

The backlog of repairs is so great it will cost at least £50million to restore the Queen’s London residence and other historic buildings. Forty per cent of royal properties – including parts of Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle – are below ‘acceptable’ standards, with some in a dangerous condition.

Members of the Commons public accounts committee want royal courtiers to get a ‘firmer grip’ on their finances to stop taxpayers footing the whole bill.

‘The truth of the matter is that the palace has been living from hand to mouth for some time,’ the committee’s chairman, Margaret Hodge, told the Mail last night. ‘The trouble is that people are frightened, because this is the Royal Family, to address the issue head on.’

She suggested extending the opening season at Buckingham Palace and exploring other business opportunities.

‘The Queen is not there for much of the time and I find it hard to believe they can’t open the palace to the public for longer,’ she added.

The committee’s findings follow a parliamentary grilling of the sovereign’s most senior staff last autumn over whether the monarchy offered value for money to taxpayers.

Senior royal aides maintain the repairs backlog has built up because of a real-terms squeeze of up to 60 per cent in their funding by governments over the past 20 years.

This, they say, has forced them to patch up the palaces instead of embark on whole-scale repairs.

But the MPs claimed yesterday that the Queen ‘has not been served well by the Royal Household and by the Treasury ... in balancing the books and preserving heritage buildings’.

oh I don't see this going over very well


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: cate1949 on January 28, 2014, 02:02:57 am
ironic in that PC has a charity which works to preserve historic buildings and make them commercially viable - ought to apply some of that expertise to BP, Windsor etc.  I do agree the problem is the staff - they are not serving HM well - sure some complacency, lack of ability and not taking the problem seriously - passing the buck so to speak - plays a role. 

It seems to me the Queen worries about costs and so nickels and dimes - but that is not good financial management - need to restructure the whole thing and build a capitol maintenance fund.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: benign on January 28, 2014, 02:09:41 am
whatever happen to the money that these historic buildings take in during the summer season. Cant possibly blame everything the Palace now considering Treasury has been keeping the money lately. perhaps Labor should have grant the money when the repairs werent that bad yet. But then again, blaming the staff is so easy.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 28, 2014, 03:17:24 am
HM isn't managing the money well, or she's embezzling.

HM is paid millions a year to maintain these palaces and I believe that someone is being funny with the money.

Quote
I absolutely agree with MP's. I'm sorry, but as much as I admire and respect Her Majesty, it is NOT the duty of British taxpayers to pay for the renovations of her palaces - it is her OWN duty. We have more important things to be paying our money, like how about our crumbling health care system??

Quote
Interesting! How many commoners who pay for the upkeep of the palaces, have lavish residences around the country, and have the galling nerve to ask the taxpayers for yet more money to maintain their unbelievable lifestyle?

Quote
OK. That seems a justifiable reason why the Royals should help fund repairs considering they own them and live in them. Now i just need a justifiable reason why I should help fund the repairs. Or maybe it's a two way street. Maybe the Queen will give me a call when i don't have money to repair my own house. Or is that being too optimistic?

ITA; these Windsors are (to me) probably stealing money from the funds allocated to them to fix up this stuff. It's not like they have more pressing things to do. It's their job to look after this stuff while the government looks after the country.





Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: cate1949 on January 28, 2014, 03:59:02 am
KF - seriously - accusing the Queen of embezzlement?  The gov is responsible for the buildings since they own em - but a deal was reached wherein the gov nd HM will share the costs of repair - this is the same stuff when Windsor castle burned - HM had to pay for the rebuilding as the go v declined - so let a national monument go to wrack and ruin? 

I think they are not managing well - but all the wrangling over who is responsible for what has delayed things so that everything is more expensive now - they need to stop pointing fingers and settle this before these historic and magnificent buildings get dangerous - plus if the Queen has to pay for their aintenance - then she owns part of them - 


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 28, 2014, 04:36:33 am
Really? Yet the money is supposedly sent to HM.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 28, 2014, 06:18:30 am

Why haven't these building been put under a special historic committee who's sole charge is the upkeep and maintenence of the palaces?

IMO, the Queen and the other royals need to pay rent in order to live in them.  Or open them all up to the public at all times, and let the Queen and the other royals live elsewhere.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 28, 2014, 06:35:57 am
Totally agree; HM and her family whine about Buckingham Palace and I frankly think they are just leaving all these rooms to waste. It's not like the RF isn't buying new places all the time and so the suites aren't being used and just sitting there crumbling.

As for money, where is it all going? I don't see these palaces being updated on a frequent basis or any construction work being carried out or announced. So really, where is all that money going? If it's not going towards construction work, it must be going somewhere, where it isn't supposed to go.

With the US, questions would be asked about why public funds aren't being used as they should.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: True Brit on January 28, 2014, 10:58:49 am
Have just been reading the full report online. They have been receiving money for this work and not spending it wisely, if at all. In 2009 the Public Accounts Committee more or less told them they had to do essential work on the V&A Mausoleum which is on the English Heritage at risk list yet it still hasn't been done. The boilers haven't been changed since 1949 (sic) and many rooms not touched since the 1950s yet millions have been handed over by various Governments.


Further the palace managers are exclusively drawn from the upper ranks of the armed forces - it's almost a second career opportunity for them and they are not commercially trained or of that mind set.

I agree with earlier comments the palaces should all be handed over to, say Historic Royal Palaces and they should have full responsibility for their running and upkeep and open such as Buckingham Palace all year round displaying the vast art treasures held in trust for the nation yet which the nation never sees and let it earn its keep. They can make provision for the various State apartments and an wing for offices and accommodation for the working royals. There is no justification in the Cambridges occupying KP when they could have perfectly luxurious apartments at BP.

There was an utter toady of a Conservative MP on Sky this morning (Michael Ellis) saying this was political posturing by the Labour members yet the committee has 7 Conservatives and just four Labour members and one Lib Dem. And the neglect stretches back to the start of the Queen's reign.

PC has said he will abandon BP when he's king - he can see the writing on the wall - and open it to the public. He's even mentioned turning it into a hotel but I doubt this would be acceptable.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 12:35:56 pm
I found a little tidbit on the matter...for me it was interesting.... not sure if it's all true but heck we read the press on a daily basis and that's half fictional so judge what is written for yourself....if what this site says is partly true Prince Charles will not be allowed to turn BP into his own hotel for he doesn't own it

anyways here's the info I found
http://republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Royal%20property/index.php


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: True Brit on January 28, 2014, 12:52:37 pm
^ Yes that's a good source of information.

The stuff re Charles was just speculation and based on an interview he gave to broadcaster Andrew Marr in 2011 but it's interesting that he is considering giving it back. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.

According to the Express the hotel is in the plans but the comment I've highlighted is interesting as it seems to be happening already.


Quote
His succession would be followed by a dramatic clearing out of the current Buckingham Palace staff and the arrival of his own team,” he writes.

“One of the more dramatic ideas that has been discussed is for the Royal Family in his reign to leave Buckingham Palace entirely, leaving it as a kind of grand official government hotel and centre for events

“The king would base himself not in London but at Windsor Castle.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/279277/King-Charles-will-turn-the-Palace-into-a-hotel

Quote
Prince Charles may make Windsor Castle in Berkshire the main royal residence when he is King, the BBC's Andrew Marr claims.

Mr Marr said sources close to the prince had ideas to give his reign "a reasonably dramatic new start".

He added Buckingham Palace could be turned into "a national centre for grand occasions and receptions".

A Clarence House spokesperson said: "This is just speculation. There have been no plans about such matters."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-15427875


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 01:03:58 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/10599638/Queens-advisers-wasting-money-while-royal-palaces-are-crumbling.html
Quote
The MPs compared the success of the Tower of London, which has more than 2million visitors a year, to Buckingham Palace, which has 500,000 visitors a year.
that should make enough to upkeep BP?  :sly:

they can't afford to upkeep BP but they can afford to give a 7,000 pay raise

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/10599783/Royal-adviser-enjoyed-7000-pay-rise.html


Queen's household told to do more to cut costs after cash reserves fall to £1m
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/queens-royal-household-budget


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Jane23 on January 28, 2014, 02:29:22 pm
What a mess ...


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: True Brit on January 28, 2014, 02:58:27 pm
^ and ^^ Exactly. If HM employed the right sort of commercial staff instead of giving jobs to former high ranking military officers the whole situation could probably be turned around to everyone's satisfaction.

I suspect the thought of opening up to the public is beneath some of these ex-army types yet all the owners of the great English estates do this and highly successfully without degrading the property. I mean seriously why has this man been employed when there will be many good and younger people with creative ideas around? He'll already be on a decent army pension. Or perhaps HM doesn't want to deal with anyone other than ex military.


Quote
The Royal Household has given pay rises to one of its executives after many staff had their wages frozen.


Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Andrew Ford, comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain's Office, saw his pay rise by £7,000 to £116,000 last year as he took on extra responsibilities for royal travel.

All other household staff earning above £21,000 had a pay rise of 2 per cent, having gone two years without a pay rise.

Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "It strikes me that it is not a very good message for a public organisation to freeze the wages of its staff at a very low level when top management gave themselves an increase."

The royal household disclosed that it has 53 staff who earn more than £50,000.


For all I criticise PC I think he does actually "get this". He is very friendly with the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire who own Chatsworth and that is a huge commercial success as well as still working as a country estate. He must have learnt a lot from them on his frequent visits there.

I wouldn't be surprised if BP could pay for itself if put into the right hands.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 28, 2014, 04:29:08 pm
^
agreed...BP and the other palaces could pay for themselves with better management of public funds.

And if the Queen took money from the palace's upkeep...she should be paying it back out of her personal funds with interest.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 05:10:19 pm
where's all the money going ?...the public should be demanding to know where all this money has gone!!!


Title: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: buflesse on January 28, 2014, 05:23:03 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/10600671/Queen-down-to-her-last-million-due-to-courtiers-overspending-report-finds.html

Report by the Commons public accounts committee finds the Queen’s advisers are failing to control her finances while the royal palaces are “crumbling”



Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Fly on the wall on January 28, 2014, 05:32:54 pm
Yup they should^


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Queenbee on January 28, 2014, 05:42:21 pm
http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/Royal-family-reportedly-facing-money-troubles/129035843718/fanNews/newest/?cid=hero_sf (http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/Royal-family-reportedly-facing-money-troubles/129035843718/fanNews/newest/?cid=hero_sf)they did not have this problem before the middletons


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 05:45:13 pm
so does anyone know where the proceeds from the public that purchases the tickets for BP suppose to go?

I did a basic math calculation even if people bought tickets for 15 dollars each (and they cost more than that) x that by the 500,000 BP gets traffic wise that's 7,500,000 profit from BP alone

Prices set for tours at BP so you all know where I got a rough idea from price wise
http://www.royalcollection.org.uk/visit/the-state-rooms-buckingham-palace/plan-your-visit

so for the tour of the tower of London was roughly 2 million people visiting you times that by roughly 13 dollars for each person that's 26million dollars which is going off the dollar amount that is for the UK.

http://www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/admissionsprices/toweroflondonadmission
so again I ask where is all that money going????

that's a rough 32 million dollars that are coming out of these 2 buildings alone


I have to disagree with blaming the Middleton's for this....the queen has been asking way before Kate got into the picture for money to fix up the palaces sorry blaming the middletons for everything wrong within this family doesn't work for me

just to back up ^^ my Middleton statement
Queen is snubbed over plea for cash to fix her palaces (2008)
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/74673/Queen-is-snubbed-over-plea-for-cash-to-fix-her-palaces


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 05:59:05 pm
sorry for the double posts but I've found more articles before the Middletons even got into the family

Queen Elizabeth Claims Poverty, Asks for Help to Heat Buckingham Palace
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Queen-Elizabeth-Claims-Poverty-Asks-for-Help-to-Heat-Buckingham-Palace-158050.shtml
Quote
The petition was filed in 2004 and was almost immediately denied for fear of a public relations disaster, it has emerged just recently, the Daily Mail informs.

Basically, the Queen was asking for more government money to pay the bills for two of her palaces – but she wanted the money to come from funds assigned to low-income people in need of assistance.

Apparently, the gas and heating bill for Buckingham increased by more, coming to total about £1 million, an expense the Queen can’t cover from her yearly grants.

“[Royal aides] complained that the £15 million government grant to cover the Queen’s palaces was inadequate and her energy bills had become ‘untenable’,” the Mail says.

“The money would have come from £60 million of energy-saving grants reserved for cash-strapped families, housing associations and hospitals,” the same publication informs.


Queen asks for extra £1m to repair decrepit palaces
Alan Hamilton  
Published at 12:00AM, June 29 2007
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article1915179.ece


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: True Brit on January 28, 2014, 06:08:42 pm
^ No this is nothing to do with the Middletons (for once). The RF have lived lavishly and like some feudal monarchs for a long, long time. The palaces actually belong to the nation but they are charged into HM's legal care and she is given money to pay for their upkeep and for the RF official duties.

The upkeep used to be via grants but she now actually gets much more under the new Sovereign Support Grant. I suspect there's been an unofficial policy of not doing some of this work in order to claim there isn't enough money.

These buildings should be turned over to either Historic Royal Palaces (who manage parts of KP) or English Heritage as both have excellent track records at running such buildings.

Nighthawk not 100% sure where the BP ticket money goes but I thought it was back into the general pot or am I being too trusting and should that read Swiss bank account?  :tehe:


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Stephanie on January 28, 2014, 06:53:23 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25922896
Chuck is furious that the word came out.
He thinks it's okay to let National Heritage rot away for 60 years while getting paid for its upkeep.
Sneaky Chuck also manages to keep the vast profits from the duchy of Cornwall out of the books. :ick:


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: MOSAIC on January 28, 2014, 07:12:28 pm

Nighthawk not 100% sure where the BP ticket money goes but I thought it was back into the general pot or am I being too trusting and should that read Swiss bank account?  :tehe:

Well lets not forget what the pile on that vast estate in Transylvania must be costing him.  Gotta get it ready.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Jane23 on January 28, 2014, 07:58:57 pm
Chuck will be sending a lot of Courtiers into The Tower tonight ... who hires these people?


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 28, 2014, 08:46:27 pm
You know, one day I hope the courtiers tell HM and the RF to bug off and solve their own problems. Blaming the courtiers is the absolute worst thing she can do.

Queen Elizabeth is ‘broke’, she’s down to her ‘last £1 million’ (except not really)

Quote
You guys, the Queen is BROKE. She’s down to her “last” £1 million!!! Clutch your royal collection pearls!! Actually, this is a somewhat serious situation, although there is a lot being left unsaid about the royal finances, which I’ll get to in a moment. Apparently, the Queen’s financial situation is so dire that now the UK’s Treasury is basically doing an audit of the royal finances and they’re going to help the Queen figure out what she’s doing wrong and how to replenish the royal coffers.

http://www.celebitchy.com/346826/queen_elizabeth_is_broke_shes_down_to_her_last_1million_except_not_really/#comments


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: cate1949 on January 28, 2014, 10:01:19 pm
ah yes - an always reliable source - celebitchy - known for their probing and honest journalism like Camilla plans to divorce Charles - or Camilla screams at Kate - etc etc



Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 28, 2014, 10:21:51 pm
http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/Royal-family-reportedly-facing-money-troubles/129035843718/fanNews/newest/?cid=hero_sf (http://xfinity.comcast.net/video/Royal-family-reportedly-facing-money-troubles/129035843718/fanNews/newest/?cid=hero_sf)they did not have this problem before the middletons

I call baloney on blaming the Midds for something that the RF has failed to do for years:  and that's maintain the palaces as contracted.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: cate1949 on January 28, 2014, 10:36:31 pm
did anyone actually read the article?  It has nothing to do with Charles let alone assert he is furious - it also notes the Royal Household has become "more efficient" in their spending and that they have been generating more income - up from 6+ million to 11+ million.

And the Parliamentary committee puts the blame on the Treasury and the Royal staffers no mention of the Queen etc.

They also note that there has been more transparency about royal spending than in the past.

Clearly - they can still do better and the backlog in repairs really does need to be addressed - it seems keeping BP open to the paying public more often would fund some of those repairs.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 10:40:58 pm
where's all the money for the repairs since they are bringing in all this money then? they've had since 2004 to start repairing these issues? the queen has asked for more and more funds every year for "fixing" up the residents and yet all this money seems to be spent on people who aren't doing their job ...where do I get a job like this ? seriously


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: cate1949 on January 28, 2014, 10:52:23 pm
^ Nighthawk - I read some time ago in a historic preservation magazine that the problem has been a dispute over who is responsible for repairs.  The buildings are owned by the National Preservation Trust so the RF asserts they are responsible for repairs - but the gov wants the RF to pay for some or all - the RF is willing to pay for some but not all and not for things they do not live in - i.e. the Victoria and Albert Mauseleum - LOL - one can understand no alive persons are living there!  So - the roof for BP should be a shared cost for the RF and the Trust whilst the Vickie and Al memorial should be the Trust's responsibility.  It really is petty bureaucratic squabbling but meanwhile the buildings are in decline. 

I think too it is down to commitees - the problem is that in a committee no one person is responsible so everyone can hide in the committee - they should appoint one person to take this in hand - raise the money - get a plan - and get it done.  It also looks to me that government is too cheap to want to pay and so they try to pawn it off on the RF.  When Windsor castle burned - the gov refused to fix it - so the RF raised the money on their own and fixed it.  Which I thought was a bit absurd - you would not let Windsor turn into a ruin now would you?  Cost sharing seems like it would be right to me - RF and the gov plus some publically raised funds.  But they need to stop the squabbling and get on with it!


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 28, 2014, 10:56:47 pm
if the royals don't own the buildings then do what "normal" people do when the owners refuse to fix the problems with there house or apartment MOVE!

not like the royals don't have their own homes they can go live in, seriously how many personal homes do the royals need in the first place....if they leave and move out of the Palaces not owned by them problem solved it falls on the government to fix it...then the royals can just maintain the homes that they actually owned...simple problem solved!

not like all the royals need to live under one roof anyways IMO

another problem solved the government could have the palace opened all year around...not like the building doesn't have history behind it anyways


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Jane23 on January 28, 2014, 11:16:49 pm
^ Nighthawk - I read some time ago in a historic preservation magazine that the problem has been a dispute over who is responsible for repairs.  The buildings are owned by the National Preservation Trust so the RF asserts they are responsible for repairs - but the gov wants the RF to pay for some or all - the RF is willing to pay for some but not all and not for things they do not live in - i.e. the Victoria and Albert Mauseleum - LOL - one can understand no alive persons are living there!  So - the roof for BP should be a shared cost for the RF and the Trust whilst the Vickie and Al memorial should be the Trust's responsibility.  It really is petty bureaucratic squabbling but meanwhile the buildings are in decline. 

I think too it is down to commitees - the problem is that in a committee no one person is responsible so everyone can hide in the committee - they should appoint one person to take this in hand - raise the money - get a plan - and get it done.  It also looks to me that government is too cheap to want to pay and so they try to pawn it off on the RF.  When Windsor castle burned - the gov refused to fix it - so the RF raised the money on their own and fixed it.  Which I thought was a bit absurd - you would not let Windsor turn into a ruin now would you?  Cost sharing seems like it would be right to me - RF and the gov plus some publically raised funds.  But they need to stop the squabbling and get on with it!
I wouldn't say the don't own all of them ...


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: cate1949 on January 28, 2014, 11:33:33 pm
If you read the article in the BBC - the last million is the reserve fund - what they dip into for unexpected expenses. 


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Queen of the Hill on January 28, 2014, 11:39:30 pm
I don't believe any of it.  They need to start looking under the mattress :cookie:.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Dasher on January 28, 2014, 11:51:28 pm
I don't believe any of it.  They need to start looking under the mattress :cookie:.

Neither do I. Are we to believe that she has to start saving her pennies?  :tehe:
Perhaps this link will remove the rose tinted glasses and help to illuminate our own reasoning powers regarding her last reserve million. I don't think you could make this stuff up!

http://www.intmensorg.info/hermajesty1.htm (http://www.intmensorg.info/hermajesty1.htm)


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 12:19:29 am
think too it is down to commitees - the problem is that in a committee no one person is responsible so everyone can hide in the committee - they should appoint one person to take this in hand - raise the money - get a plan - and get it done.  It also looks to me that government is too cheap to want to pay and so they try to pawn it off on the RF.  When Windsor castle burned - the gov refused to fix it - so the RF raised the money on their own and fixed it.  Which I thought was a bit absurd - you would not let Windsor turn into a ruin now would you?  Cost sharing seems like it would be right to me - RF and the gov plus some publically raised funds.  But they need to stop the squabbling and get on with it!

HM and the RF tried to make the public pay for it, but there was a backlash and so HM paid for it herself. HM and the RF always try to take from the public purse first. The public already pays through the nose for them via their lifestyle and the security used to maintain that lifestyle safely. So the public shouldn't be burdened with even more taxation. Second, the RF has plenty of minor royals, so why not have the minor royals do something like this, or make the Cambridges do it. Or make the Yorkies develop a committee.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Queen of the Hill on January 29, 2014, 01:15:48 am
^ Yes that's a good source of information.

The stuff re Charles was just speculation and based on an interview he gave to broadcaster Andrew Marr in 2011 but it's interesting that he is considering giving it back. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens.

According to the Express the hotel is in the plans but the comment I've highlighted is interesting as it seems to be happening already.


Quote
His succession would be followed by a dramatic clearing out of the current Buckingham Palace staff and the arrival of his own team,” he writes.

“One of the more dramatic ideas that has been discussed is for the Royal Family in his reign to leave Buckingham Palace entirely, leaving it as a kind of grand official government hotel and centre for events

“The king would base himself not in London but at Windsor Castle.”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/279277/King-Charles-will-turn-the-Palace-into-a-hotel

Quote
Prince Charles may make Windsor Castle in Berkshire the main royal residence when he is King, the BBC's Andrew Marr claims.

Mr Marr said sources close to the prince had ideas to give his reign "a reasonably dramatic new start".

He added Buckingham Palace could be turned into "a national centre for grand occasions and receptions".

A Clarence House spokesperson said: "This is just speculation. There have been no plans about such matters."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-15427875

Of course, Windsor Castle... So all those medieval references won't go away, won't they?


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: india on January 29, 2014, 01:28:10 am
The fact of the matter is that the Queen's wealth is much greater than they have led us to believe. They do not want the sheeple to know this. She is hugely rich; however, they love to get the public to pay for as much as they can lie, cheat and steal out of them. The poor mouthing is disgusting. She could plum up all of her palaces in a skinny minute if she so wished. Liars. Thieves. And so much more.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Fly on the wall on January 29, 2014, 01:55:09 am
Stop 'unfair' attacks on the Queen's finances, warns George Osborne who insists the royals HAVE tightened their belts

    Commons watchdogs insist royals need more money-spinning ventures
    Backlog of repairs is so great it will cost £50m to restore crumbling palaces
    Public accounts committee want courtiers to get a 'firmer grip' on finances
    Margaret Hodge suggests extending opening season at main residence
    But Chancellor says the royals have already done a lot to cut costs
    Tory MPs condemned 'political posturing' by Labour MP


George Osborne today leapt to the defence of the Queen, insisting attacks on the monarch's finances were 'unfair'.

The Chancellor became the most senior politician to criticise a report by MPs which suggested the Queen should open up Buckingham Palace for longer and rent it out for commercial events.

Other Tories condemned the 'political posturing' and 'out-and-out attack' on the Royal Family because of who they are, insisting they bring in millions to the country through tourism.


 The Public Accounts Committee, chaired by Labour MP Margaret Hodge, today said the royals need more money-spinning ventures to stop their palaces crumbling after years of complacency.

The backlog of repairs is so great it will cost at least £50million to restore the Queen’s London residence and other historic buildings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547516/Stop-unfair-attacks-Queen-warns-George-Osborne-insists-royals-tightened-belts.html






Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: cate1949 on January 29, 2014, 04:28:58 am
I'd like to know what the other historic buildings are and why the government has not kept them in good repair?  I can see expecting a cost sharing with the RF re: maintenance of BP - but other historic places?  That should be the governments responsibility.  Good for Osborne to speak against political games - blame the RF and ignore your own responsibility for letting Britain's patrimony fall apart. 

I can't imagine the outcry in the US if the government let the major monuments in Washington get into a poor state of repair.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: cate1949 on January 29, 2014, 04:40:59 am
my thought is - she plumbs up for palace repairs - she then is the owner so when you kick her out - she keeps BP.  Seems fair - especially since the government is clearly not willing to maintain BP.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 05:21:02 am
If you read the article in the BBC - the last million is the reserve fund - what they dip into for unexpected expenses.

I wonder where the money is going, that will be the interesting one to investigate.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 05:34:54 am
Government officials don't live there, the RF does. They should be interested in keeping their home up to date.

Quote
The Royals are nothing but free loading parasites on the UK taxpayer. They cost tens of millions of taxpayer pounds per year and give back only in charity work which many ordinary people do. Scrap the monarch and give their assets back to the people. Leeches. As for Prince William and Harry doing 3 years work then retiring, simply pathetic.

Quote
I question the ideology of "majesty" and its intrinsic worth to a modern culture; it's politics and economy. Perhaps royalists could elect into a monarch fund and republicans could opt-out choosing to contribute their monies to other causes. Seems a fairer democracy.

Quote
The Royals have enough money as it is. They should get used to living within their means like the rest of us have to do. The government isn't bailing us out but cutting back on the services it provides us. We can't afford a decent education for our kids nor a decent health service for our old people.

Quote
Why not disclose how much money, land, treasure, investments, businesses, art and property our royal family own?

Quote
Can someone please explain why the extremely wealthy Royal family aren't footing the bill for these repairs? Why is the taxpayer paying for these palaces when we never get to step one foot inside them?


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: cate1949 on January 29, 2014, 05:48:35 am
It isn't just BP - it is a whole list of historic buildings that the Queen and RF did not live in - like Victoria's tomb.  Why should the Queen fix up a landmark tomb?


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 29, 2014, 05:51:31 am
Where did the money go for the upkeep of these places? 



Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 06:00:33 am
Likely somewhere where they shouldn't have gone.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 06:11:46 am
The first thing is, that the public should know where the money is going, if it isn't going towards fixing the palaces.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: cate1949 on January 29, 2014, 06:12:55 am
okay public - here it is - a detailed breakdown of expenses - and what needs to be repaired as well as the Queen's treasurer's testimony to the parliamentary committee

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/buckingham-palace-facing-a-royal-scale-repair-bill/article14860757/http://


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 06:33:10 am
I present to you the list of expenses:


Staff Cost: 19 Million GBP
Recharges and Other Income: 4.9 Million GBP
Facilities Management Charges: 3.7 Million GBP
Property Rental: 3 Million GBP
Depreciation: 1.4 Million GBP
Housekeeping and Hospitality: 1.9 Million GBP
Other: 2.2 Million GBP
Utilities: 3.1 Million GBP
IT and Equipment: 3.2 Million GBP
Travel:4.5 Million GBP
Property and Maintenance: 9.1 Million GBP


Something is up; by any calculation these costs are being downsized considerably. Travel has to cost more than just a total of four and a half million, I am sure that with wardrobe costs and the security and just the plane ride, that it's a lot, lot more.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Stephanie on January 29, 2014, 10:37:52 am
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#.UujSwXl59FQ
I think a lot of people are ripping off the Queen including Wimpo and The Stalker.
"Renovating" Anmer Hall and KP (while Waity wast hundreds of thousands a week :nervous: by staying at the Mansons :ick:) costs millions and millions.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: True Brit on January 29, 2014, 11:39:47 am
The Queen should "fix up" the mausoleum because it comes under the duties for the Windsor estate and she has been "contracted" to undertake this work. The National Trust has this on its "At Risk" list but the NT is a charity which only gets involved in helping, say, great houses and even threatened landscapes when there is no other source of support. In this case the Government has allocated money over decades for such work.

In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher and the then leader of the Labour opposition Neil Kinnock presented a fait accomplish to Parliament which gave HM a multi million pound lump sum which was intended to be used for such projects as replacing ancient central heating boilers, work on the roof - essential work to the fabric of the buildings.

Guess what? The work never happened and in 1993 it was found that HM was sitting on £35million from the Civil List in their reserve account (and clocking up interest) which was never spent on these projects nor offered back to the Treasury as an underspend. Yet they used public money to keep the Ascot racecourse office which opens once a year and then it's to decide who gets into the Royal Enclosure. That was down to the QM.

They have been given millions and millions over the years and it isn't being spent in the right way. There are many people (many ex forces) on cosy sinecures awaiting their knighthoods.

George Osbourne is bound to leap to HM's defence as
a) he is a member of the Privy Council selected by the Queen and who swear allegiance to her (over and above the duty to the nation)
b) he forced the Sovereign Support Grant through Parliament with little debate and if people check the small print he has given HM a 22% increase over the next two years to cover more of this work.
c) It's no use trying to say this is political posturing on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee they are there to oversee that public money is well spent and the PAC actually has 7 Conservatives and just 4 Labour members and 1 Lib Dem. Margaret Hodge (chair) may be Labour but the entire committee agreed this report.
d) Public money is handed over for HM to do this job. If they can't or won't the care of these buildings should be in the hands of Historic Royal Palaces and HM should be paid just for performing her public duties.
e) Most of the money is going on 430 staff and no cuts in staff have been made yet various Govt departments have lost thousands of staff.

Finally. The mausoleum may well be of national importance but at the end of the day it's the family resting place and it reflects badly on a family of multimillionaires, quite possibly billionaires, if they have so little respect for their ancestors or are using it as a political football that they allow this to fall into such shocking disrepair.

P.S.
Quote
The buildings are owned by the National Preservation Trust so the RF asserts they are responsible for repairs - but the gov wants the RF to pay for some or all - the RF is willing to pay for some but not all and not for things they do not live in - i.e. the Victoria and Albert Mauseleum
There is no such organisation they must mean the National Trust but they do not own any of these buildings and again they are being paid to undertake this work and until that changes it's their baby.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Stephanie on January 29, 2014, 11:53:24 am
^ :worship: :worship:


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: True Brit on January 29, 2014, 12:03:43 pm
^ Why :thankyou: Stephanie.

^^ KF the travel costs you are referring to are under the Civil List not the new Sovereign Support Grant and so many costs will be disguised with much hidden in the MoD budget and particularly the Foreign Office budget when they travel abroad. Also there are costs picked up by local councils when the RF visit places around the country and not to mention places overseas where the costs are dumped on the host nation vis a vis Canada, Australia, NZ etc etc.

Security isn't in these recent figures either.

It is all shrouded in fudge, mystery and fog and it's high time someone undertook a real financial assessment which takes into account all of those hidden costs.

Don't also forget HM gets a further what £12.5 million from the Duchy of Lancaster and Charles his £19million and rising from the Duchy of Cornwall. To my mind this makes the neglect of the V&A tomb even more reprehensible - they are hardly strapped for cash.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 29, 2014, 03:57:33 pm
Public money is handed over for HM to do this job. If they can't or won't the care of these buildings should be in the hands of Historic Royal Palaces and HM should be paid just for performing her public duties.

***********

 Pay them on a per engagement basis, and they can stay at their private homes, not at the palaces which are owned by the people.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Stephanie on January 29, 2014, 06:32:06 pm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/8-royal-money-raising-ideas-queen-3069553#.UulI4Hk5XmQ :laugh:


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Nighthawk on January 29, 2014, 06:54:24 pm
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckL


How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-million
Quote
As a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.

The public accounts committee shouldn't suffer from that problem. Its role is to examine public expenditure not on the merits of any policy but "on value-for-money criteria which are based on economy, effectiveness and efficiency".

So, a report by the committee published on Tuesday which looks at the finances of the royal household should be scrutinised by those who are after the facts.

There's an immediate problem for us though - there's relatively little data in the 35 page report. Instead Margaret Hodge, chair of the committee resides over a series of Q and As where two witnesses are responsible for the As - namely Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy Purse and Treasurer to the Queen, and Mike Stevens, Deputy Treasurer to the Queen.

We've published extracts from some of the more interesting exchanges below:


Chair: "You have now left your reserves at £1 million from a high of £35 million. There are two questions arising from that. First, how did you allow yourself to get into the position where your expenditure exceeded your income in the new settlement? Secondly, is it not a bit risky to leave yourselves with just £1 million in reserves?"Sir Alan Reid: "A quick bit of history. The £35 million reserve that we had in 2001 was absolutely intended to be spent by the end of 2010."

Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"

The Chair interrupted again, frustrated by the responses. But it's that £1 million figure that has really captured people's imaginations about the finances of the royal family. In 2012, those reserves were £3.3 million - how did that money get spent and how much is left?

We have taken a look at the annual financial reports of the royal family to find out.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: MOSAIC on January 29, 2014, 07:17:42 pm

Tomorrow nights Question Time Programme should be interesting to watch.
People will certainly try to ask questions about this.  Watch David Dimbleby
do his usual routine and allow it right at the end of the evening when he'll
then say they've run out of time.  He'll also be interjecting on comments
he doesn't like.  Typical Dimbleby, always the same and always a crawler.

Never expect anything of him, he's well and truly busted. Yesterday's man,
waiting for his gong..


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Snowdrop on January 29, 2014, 07:44:52 pm

Tomorrow nights Question Time Programme should be interesting to watch.
People will certainly try to ask questions about this.  Watch David Dimbleby
do his usual routine and allow it right at the end of the evening when he'll
then say they've run out of time.  He'll also be interjecting on comments
he doesn't like.  Typical Dimbleby, always the same and always a crawler.

Never expect anything of him, he's well and truly busted. Yesterday's man,
waiting for his gong..

So true Mosaic  :worship:


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 29, 2014, 08:47:27 pm
Quote
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckL

People on benefits don't have people bowing to them and frankly people on benefits don't have even a little of the protection that the royals have. Most people on beenfits lost their jobs, had a life that broke them mentally and emotionally, and frankly I don't see why HM gets lauded and the commoners get insulted and mocked and blamed.

Quote
How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-million
As a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.

Personally they aren't down to their last million, but the public money is obviously being grossly mismanaged and the RF's evasiveness isn't doing them any favors.

Quote
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"

If they keep up this evasiveness, a Labor PM will be elected and he'll be going after this family like none other. HM complained about Blair being intrusive and disruptive, but it's likely that a new Labor PM will go for the throat and order a full disclosure of every penny that has been spent on anything.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Snowdrop on January 30, 2014, 11:30:59 am
Quote
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckL

People on benefits don't have people bowing to them and frankly people on benefits don't have even a little of the protection that the royals have. Most people on beenfits lost their jobs, had a life that broke them mentally and emotionally, and frankly I don't see why HM gets lauded and the commoners get insulted and mocked and blamed.

Quote
How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-million
As a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.

Personally they aren't down to their last million, but the public money is obviously being grossly mismanaged and the RF's evasiveness isn't doing them any favors.

Quote
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"

If they keep up this evasiveness, a Labor PM will be elected and he'll be going after this family like none other. HM complained about Blair being intrusive and disruptive, but it's likely that a new Labor PM will go for the throat and order a full disclosure of every penny that has been spent on anything.

As much as I don't want a Labour government - every cloud has a silver lining!!


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 30, 2014, 02:50:08 pm
Quote
The Queen has to realise there is no free ride - just like residents of Benefits Street
 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-realise-no-free-ride-3087373#ixzz2robQOckL

People on benefits don't have people bowing to them and frankly people on benefits don't have even a little of the protection that the royals have. Most people on beenfits lost their jobs, had a life that broke them mentally and emotionally, and frankly I don't see why HM gets lauded and the commoners get insulted and mocked and blamed.

Quote
How much do the royal family spend and are they down to their last million?
http://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2014/jan/28/how-much-do-the-royal-family-spend-and-are-they-down-to-their-last-million
As a national institution, the British monarchy is about as contentious as they come. So interpretation of royal numbers tends to be blighted by a data problem known as 'confirmation bias' - which basically means 'you get what you look for'.

Personally they aren't down to their last million, but the public money is obviously being grossly mismanaged and the RF's evasiveness isn't doing them any favors.

Quote
Chair: "I do not understand why you did not cut back your expenditure to live within your means."
Sir Alan Reid: "We really believed that it is not wise to cut back on the level of activity of the monarchy. We were keen to—"

If they keep up this evasiveness, a Labor PM will be elected and he'll be going after this family like none other. HM complained about Blair being intrusive and disruptive, but it's likely that a new Labor PM will go for the throat and order a full disclosure of every penny that has been spent on anything.

As it should be since the taxpayers are footing the bills for the Royal Family and the upkeep of the palaces, which haven't been maintained.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Fly on the wall on January 30, 2014, 06:16:41 pm
Royal Family doesn’t need a Disney makeover

 Dramatic headlines that the Queen is down to her last million don’t tell the whole story – the royal finances are looking up, says Harry Mount



Don’t worry – the Queen won’t be moving into a two-up, two-down on Benefits Street any time soon. Black Dee and White Dee will have to survive without White Liz for a little while longer.
 

Yes, Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, was right to say this week that royal finances are tight. Last year, the Royal Household’s net expenditure was £33.3 million, while it received £31 million from the Sovereign Grant. The shortfall had to come from a reserve fund – which now only has £1 million left; in 2001, it was as high as £35 million.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/10603719/Royal-Family-doesnt-need-a-Disney-makeover.html


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Queen of the Hill on January 30, 2014, 07:57:26 pm
^ :June:  I guess they took it a little too far with the "austerity" pr  :BS:  :bored: So PC new communications officials at BP fucked it up this time, didn't they? :sly: :laundry:


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Fly on the wall on January 30, 2014, 11:05:00 pm
Why are we subsidising the royal family at a time of gross inequality?

Nothing symbolises stagnation, immovable social barriers and hierarchy quite like the royal family. No wonder George Osborne is leaping to their defence


When you are on a limited income, a boiler packing up, a leaky roof, dodgy guttering or a basement full of asbestos can tip you over the edge. If you are mortgaged-up, you cannot let your property fall into disrepair. If you live in social housing or are renting privately, you may find you receive little help; landlords and councils will keep you waiting and do the bare minimum. Rising food and fuel bills mean that, despite our much-trumpeted growth, too many are left with the "heat or eat" dilemma.

So can you imagine what it is like to be the poor old Queen? The boiler in Buckingham Palace is 60 years old. And you will get no Camilla cracks from me: I've moved on.

What, though, is the Queen to do? Obviously the answer is not pay for it herself out of her own enormous fortune because … well, she is the Queen. We – her largely indifferent subjects – should be ecstatically happy to pay for her repairs. Instead, though, "we" – in the shape of the public accounts committee headed by Margaret Hodge – are nosing round asking awkward questions about the royal finances, which is really rather vulgar. It is "bizarre", Jacob Rees-Mogg has told us, that this committee should query the pittance of royal expenditure when we should be looking at cutting other public spending

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/29/royals-want-new-boiler-we-pay-for-it?CMP=fb_ot


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 30, 2014, 11:23:30 pm
You know, a cool million would fix half the problems and another couple million would certainly fix another round of issues.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Royal Lowness on January 31, 2014, 02:29:16 am
... so when you kick her out ...

Yes, I think the only real option is to kick her and the rest of them out. England, Scotland and Wales can never be free and just otherwise.

Her "last million" (joke) should allow her to see out her days in luxury, unlike most of the pensioners in Britain who cannot afford to heat their home in winter.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 31, 2014, 03:26:03 am
To be frank, blaming the courtiers isn't going to really help her; chances are the courtiers are as fed up wtih her as they are with the rest of the RF.


Title: Re: Rent out your palace: Royals must help fund repairs to crumbling homes, say MPs
Post by: Magnolia on February 03, 2014, 06:55:28 am
In the news there was the headline "The RF having financial problems".That was a total disrespect to the public the RF  and money problems don't go hand in hand.When there are working people who don't know if tomorrow they even have a job.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: LadyLaura on February 05, 2014, 06:42:07 pm
Please pardon my ignorance as I have no idea really how the monarchy's finances are handled, but really, doesn't the Queen get billions in income from estates, rents, duchies...I thought more went in than out.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: india on February 05, 2014, 06:45:35 pm
Of course she does. They just don't want the public to know about it.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Royal Lowness on February 13, 2014, 12:32:59 am
Queenie, Rothschilds, Rockefellers et alia do not appear on Forbes List - they have far too much wealth for that. Plus, as india says, it has to remain hidden.

 8)


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Queen of the Hill on February 15, 2014, 11:27:04 pm
People talk about billionaires but I suspect we have been looking right into the eyes of a few trillionaires all along.  Their assets are so entangled under fictitious corporations and umbrella companies and this and that I am surprised even them can keep track of it all.  The British Empire
still crawls underneath international law with its globalist agenda, it might be more difficult to see, but make no mistake, its tentacles are still there.


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 24, 2014, 10:07:24 am
Not sure which thread to put this in - mods please move to appropriate thread if in the wrong place.  :thankyou:

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/my-week-of-lese-majeste/


Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Royal Lowness on February 24, 2014, 09:22:10 pm
^

The "welfare queen" of England. That's even come from the New York Times!  :thumbsup:  Never thought I'd see that from the NYT.



Title: Re: Queen down to her last million due to courtiers' overspending
Post by: Dasher on February 25, 2014, 12:47:12 am
Not sure which thread to put this in - mods please move to appropriate thread if in the wrong place.  :thankyou:

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/my-week-of-lese-majeste/

Kenan Malik is an Indian born English writer who has long campaigned for freedom of expression.
I see Hugo Vickers (historian and royal biographer) was outraged. Well, the sycophant would be, as he said 'that the Royal Family are worth every penny'! He insisted that ‘The Queen is very parsimonious. Frugal, what a joke! Are we talking about the same Queen here, the one who  is worth $33 and trillion and the world's number landowner?

Good for Malik, he didn't fall into the doorstepping, sneaky, journalists trap! Too wise for that one, eh. Seems like they were well put out when he said, ‘What’s so controversial about wanting a non-hereditary head of state?’.

His most controversial line was the suggestion that, far from being an apolitical institution, the very existence of the monarchy was a political statement, proclaiming ‘that an accident of birth matters more than the democratic will.   8)


Title: The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds'
Post by: Nighthawk on February 25, 2014, 11:56:08 am
The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds' worth of benefits every year
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queen-prince-charles-cash-tens-3180813#ixzz2uKm5sUuS

Quote
The pair receive tens of thousands of pounds a year in housing benefits that are paid by local authorities to landlords.

Charles’ Duchy of Cornwall Estate, which has an array of properties across the South West, raked in at least £111,000. from a string of councils providing cash to households.

And the Crown Estate, which gives the Queen 15% of its revenue, received at least £38,539 in housing benefit payments from just one town hall last year.

But the true figure of such payments received by the Duchy is likely to be higher as several councils said they were only able to provide amounts handed directly to ­landlords and not where the money was given first to the tenant.

The estate, which is worth £847million and exempt from tax, paid Charles £19million last year while the Queen is worth £320million.

Our revelations come a day after we revealed Britain’s richest MP, Tory Richard Benyon, earned thousands of pounds last year in housing benefits from his tenants. That’s despite him blasting the “something for nothing” welfare state.
Quote
The scandal in figures
£8.6bn Total value of the Crown Estate. It owns Regent Street in West End of London, left, large areas of farmland, huge shopping centres and other property. The Queen gets 15% of revenue

£163,000 Amount paid in housing benefit to the Duchy of Cornwall by string of councils in the South West of England, including Scilly Isles (below). The Duchy gave £19million to Prince Charles last year

£52,257 Amount paid by West Dorset district council for housing benefit for 12 tenants in Poundbury, Prince Charles’ model town. The homes were rented through the Guinness Trust           
:-X


Title: Re: The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds'
Post by: india on February 25, 2014, 03:12:25 pm
Any poor mouthing done by HM is disgusting and a it fat lie. Wake up people! She's the richest woman in the world!


Title: Re: The Queen and Prince Charles cash in on tens of thousands of pounds'
Post by: Royal Lowness on March 11, 2014, 09:27:46 pm
"Tens of thousands of pounds?" I make it "Hundreds of thousands of pounds."

Disgraceful, shameless parasites, in my opinion.

 bignono


Title: Annual costs of keeping the royals
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 24, 2014, 11:45:34 am
Interesting what you find when you have time to play with google.  I found the two links below very interesting indeed.

The Republicans have been adding up the annual costs for the royal family and it is nearly 300 million per year.

https://twitter.com/RepublicStaff

The above does not include guarding the royals, and the costs must be horrendous if Rebecca English thinks they would spark outrage.  Maybe we should demand to know exactly what the RPO´s cost on an annual basis, after all I think the taxpayer has a right to know.

Rebecca English @RE_DailyMail  ·  13h
...the cost of guarding royals-even those few would recognise-would spark outrage, if the figure was ever revealed publicly (which it is not)


It would appear also that the Norfolk police are making 350 redundancies.   Does this mean a reduction in police coverage for wimpo at Sandringham?   It should.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 24, 2014, 04:59:13 pm
Tomorrow they will talk about the finances in parliament so it will be interesting to see if they say anything relevant.

P.S: As there is already a thread in this board I just merged both threads, ok?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 24, 2014, 05:48:52 pm
^I believe so, Alex.  Thanks for saving me this one.  NO offense intended.  Just kept forgetting.   :flower:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on June 24, 2014, 10:26:01 pm
I think the only costs it is reasonable to lay on the RF are those costs they are in control of - they are not in control of costs local councils accrue - so not reasonable to apply those costs to the RF.

The Republicans hurt their credibility when they do stuff like this - make a reasonable case - cause otherwise people just get turned off.  Furthermore - the crown estates legal status is not clear - so it is also best not to make assertions that are not true.

But - I do bet those security costs are high - they are always high.  This is why IMHO peripheral members of the family should not get security - only the main branch - HM PP Charles, and his sons. 

It will be interesting to see what gets said in Parliament.  I do think the RF is getting better at making money off the palaces etc - although - I have doubts  about using BP for corporate events - we do not rent out the White House for private corporate events - it seems undignified.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on June 24, 2014, 10:59:47 pm
Some thoughts from Sarah Whalen

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/item/693560-will-and-kate-middleton-spend-8m-on-digs-taxpayers-get-royal-screw


Title: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Emperor on June 27, 2014, 05:04:57 am
JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!

The royal household’s sovereign grant report has just been published, detailing how the annual government contribution to the Royal Family is spent.

First, the bad news for the anti-monarchists. Following that, some news for them that’s even worse.

Our sometimes tattered, oversubscribed, Beatrice and Eugenie-containing monarchy cost the British taxpayer £35.7 million over the past year. Which is an increase of £1.9 million on the year before.

Ouch.

Where does all the money go? Princess Anne clearly hasn’t bought a new skirt since 1977. Prince Charles has worn the same grey ski suit since the mid-Nineties.

The Queen keeps her breakfast cereal in pre-Festival of Britain plastic containers and favours two-bar electric fires as a primary source of heat.

Yet underneath such markedly ostentatious royal thrift, it is clear that extravagance blooms like a crop of hothouse peonies.

From the report, we understand that Kate can’t live without two kitchens (though she and Wills have paid for the second one themselves).

In their newly refurbished apartments at Kensington Palace, she has insisted on a ‘private, family kitchen’ — paparazzi-proof breadbins? — in addition to the existing one.

Why? Perhaps so she and William can skip around boiling baby’s bottles and drying dishes, pretending they’re normal, just like the rest of us.

It is certainly a lot of worktop space in which to prepare the three raisins washed down with a thimble of water that appear to be all the slender Duchess lives on.

Also, the Cambridges have two principal residences, something many young couples, unable to get onto the housing ladder at all, might find galling.

William now thinks he might go back to work, but then again he might not. To be or not to be a helicopter pilot? That is the question that transfixes him, not stamp duty or a lack of mortgage offers. Luckily he can float between two gorgeous, rent-free homes in Norfolk and London as he does so.

The freedom not to worry about money? That is the real luxury the royals enjoy.

Meanwhile, Harry is in South America, being nice to underprivileged children as a smokescreen for watching the World Cup.

He went to the U.S. last year, and we are supposed to think his £11,000 one-way, first-class ticket was a bargain. Note that his uncle, Air Miles Andy, used a tax-payer-funded private jet to fly him to Edinburgh to visit local businesses.

‘Hello, hello, jolly good, carry on,’ said HRH Freeload, before rushing off to the golf Open, conveniently being held at nearby Muirfield. The Duke of Gloucester went to South Korea a lot last year, though no one is quite sure why.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2671573/Jan-Moir-These-royal-freeloaders-priceless.html

NOTE to YooperMod - if this is the wrong place to post this please move it.  :flower:


Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Rosella on June 27, 2014, 05:17:34 am
^^^ 'Three raisins washed down with a thimbleful of water'? Surely Kate shares those with William? Anyway, a very entertaining article, thanks for posting it ! On the other hand, please read the rest of it, everyone!


Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Emperor on June 27, 2014, 05:20:32 am
 :sorry: accidentaly hit the post button and ran out of time to eidit due to internet dropping.  :sorry:

Meanwhile, Prince Charles was once more the most extravagant royal. He needs to fly on private jets. Ordinary scheduled flights just won’t do for him and Camilla. No organic cocktail snacks for a start.

He spent more than £255,000 chartering a private jet to fly to Nelson Mandela’s funeral in South Africa last December. Aides said that it happened at such short notice that he could not travel on a scheduled flight. Hmmm.

Other charges incurred by the Prince of Wales include a £16,362 trip to Stoke-on-Trent on the royal train — honestly, that’s almost as much as Virgin.

There was a further £19,578 for another royal train trip from Windsor to Worcester — a journey that would have taken two hours by car. All of this funded by the long-suffering British taxpayer.

While I love the fact we have a royal train, can such flamboyant travel plans be acceptable in a nation still struggling through difficult financial times?

In total, experts estimate that the Royal Family, their palaces, travel and red-carpet lifestyle cost every single person in this country 56 pence per annum. The big question is this — are they worth it?

Despite their velvety extravagances, after some deep consideration, I would say . . . yes. Every last pip-squeaking sixpence of it. Despite Prince Charles’s lavishly patched garden jacket and the entire family’s occasional, guilty pretences at frugality, I certainly feel I get my money’s worth out of the Windsors.

They are an ongoing cavalcade of capers, a royal soap that has kept us entertained for years.

From Kate flashing her bottom in Australia to the Queen and Prince Philip toughing it out on deck during the rain-lashed Diamond Jubilee Thames river pageant two years ago, the Windsors always, always deliver.

From the hat Princess Beatrice wore to William and Kate’s wedding, to Princess Anne gruffly stating that we should all be eating horse and Harry’s naked billiards games, it is just one big party of pomp and dubious circumstance.

No, the Spanish royal family don’t cost as much as our lot — but they are not half as entertaining.

My heart soars every time I see Prince Philip approaching an innocent bystander during a walkabout. Whatever will he say next? And I love the Queen, who never puts a foot wrong. God bless her.

Just look around you. In many ways, we have become a mediocre country.

Our Prime Minister is a laughing stock, the armed forces are a shadow of what they once were, the England football team are dismal and the captain of the English cricket team has been complaining that people are not nice enough to him. Diddums.

So instead of moaning about the cost, perhaps we should celebrate that at least the Brits can do one thing well, and that is have a Royal Family who still capture the imagination and know how to put on a show.

For better or worse, they are the benchmark against which we judge our own families, chart the march of male pattern baldness, *female dog* about their gratuitous consumption, and wonder about the family members who don’t pull their own weight.

If we are to have a Royal Family, we might as well have them, in all their cranky, stiff awkwardness.

We don’t want them cycling to work and working in a bank, like some do-gooding Belgian or Danish royal. We want them to be different from us, we want to be fascinated by them.

Even now, is there any more fascinating person in British public life than the Queen?

There she is, on banknotes and stamps, muscling in on our everyday lives, yet as silent and uncomplaining as a Sphinx.

Yes. Of course she is worth every penny.


Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: cate1949 on June 27, 2014, 06:01:35 am
good article - cheeky - the three raisins and thimble fo water stood out for me - seems Kate's issues are apparent to all


Title: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Nighthawk on June 27, 2014, 11:50:40 am
SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Queen must pay her own security bill
Quote
    Metropolitan police has refused to continue footing all of the £128m bill
    Four officers guarding Kensington Palace and St James's Palace made way for lower-paid security guards last year
    Officers protecting the Royal Mews will soon be replaced
Quote
When Home Secretary Theresa May ordered a review into the Royal Family’s security two years ago, no one had any idea just how far reaching it would be.
Now, however, it has emerged that the Metropolitan Police has refused to continue footing all of the £128 million bill.
Buried away in the Monarch’s annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.
Quote
Taxpayers will continue to pay for the guards, but the money will not come from the Home Office’s budget. Instead, the Queen has to use her Sovereign Grant.
This grant, which replaced the Civil List in 2011, is calculated at 15 per cent of the profits of the Crown Estate, a portfolio of land, holdings and investments worth more than £9 billion.
‘The taxpayer will save money because the guards will be paid less than police officers,’ says the source. Let’s hope they provide the same level of security.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671626/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Queen-pay-security-bill.html#ixzz35pr3ST5N

sweet most of these guys couldn't keep intruders out in the first place  :- :sly: I'd be scared  :sigh:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 11:58:55 am
HM is about to start getting sick:

SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Queen must pay her own security bill

    Metropolitan police has refused to continue footing all of the £128m bill
    Four officers guarding Kensington Palace and St James's Palace made way for lower-paid security guards last year
    Officers protecting the Royal Mews will soon be replaced


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2671626/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Queen-pay-security-bill.html#ixzz35pnCGVwH
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I think the government did the right thing; lets face it, the security officers are now just glorified security officers and it's not like the RF is as much of a target as others might have thought. The main job of the officers is to babysit the RF when they are jet setting around and this will actually save taxpayers a huge chunk of change mainly since they don't have to pay 128 million a year just to ensure their safety and security.

Either way, HM has lost a lot of previously free perks:

Her Yacht
Queen's Flight

Now taxpayer funded security protection and HM will be spitting nails over all this.  She's systematically losing every free thing she's ever known (not that I sympathize) and she's likely right when she realizes that if the Tories are consenting to this, another labor government will in fact go ever further.

Blair decommissioned the Britannia and removed a ton of her powers (while not always showing up to the weekly meetings) and it could well be that a less kind and genial Labor Prime Minister would end up being as pleasant as Tony Blair was. I don't think the perks are going to stay where they are.

Any Labor PM can easily point to the Cambridges and make it clear that since taxpayers are paying for all these renovations, then taxpayers should be able to get some kind of relief from paying for more things, like protection and other stuff.

So now, perhaps there won't be nine guards for Kate, or a dozen for Harry, or something like a handful while they jet set around.

Even more interestingly, I think this means that HM will likely order the number of royal residences streamlined, since she won't be able to blow bucks having the numerous estates protected by endless numbers of police officers.


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 12:00:10 pm
I already posted this in the finance section.

But, I will post again!

This means that HM will no longer enjoy the free protection granted to protect those endless numbers of royal estates. So the RF will have to streamline the number of residences they own and occupy.


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Nighthawk on June 27, 2014, 12:08:55 pm
oh I don't read that thread so my bad :flower: if you want to remove this or whatever that's cool with me


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on June 27, 2014, 01:14:45 pm
In the article it says the Met (Police) are refusing to pay for ALL the £128 million for royal security. That means, if you read between the lines, that they will continue to pay part of it. That is reinforced later in the article where it says the Queen has agreed to pay 'some' of her own security costs.

The Queen is a very frugal person in her private life. She probably approved the Royal Household's working party which examined the problem of security and put the lower-paid security staff in the Royal Mews etc already. I cannot see any giving up of Balmoral, Sandringham etc coming out of this latest exercise. Especially since Queen Elizabeth's been given an extra 5 percent rise from this year.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 01:40:19 pm
No matter what, it's what she deserves.

Maybe William can give up a few of his homes and so can Anne; then Edward and then the rest who aren't directly in the line of succession and won't inherit (unless a profoundly freakish incident happens) and they can remodel their suites in the palaces to suit them.


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 01:41:14 pm
I think this thread si fine, as long as there is no off topic post about general royal expenses.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on June 27, 2014, 01:54:48 pm
Anne hasn't got a lot of homes. Neither has Edward. Can't see any giving up of Gatcombe, nor Bagshot, nor Royal Lodge etc. Sorry, just can't.


Title: Re: JAN MOIR: These royal freeloaders are priceless!
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 02:27:42 pm
Well now, the DM is turning on the RF for sure.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 27, 2014, 03:10:18 pm
^Neither can I.  They've lived on the public dole for so long it's become an ingrained lifestyle.  These people never give up any perks unless they absolutely have to.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 27, 2014, 05:41:38 pm
I think an enterprising Prime Minister could easily float the idea of restricting the RF to the official palaces. Each time WK gorge themselves, it's another piece of PR for a minister who wants to curtail the entire issue of royal privilege.

Anne hasn't got a lot of homes. Neither has Edward.

Maybe not a lot of homes, but they don't live in just one place; if the right minister came along and proposed a bill that would require the RF to reside in the official residences/palaces and give up their own individual houses (that they live on, on the various estates) I could see it passing. It's a bad idea to spread the RF around anyway and better to keep them centralized. I'm sure the apartments are large enough to hold family and a handful of staff each. I'm sure that Anne could fit a stable on the grounds and live primarily in the palaces and it would reduce a need for security.

Quote
Can't see any giving up of Gatcombe, nor Bagshot, nor Royal Lodge etc. Sorry, just can't.

No one saw the future, when a Prime Minister required HM to pay for income tax, or made HM give up the official royal yacht and lose a variety of other long held perks. Certainly she (HM) never saw a time when a Prime Minister would treat her fairly dismissively (Blair).


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 27, 2014, 05:48:46 pm
@Emperor please next time only paste here the link to the article unless it's behind a paywall.


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: cate1949 on June 27, 2014, 08:19:25 pm
so they hire their own private security for some of the buildings - as long as the persons have professional security - seems fine


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: meememe on June 27, 2014, 11:27:14 pm
I already posted this in the finance section.

But, I will post again!

This means that HM will no longer enjoy the free protection granted to protect those endless numbers of royal estates. So the RF will have to streamline the number of residences they own and occupy.


They actually don't 'own' that many - Balmoral, Sandringham are the Queen's and Gatcombe is Anne's.

The rest are owned by the state, the Duchy of Cornwall, the Crown Estates - in other words they are owned by the nation and are occupied by the royals. So what this boils down to is the fact that the government doesn't want to have to pay to protect the nation's heritage and property u front but...if you read it very carefully the money is to come from the Sovereign's Grant and not from the Metropolitan Police budget - so still being paid for by the state but at a lower cost due to coming from the limited Sovereign Grant - which replaced the Civil List and other grants in 2012 and had been frozen for 20 years - meaning other ongoing expenses to be covered by the Sovereign Grant will have to be cut back such as maintenance of royal homes - a case of rob Peter to pay Paul.


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Magnolia on June 28, 2014, 12:12:26 am
Quote
Now, however, it has emerged that the Metropolitan Police has refused to continue footing all of the £128 million bill.
Wow that's  alot I know it's for safety but still.
Quote
Buried away in the Monarch’s annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.
Let's see if that's even true.


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 28, 2014, 12:41:25 am
Either way, HM must be steaming about this; she hates to spend HER own money.


Title: Re: Queen must pay her own security bill
Post by: meememe on June 28, 2014, 02:00:59 am
She won't be spending her money though.

It is simply a different way for the government to fund the security. Instead of it coming from the Metropolitan Police's budget it will be coming from the Sovereign Grant - so instead of coming from taxpayers it will be coming from the income of the Crown Estate 15% of which goes to The Queen while 85% goes to the government.

She will still have her private income.

What it will mean is that other aspects of the spending of the Sovereign Grant, such as the maintenance of the nation's property, will have to be curtailed.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Emperor on June 28, 2014, 04:16:25 am
Will do
 :flower: :thumbsup:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 17, 2014, 09:39:48 pm
Thank you!


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on July 17, 2014, 11:50:45 pm
I suspect telling the rf where to live would be illegal - a human rights violation.  Telling them just how much you will pay for security might be different though.

I don't get this - it is in everyone's best interest to provide security.  Consider the blow to the British if a member of the RF was kidnapped or worse.  Think about the anger, loss of feeling secure - even republicans would be utterly infuriated by any such attack.  Think about what the costs would be in the aftermath - some sort of retaliation?  Criminal investigations etc. 

Wheither one likes them or not - the UK has a RF - its chosen head of state - security must be provided.  But concerns about security costs - which just keep getting higher given the nature of the world we live in  - do point out the need to limit the size of the RF


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 18, 2014, 02:08:32 am
Thing is, that the RF is using security for funding vacations, not work and second, they are a target, but not like they used to be. The IRA has oddly become more disinterested in attacking the RF, the RF is out less (WK in particular aren't doing much), and the guards are becoming scapegoats each time a royal acts out.

During the 2012 nudie scandal, people wondered why officers weren't paying attention to photographers, blaming them for not shielding Kate from public view, and being blamed for not babysitting Prince Harry while Harry got plastered on Croatia and messing around in Las Vegas, letting in dozens of women. Thing is, these officers do try to do their jobs, but the royals are always playing games, making it hard to create a concrete plan for protection since the royals are so unstable.

Even Diana, she spent time giving contradictory orders, ordering Wharfe to 'deal with' a parking violation, and sometimes ran off or ordered them to attack a paprazzo.

So it's no wonder that the officers assigned by the government are likely fed up. Fed up trying to protect them and the government is tired of paying for it.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 18, 2014, 08:05:30 pm
IMO people start questioning on funding security depending on the royal reputation. I at least haven't heard criticism on the security to the Queen/DoE or Charles. It starts with the Cambs and the rest of the family.

No one questions that the main family needs funding. But then what is the main family?

Andrew is very known and he didn't choose to be born on the royal family. However, many consider that he doesn't need security funded by the taxpayer and less of all his kids.

However, if they are kidnapped the repercussions are nearly the same as if they kidnap Harry.

On the other side if they decide to go on holidays on Mustique, the Alps, o whatever does the state needs to fund security? Sure the royals should stay free to choose whatever destiny they want but they also should pay the extra costs on security. If not they should just stay on UK.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 21, 2014, 09:36:11 am
I often think the RF needs to start changing their party habits; like party on the estates and not on the more public club scene and adhere to knowing which nations are unfriendly to the UK to avoid putting themselves at risk. The royals need to do their part and I think making them pay for their own safety is a good idea. They've been using the security as both babysitters and scapegoats.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 21, 2014, 12:26:29 pm
When a royal goes overseas they do so with the permission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and often they are sent to 'unfriendly' nations because they are royal and thus the government can distance itself from any negative publicity.

The royals don't make a lot of the decisions about where to go for themselves but they go as representative of the nation.

Holidays - somewhat different but again with the knowledge and approval of the government of the day.

As for security - the decision about who gets protection is made by the Home Office and it applies to ANY person in the country who needs it temporarily or permanently.

Currently the Queen and Philip, Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William, Kate, George and Harry have 24/7 protection paid for by the state while the others royals - Sophie, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra only have personal protection when they are on public duties although their homes are also protected 24/7.

Beatrice and Eugenie have private security 24/7 - not state funded at all but from Andrew's purse.

The whole think with security is that while nothing is going wrong it seems unnecessary but if say Beatrice was kidnapped would it but a non-issue then? How would the government and the public react to the kidnapping of The Queen's granddaughter?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on July 21, 2014, 01:40:10 pm
one of the great things when they had the yacht was that they took their vacations on the yacht - secure no paps - and no problems.  There is a move afoot to privately finance a new yacht which  would be not just for the RF but government.  If this happens that might solve some of the vacation security problems.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 22, 2014, 09:57:45 pm
When a royal goes overseas they do so with the permission of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and often they are sent to 'unfriendly' nations because they are royal and thus the government can distance itself from any negative publicity.

The royals don't make a lot of the decisions about where to go for themselves but they go as representative of the nation.

Holidays - somewhat different but again with the knowledge and approval of the government of the day.

I think all of us mean vacations.

They choose where they want to go. I agree that they gov shares responsibility but then again if they told them no they would be curtailing their freedom.

But it doesn't make sense that they can travel to the other side of the world and the tax payer has to foot the bill for the bodyguards expenses.

(In any case this is applicable to any RF not only the BRF)

As for security - the decision about who gets protection is made by the Home Office and it applies to ANY person in the country who needs it temporarily or permanently.

Currently the Queen and Philip, Charles, Camilla, Andrew, Edward, Anne, William, Kate, George and Harry have 24/7 protection paid for by the state while the others royals - Sophie, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra only have personal protection when they are on public duties although their homes are also protected 24/7.

Beatrice and Eugenie have private security 24/7 - not state funded at all but from Andrew's purse.

The whole think with security is that while nothing is going wrong it seems unnecessary but if say Beatrice was kidnapped would it but a non-issue then? How would the government and the public react to the kidnapping of The Queen's granddaughter?

Although the tax payer should not pay for the side branches of the BRF it is not very fair for them. They've been exposed for their whole lives and not by choice though they now have to pay for their security. Though in another way the risk/cost they face is in exchange for all the opportunities they get from being born in that family.

Another question is when the they should have their security taken out. How many spares are needed so Harry doesn't "deserve" security anymore?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 22, 2014, 10:29:10 pm
Harry has more security than many of the others because there have been direct threats against him due to his service in Afghanistan. As the son of a future monarch he will have 24/7 protection, at least until he is the brother of the monarch - just as Andrew, Edward and Anne do now.

The monarch, the spouse of the monarch, the spouse of the former monarch (currently none), the children of the monarch, the children of the heir apparent, and now the children of the heir apparent's heir apparent all have 24/7 but the spouses of the monarch's children, her cousins and their spouses now only have it while on official duties e.g. the Wessex's had security with them on their recent holidays because Edward is the son of the monarch so the security was there for Edward but there was no security there for Sophie, Louise or James. That is publicly funded security although the current reports are that The Queen will have to start paying for some of this from the Sovereign Grant (which will mean cutting back in other areas such as duties or maintenance of the palaces as there is a finite amount of money being given to the monarch but more and more is expected to be done with that money.)


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: cate1949 on July 22, 2014, 11:46:00 pm
^ thanks meememe for the info


Harry obviously still requires security if for no other reason tha his very high profile as well as the threats made against him.  Now I do not expect the Taliban to send someone from Afghanistan but one does not know what home grown persons might choose to do.  So the security is justified even if he is more removed from the throne.



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 23, 2014, 03:19:38 am
^Which is why princes aren't supposed to be putting themselves in the battlefield in the first place; Harry sneaks off to be a soldier for a few months and comes back with more security because he just HAD to be allowed to do what HE wanted to do, no matter the results. During the entire second stint of service, he ended up putting Camp Bastion on the map and endangered the other soldiers and spent much of his time doing interviews.

one of the great things when they had the yacht was that they took their vacations on the yacht - secure no paps - and no problems.  There is a move afoot to privately finance a new yacht which  would be not just for the RF but government.  If this happens that might solve some of the vacation security problems.

Well, the other issue is how the royals tend to take risks with themselves. Kate cavorts naked in public and screams about how officers were supposed to be looking for paparazzi, when guards are supposed to look for lunatics with guns or weapons that will hurt them physically. A new yacht won't do anything other than cause more resentment among the public and frankly, the royals should just party on estates and stop pushing themselves everywhere. These estates are almost as large as small cities, but that isn't enough, they have to turn the rest of the world into their playground.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on January 01, 2015, 09:02:47 am

Mods - please out elsewhere if you think it is necessary.

The Crown Estates and Duchies are not the personal possessions of the RF.  If there was no RF they would all revert to the Treasury for public use. It is only a constitutional arrangement that allows the RF to enjoy the profits of the Duchies and the Queen is given a Sovereign Support Grant which is linked to the profits of the Crown Estate - they are not given the CE neither do they put back money into the UK Treasury. It isn't theirs to take. Also let's not forget the tax breaks, no death duties etc, EU subsidies for the various estates, payments from various council tax areas for security. Which ever way you cut it the source of the Windsor's personal fortune is public money.

Queen Victoria bought Sandringham for Albert's 21st birthday using the interest accrued by the Duchy of Cornwall i.e. a constitutional arrangement which allowed then to use a form of public money and not their own. It's an utter scam. Look at Republic web site they have loads on this.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 01, 2015, 05:08:48 pm
^ Good post Val, and exactly as has been said before, but many people still don´t believe it, especially in the DM comments section. Quite where they think the rf get all their money from if not the taxpayer is beyond me  -  of course, maybe they just pluck it out of thin air or they grow money trees somewhere  :laugh: :laugh: 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on February 03, 2015, 08:26:58 pm
Interesting read.

http://www.sxolsout.org.uk/zcase.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on February 03, 2015, 10:22:17 pm
Eye openly interesting and quite shocking too.  Thanks for such a fascinating albeit disturbing read.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on May 31, 2015, 03:14:51 pm
Oh dear, wonder what the rf will think of this.

Royal Family faces major financial review as costs soar by a third in three years

THE Queen faces a stringent review of the Royal Family’s finances after three bumper years in which public funding of the monarchy has risen by nearly a third.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/581000/Royal-family-financial-review

Not surprised funding has had to increase. We, the public taxpayer, are supporting the medds as well these days, and continue to do so at the moment it would appear.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Tpearl on June 17, 2015, 02:35:12 am
True


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 21, 2015, 02:24:50 pm
So folks, here we have it, what we will get when the royal finances are revealed.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/queen-elizabeth-II/11689154/Queens-finances-are-safe-from-cuts-for-two-years.html

Then there is chucky, spending like there is no tomorrow

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3132814/Charles-s-heir-miles-bill-soars-1million-Cost-green-Prince-s-globetrotting-risen-100-000-year-thanks-28-seat-luxury-jet.html

And of course, no wander she is happy to have call me dave cameroon remain in power, keep it in the family what!

https://scontent-mad1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10426328_10207363321468106_691714848246595468_n.jpg?oh=984b4e0e72d13adbc4b2d75586ff2cd9&oe=56341A08


Then we have of course the other end of the scale for the man in the street.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/21/osborne-to-proceed-with-12bn-welfare-cuts-despite-anti-austerity-protests

Realy quite sickening isn´t it.  No wonder they have been hauled sprog I out of hiding to try and bolster some ah factor, think they need more thank sprog I for that, not even a little elastoplast on this lot.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on June 21, 2015, 04:22:38 pm
Given ER's wealth and the financial state of the UK and most people's finances it's a great pity ER can get here hand out of her pocket and pay for some of their expense herself- mind you there would be such a profusion of moths if she did.  There will, no doubt,  be the usual whingeng from ER on being short of money


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 21, 2015, 04:44:27 pm
Thank you for the articles I hope there will be more detailed ones soon.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on June 21, 2015, 08:12:07 pm
If she asks for money to repair the roof it should be pointed out to her that she was given that but chose to spend it on willy and waity's apartment at KP - yes folks, the one they hardly ever use.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on June 21, 2015, 10:15:51 pm
This is really disgusting.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on June 22, 2015, 10:13:07 am
This is worse than disgusting  - it is a 2-fingered salute to all who work hard (esp tjoe struggling to amke ends meet), are being denied hospital treatment due to lack of NHS funding etc etc.

NB The Sovereign Grant does NOT cover security costs

https://republic.org.uk/sites/all/modules/civicrm/extern/url.php?u=205&qid=927855


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 22, 2015, 10:58:56 am
Thanks Marion. Read it.The true cost of the royals to the traxpayer is 300 million GBP.  No matter about the poor man on the street, who has to wait for surgery, denied cancer drugs for their kids because of the cost.  No, let us keep paying for *nasty* pandy to travel the world, for the lamebridges to have two home, and to support the meddledooms who are living at AH.  And they wonder why people want rid of the monarch, there are hundreds of reasons, this is just the tip of the iceberg.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on June 22, 2015, 12:04:42 pm
^^^^gingerboy^^^^^


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 22, 2015, 01:47:11 pm
The rf excelling themselves at being greedy.  Such an awful disease greed, not an attractive trait at all.  HM is sat on billions of pounds, but she never wants to dig into her own pocket.

Royal rip off as residents told to buy Crown Estate houses and then kicked out

 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-rip-residents-told-buy-5925722#ICID=sharebar_facebook

No doubt we can expect a press release saying HM knew nothing about it. Hmm, she knows everything, I never believe it when it is stated she did not know.  Bit like the staff being sacked, never in a month of Sundays will I believe she didn´t know, they.  They have to cover her backside to make her look sweet and innocent  - even though she isn´t.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Fly on the wall on June 24, 2015, 01:59:11 am
Royals' globetrotting that gobbled up £5.1m: Charles spends almost £500,000 on one trip alone as figures show 63 journeys cost more than £10,000


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136845/Royals-globetrotting-gobbled-5-1m-Charles-spends-500-000-one-trip-figures-63-journeys-cost-10-000.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Fly on the wall on June 24, 2015, 04:33:04 am
Find Out the Palace's Official 'Allowance' (in Millions!) for Princess Kate, Prince William and Prince Harry
http://www.people.com/people/mobile/article/0,,20395222_20932721,00.html




Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: leogirl on June 24, 2015, 05:59:12 am
Such a big allowance for people who are supposedly full time military and a stay-at-home mum.  :thumbsdown:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 24, 2015, 04:03:22 pm
I posted this, I think it was yesterday.  Talking about it via email with a couple of friends, and below are the responses I received from them.  Interesting, and we all live in different parts of the UK and have different views on quite a few things.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/royal-rip-residents-told-buy-5925722#ICID=sharebar_facebook

This story is utterly priceless as it says quite clearly the Crown Estate is a commercial business paying profits into the Treasury for the benefit of the nation and  ab-so-bloody-lutely- no mention of belonging to the RF. Bet the Mirror has been sitting on this story for the right moment i.e. NOW!

In fact as these disgusting forced sale stories show the Rf will be backing away from any claim that they own the CE like a rat up a drainpipe.

No wonder they've been pimping george out dressed as a 50´s throwback.


****************************************

They are starting to look desperate if they need to sell properties to fund them. What always gets overlooked is the huge amounts HM and PC get from the Duchies. HM is now almost the same as PC in this respect he gets approx. £20 MILLION A YEAR!!! to support himself and she is on around £16 MILLION!!!. If they took the Duchy of Lancaster away from HM I've a feeling she would have to sell Balmoral and parts of Sandringham.

There's no wonder none of them seem to put their hands in their own pockets and spend their tax payer funded (directly or indirectly inheritances. they don't need to they can just keep stashing it away and spend public money and yes the middletons are well and truly on board this gravy train by connection.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on June 24, 2015, 07:22:43 pm
So, where, we ask ourselves, has the funding for the maintenance of these place gone?  What has it been spent on?  We know over 4m HM authorised to be spent on KP renovations for the lazy duo.  The other question is why has it been allowed to get like this.  In the first piccie I saw there is allegedly scaffolding to the right of the BP balcony as we look at it.  Never noticed it last week after Trooping the Colour.

Here are photos of some of the problems.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/buckingham-palace-needs-150-million-5938912


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on June 28, 2015, 08:18:32 pm
It is a complete fabrication of the truth to say BP hasn't been decorated since 1952 -  every year when the RF decamp to Balmoral the painters etc move in - when I visited BP 2-3 years ago for the summer exhibition we were told by a flunkey how all the furniture/pictures etc are moved out and cleaned while rooms are painted.

For anyone interested this is the link for the Sovereign Grant Annual Report 2014

http://t.co/zxKV7nQCG5


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Ariel on June 28, 2015, 08:30:45 pm
there is a big difference between restoration and renovation. i can totally believe that the furniture and the paintings cost a fortune to clean each year. restaurations cost a fortune. and for such a big building i can totally see 150mil for renovation and restauration and modernization.if i remember right QE only keeps the paintings and lives in the castle but they are not hers. if something is not mine - i won't spend a dime renovating it.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on June 28, 2015, 09:57:13 pm
I would like to know how much royal furniture/art was given to the Middletons by The Duke of Uber Dumb when he bought that big mansion for them in Dingley Dell. And did he/RF pay for any renovations there?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on June 29, 2015, 06:38:12 am
^

Allegedly lots - and yes!


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on June 29, 2015, 08:38:14 am
It is a complete fabrication of the truth to say BP hasn't been decorated since 1952 -  every year when the RF decamp to Balmoral the painters etc move in - when I visited BP 2-3 years ago for the summer exhibition we were told by a flunkey how all the furniture/pictures etc are moved out and cleaned while rooms are painted.

For anyone interested this is the link for the Sovereign Grant Annual Report 2014

http://t.co/zxKV7nQCG5


No one, especially the Royal Household has claimed that nothing has been done. The claim is that there hasn't been enough money to do ALL the necessary ongoing maintenance. Doing some each year has been touching the tip of the iceberg of what needs to be done.

The money for this, along with the rest of the Royal duties was frozen in 1997 and there was no raise until the Sovereign Grant. What could have been done, had the maintenance budget been annually increased in line with inflation, would have been a great deal more than what was able to be done. The long term effect is that it was a false economy in 1997 to freeze the money as it will now cost a great deal more to do the work. 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 09, 2015, 10:11:25 am
So, let us get this straight.  HM and co get a rise, they get 150m sterling to revamp BP, when she has been received state grants for years to do just that, but it got lost along the way paying for revamps for the duck and duckess of lamebridge, the new tennis court costing the taxpayer 60k sterling, but the benefits of Joe Public are stopped.  I agree there are people out there being paid benefits they are in no way entitled to, there are always the scammers around, but there are also genuine people who cannot work and their only income is benefits.  They take from the poor and make them poorer, they then give to the rich to make them richer. Bit of a sick world we live in.

Grandad shoots himself after finding out his benefits were being stopped
Shaun Pilkington, 58, was sent a letter saying he was to lose his ­Employment and Support ­Allowance, which he got after a long-term illness

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/grandad-shaun-pilkington-shoots-himself-2989685

And people wonder why the UK royal family are losing popularity?  Hmmmm, I think the rf and TPTB need to wake up and smell the coffee, the whole family are benefit scroungers of the higest order, but what sickens me even more is that they are billionaires who do not wish to spend a penny of their own money, they would rather fleece the taxpayers.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on July 09, 2015, 11:46:54 am
Appalling, revolting behavior in this day and age. What is the RF thinking? Are they so entitled don't they realize that with the advent of the internet, all and sundry are aware of all of their shenanigans in millisecond. Their stupidity knows no bounds. Duke of Dumb's and the oh so elegant Duchess of Crotchbridge's excess is beyond the pale. They are the most insensitive pair I have ever seen. They should lose it all and go and live in an outhouse with that belly crawling hag of a witch The Unkempt Viper.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on July 18, 2015, 02:51:37 pm
Not sure if this belongs under Royal Finances or the Duchy of Cornwall, so it is going both. If I can find her similar post about the Duchy I'll post that too, but it also shows none of these lands are the private property of the Windsors.

From a great poster over at Celebitchy, LAK. One who is extremely well-versed in royal history, far beyond what anybody might write on wikipedia.  It is from this article if copying her response isn't allowed.

http://www.celebitchy.com/429104/queen_elizabeth_fired_four_senior_staffers_royal_staff_morale_is_at_rock-bottom/
 (http://www.celebitchy.com/429104/queen_elizabeth_fired_four_senior_staffers_royal_staff_morale_is_at_rock-bottom/)

"The Sovereign grant money is 15% of the profits of the crown estates. The other 85% goes into the treasury to pay for public services.

Please note, one of the often repeated lies about the crown estates is that they belonged to the royal family once upon a time which makes people throw out the argument that we’d all be worse off if they ‘reclaimed’ the crown estates in the event of a republic.

The crown estates were carved out back during the Norman conquest to pay for the instrument of government. Since the royal household, particularly the monarch, was the government, this included them in the payment. However, the Crown estates never belonged to them, they were merely administrators the estates. The revenues were supposed to pay for government eg parliament, army, Royal household. With time, the definition of government services has expanded to included Judiciary, Police, NHS and other public services.

The governance of the crown estate became problematic for successive monarchs who frequently mismanaged it such that it was debt ridden. This recurring debt forced them to go to parliament to beg for tax raising measures to pay debts and ongoing obligations.

In 1760, George 3 transferred the management of the crown estates to parliament in exchange for a portion that covered the royal household. This became a ‘salary’ of sorts and was termed the civil list. Over the years, it’s been re-negotiated as far as what it is allowed to cover rather than blanket payment for everything that constitutes the royal household.

Unfortunately, the civil list was paid in arrears and was proving equally inadequate at meeting the costs of the royal household so it was renegotiated recently and decided that a blanket 15% of the crown estates profits should cover the costs, and renamed the Sovereign grant.

A list of what is covered by the sovereign grant is available and annual accounts are made public every year. "


"it wasn’t sold to the government. It has always belonged to the govt, but managed by the sovereign. The management of it was transferred from the sovereign to the government with condition that the sovereign’s *expenses were met. Those expenses are what was known as the civil list and are now covered by the Sovereign grant.

*Sovereign is/was still government which means their expenses in the service of govt is/was recompensed in the form of the civil list/sovereign grant. "




Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 18, 2015, 09:53:27 pm
Dear me, the rf broke?  Deo we believe that?  Nope.  How do you lose control of 12 billion.

http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2015/globe-the-british-royal-family-broke-queen-elizabeth-loses-control-of-12-billion-fortune-photo/


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on July 19, 2015, 05:29:06 pm
With all of her insider trading, real estate and that tin mine where she's the majority stock holder HM is not broke. OH NO, she's far from it.  That is just a crock that her minions have put out to make the gullible simple minded public feel sorry for her and her short stumpy kraut legs. They do this so they can get more out of their subjects. Her actual extent of her wealth is well into the trillions. They are desperate to keep this from us. Liars to the max.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 19, 2015, 06:40:52 pm
I think the tin mine is Rio Tinto

http://www.sxolsout.org.uk/zcase.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on July 20, 2015, 02:31:43 pm
That is correct GB. ^^^^^


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 20, 2015, 03:11:43 pm
Reading this I think we should get rid of the royals and make some money from the tourists.  Maybe HM should also think about finanicng the 150m she wants for BP repairs.

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/do-royals-make-us-richer.html?m=1


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on July 20, 2015, 03:23:20 pm
Dear me, the rf broke?  Deo we believe that?  Nope.  How do you lose control of 12 billion.

http://www.celebdirtylaundry.com/2015/globe-the-british-royal-family-broke-queen-elizabeth-loses-control-of-12-billion-fortune-photo/

Would be nice to have 12 billion in :bouncy: the first place


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on July 20, 2015, 11:08:14 pm
Their wealth is way more than any 12 billion.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on July 24, 2015, 02:21:05 pm
So  much for the RF being broke - not that we believed it anyway but.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3172588/Queen-s-coffers-boosted-16-million-Soaring-property-market-sees-revenue-Majesty-s-private-estate-record-high.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on July 24, 2015, 03:39:35 pm
So  much for the RF being broke - not that we believed it anyway but.....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3172588/Queen-s-coffers-boosted-16-million-Soaring-property-market-sees-revenue-Majesty-s-private-estate-record-high.html


^^ I think it was the funds from the Sovereign Grant and Grant in Aid that was supposedly down to its last million or so a while ago, not the Duchy of Lancaster or the Queen's personal fortune.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on July 24, 2015, 04:06:01 pm
^^^^^ITA GB "Maybe HM should also think about finanicng the 150m she wants for BP repairs."     ...........especially in light of the soaring property revenues.  ER should dip her hand into her own purse for a change.  We are experiencing  difficult times here in the UK and many are really struggling - food banks etc - also according to our illustrious Prime Minister, Call-me-Dave,  "we are all in this together".  Part of me wishes we were governed by a Labour government led by Jeremy Corbyn - he would soon sort the RF out.  


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 24, 2015, 09:35:22 pm
^Well she can afford it no doubt about that.  A Spivey article, but no warning about language necessary

http://chrisspivey.org/the-queen-owns-land-valued-at-over-17-trillion-you-would-think-the-miserable-old-bat-would-smile/


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 27, 2015, 03:22:11 pm
Just found this, it is from Julyu 2010.  So, we ask ourselves, if this despicable lot cost us, the taxpayer, £100 million to guard 21 Royals around the clock, then here we are, 5 years down the line, how much is it costing us now.  People having to use food and clothing banks and look at what could be done for them with this kind of money.

The taxpayer is spending £10 0million a year ­protecting the ­Queen and TWENTY other ­members of the Royal Family.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/100million-to-guard-21-royals-around-234485

With all her money surely she could pay for her own security. This is from February 2014

The Queen of England Deals Extensively in $17 Trillion Depleted Uranium Trade

http://www.nationofchange.org/queen-england-deals-extensively-depleted-uranium-trade-1393604116


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on August 04, 2015, 01:16:42 pm
Oh dear, HM not making any money out of wasty, her glory days are over.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3184541/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Queen-counts-cost-Kate-effect-evaporates.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on August 09, 2015, 10:28:42 am
Talk about greed.  HM has all this money and all she wants to do is ponce off the taxpayer for everything.  The more they have the greedier they appear to become.  Not a good trait.  If uranium prices have gone up over the last two years then this ownership is worth even more.

Posted 15th September 2013
Queen Of England Uranium Mines, Nuclear Plants, Nuclear Weapons; UK Royalty Owns 85% Of World's Uranium Mineral Rights

http://agreenroad.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/queen-of-england-uranium-mines-nuclear.html?_escaped_fragment_&m=1


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on August 09, 2015, 07:48:32 pm
New Report: 40% Of Global Debt From Monarchies

http://yournewswire.com/new-report-40-of-global-debt-from-monarchies/



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on November 25, 2015, 11:02:08 pm
The Chancellor tried to sneak this in but someone found it in the small print... why such a huge rise... inflation îs nowhere near 7%
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spending-review-hands-queen-7-6900682


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 25, 2015, 11:21:07 pm
The Chancellor tried to sneak this in but someone found it in the small print... why such a huge rise... inflation îs nowhere near 7%
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/spending-review-hands-queen-7-6900682


^^ Yes but this money is the Sovereign Grant, which is linked to the Crown Estates. These estates are owned by the Crown, the monarchy, not the Queen personally. As monarch she gets a proportion of the profits of the Crown Estates which consists of property and land. As these improve in value so does the proportion of the profits the monarch receives.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 25, 2015, 11:22:37 pm
I don't buy it that the Crown and royals as people are different; frankly, they use the money on themselves and ask for more, so no sympathy from me.

New Report: 40% Of Global Debt From Monarchies
http://yournewswire.com/new-report-40-of-global-debt-from-monarchies/

I actually think this is true; the Scandinavian monarchies are not wearing cheap clothes, they always wear major labels and Mette-Marit is famous for going to Valentino, even though she does few state engagements and shirks basic appearances in favor of jet setting around. The royals already have fat private funds, they should not be asking for more from taxpayers.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on November 25, 2015, 11:59:16 pm
The Sovereign Grant pays for the official duties of the monarch and those who she appoints to undertake duties on her behalf e.g. the cost of State Visits comes out of the Sovereign Grant as does the cost of staging the State Opening of Parliament and Trooping the Colour.

Christmas Dinner at BP or Sandringham is paid for from the Queen's private funds.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 26, 2015, 12:51:13 am
^ Money for the maintenance and upkeep of inhabited royal palaces and historic homes like Kensington Palace, BP, Windsor and Clarence House also comes from Sovereign Grant money. The Sovereign as a person and the Crown Estates funds certainly are two different entities, as the monarch would find out if she ever tried to sell any of Crown property on her own behalf! Crown estates have been around since medieval times. The Sovereign Grant replaced the old Civil List (by which other royals were paid expenses, etc) to a large extent.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on November 26, 2015, 10:09:20 am
@KF - ITA and it was obviously seen as too sensitive or it would have been announced with all the other measures


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on November 26, 2015, 10:37:46 am
There is nothing to announce as the law is very clear - 15% of the income of the Crown Estates is paid to the monarch as the Sovereign Grant to cover the costs of running the office of the Head of State and to maintain the occupied royal palaces.

In the days before the passing of the legislation in 2012 there were regular debates about how much to give the royals to carry out their duties although there were no increases at all from 1997 to 2007 and all payments made to anyone other than The Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen Mum were repaid by The Queen from her personal incomes.

An increase in their 15% means that there is also an equivalent increase in the 85% that goes to the Treasury for the nation. It also means that there is more money for some of the essential repairs and maintenance needed at the royal palaces and maybe even a pay rise for some of the less well paid members of the Royal Household who are paid from the Sovereign Grant.

Every penny of this money is accounted for when they made their annual report to parliament during the summer.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 26, 2015, 11:10:14 am
I'm confused.

HM wanted to dip into a poverty fund to pay to heat her palaces.
HM regularly cuts back on staff salary and benefits
Staff at the palaces are paid peanuts and basically kept on zero hour contracts
Supposedly Buckingham Palace is in a bad state, crumbling

So where on earth is all the money going? With all the money granted, staff should have good salaries/wages, the palaces should be in good shape, and HM shouldn't need to try to claim money from a fund set aside to heat homes of those in poverty.

Meanwhile, HM funds her grandson, her various family members, large stable of horses, and is able to wear the finest possible clothing. Something smells.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Akasha 85 on November 26, 2015, 12:18:40 pm
I think it's because they have a odd view on money to them 5.000$ is the same as 100$ is to us.

or it might be a bubble like the one in 07 Ppl think there's mucho dinero but it might be mostly hot air?
either that or someone is siphoning it away for some reason. :sly:

 :dontknow:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Countess of Holland on November 26, 2015, 12:59:18 pm
New Report: 40% Of Global Debt From Monarchies
http://yournewswire.com/new-report-40-of-global-debt-from-monarchies/

I actually think this is true; the Scandinavian monarchies are not wearing cheap clothes, they always wear major labels and Mette-Marit is famous for going to Valentino, even though she does few state engagements and shirks basic appearances in favor of jet setting around. The royals already have fat private funds, they should not be asking for more from taxpayers.

Thanks for that laugh KF.

The Dutch (I am Dutch so I will focus on my own country) national debt is 475 billion euros, some 73% of our GDP.  Our GDP in 2015 is 853 billion US$, the royals get according to the national budget almost 41 million euros in 2016. That includes things like security-staff, their own staff (secretaries but also household staff), the maintenance of the cars, the government airplane, carriages etc. That is less than 0,005% of the budget. You really think that Maxima cutting back on her dress-budget would make a dent?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on November 26, 2015, 06:08:17 pm
At the bottom of the link below is this comment which will probably lead to some creative accounting in the accounts of the Crown Estates - the RF will never agree to get less in government funding

"The Sovereign Grant formula is set to be reviewed next year by the Royal Trustees, which could see the percentage decrease if Crown Estates profits continue to grow."

http://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/thequeen/the-queens-income-set-to-rise-by-7-in-2016-56259


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on November 26, 2015, 09:52:06 pm
New Report: 40% Of Global Debt From Monarchies

http://yournewswire.com/new-report-40-of-global-debt-from-monarchies/



"Absolute monarchies are all situated within the Arab world, ranging from Morocco in the West, to Oman in the East. They account for less than 1 percent of the world’s debt issuance and usually have better balance sheets."

Would anyone like to explain to the author of this piece that what goes on in Middle Eastern monarchies isn't exactly pleasant for the majority of the people? It reads as if he's praising them.  Isn't Leichtenstein an absolute monarchy too? 



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 26, 2015, 11:38:34 pm
New Report: 40% Of Global Debt From Monarchies
http://yournewswire.com/new-report-40-of-global-debt-from-monarchies/
I actually think this is true; the Scandinavian monarchies are not wearing cheap clothes, they always wear major labels and Mette-Marit is famous for going to Valentino, even though she does few state engagements and shirks basic appearances in favor of jet setting around. The royals already have fat private funds, they should not be asking for more from taxpayers.
Thanks for that laugh KF.

The Dutch (I am Dutch so I will focus on my own country) national debt is 475 billion euros, some 73% of our GDP.  Our GDP in 2015 is 853 billion US$, the royals get according to the national budget almost 41 million euros in 2016. That includes things like security-staff, their own staff (secretaries but also household staff), the maintenance of the cars, the government airplane, carriages etc. That is less than 0,005% of the budget. You really think that Maxima cutting back on her dress-budget would make a dent?

The Dutch government holds their royals to account, expecting the RF to answer any questions given to them by the Dutch Parliament (something I endlessly admire) and I believe that every penny is accounted for. With the BRF, things are shadier and the BRF isn't questioned by Parliament. With the Norwegian monarchy, apparently Mette hasn't been called before Parliament to account for her spending, jet setting, and her shirking many duties.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on November 26, 2015, 11:51:31 pm
The BRF accounts for the Sovereign Grant is presented to parliament and is questioned.

The difference is that the BRF aren't paid a salary at all.

The money they are getting is, in real terms, about 50% of what they were getting in 1997 as the Civil List was frozen for a decade while inflation made a lot of headway - as a result they had to cut salaries in real terms and had to restrict even the basic maintenance at the palaces as the public and government still expected them to undertake the duties and public occasions that the Civil List and now Sovereign Grant pays for.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on November 27, 2015, 03:02:18 pm
Maybe it is time for the BRF to realize that the sovereign doesn't need four homes (two official, two "private").  Or does she have more than that?

Has it ever been proven that tax money *isn't* used by HM for Sandringham and Balmoral? Those are privately-owned homes. The staff, security, and upkeep should all be paid privately, no matter how complicated it makes the accounting. It was stated that over $1 million in tax money went to Anmer Hall in the last couple years, but that was quickly covered up. How much more Crown Estate money has been poured into upgrades and security at Anne's Gatcombe?

If they are private residences on private property, no tax dollars should go for the upkeep and security on those properties. The BRF has plenty of private money to fund those properties, they should be required to use it.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 27, 2015, 03:44:37 pm
^^The Sovereign Grant isn't 'tax money'. It's an arrangement between Treasury and the monarch derived from the Crown Estates profits each year. Every penny is accounted for and the Sovereign Grant cannot be used on the Queen's private homes. If it was it would be shown in the Estimates. The Sovereign Grant is used to help maintain Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, and Clarence House. It has nothing to do with Balmoral or Birkhall or Sandringham.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on November 27, 2015, 03:53:39 pm
It is money that goes to the royals that comes from property that rightfully belongs to the people. In my shorthand, that is "tax money".  When the royals go, they don't get to take the Crown Estates with them.

These are people who improperly-used that money for so long a crumbling piece of Buckingham Palace nearly killed Anne.  Personally, I'm not going to trust what they reveal publicly about their expenditures. They didn't get where they are, and don't stay in power, but being squeaky clean.

Crown Estate money was used to fix up Anne's private residence/property prior to her marriage.  It was also used to fix up Anmer Hall, which has since been covered up.

Has there ever been an honest look into how that money is being spent? My guess is no. People believe the figures that are put forward, even when there is evidence to prove those figures aren't honest.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 27, 2015, 09:15:37 pm
If Anne was nearly killed by a crumbling piece of Buckingham Palace, I would say that the money isn't being used by the RF as it should. With all that income from the Duchy coming in and of course, the Duchy of Lancaster, Civil List, etc., Buck House should be in excellent condition and should have wonderful art.

Maybe it is time for the BRF to realize that the sovereign doesn't need four homes (two official, two "private").  Or does she have more than that?

Has it ever been proven that tax money *isn't* used by HM for Sandringham and Balmoral? Those are privately-owned homes. The staff, security, and upkeep should all be paid privately, no matter how complicated it makes the accounting. It was stated that over $1 million in tax money went to Anmer Hall in the last couple years, but that was quickly covered up. How much more Crown Estate money has been poured into upgrades and security at Anne's Gatcombe?

If they are private residences on private property, no tax dollars should go for the upkeep and security on those properties. The BRF has plenty of private money to fund those properties, they should be required to use it.

I do know an audit is desperately needed; I do bet HM is using public money for private purposes and I do believe that something is wrong when Buckingham Palace is in crumbling disrepair and the Cambridge Cupcakes get three kitchens and endless renovations at KP. When Windsor Castle burned, HM wanted the public to pay and basically she was forced by the public to pay up and HM even set up tours to defray costs, as if she couldn't easily afford repairs.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 27, 2015, 10:28:58 pm
^^ There is a Comptroller and Auditor General who reports to Parliament each year on how the Sovereign Grant's money has been expended over the previous twelve months.

 The link below shows the annual report for 2013, and under Contents you can see where in the report the Auditor General has gone over the expenses and signed off on it, giving his stamp of approval.

 I don't think the Sovereign Grant was in existence when Windsor Castle burned down and the repairs cost many millions stretching over years, so other measures had to be taken. Each year there are dozens of repairs needed to all the major inhabited palaces, which belong to the nation not to the royal family. These repairs are made in order of urgency and need. The monarch doesn't personally supervise which repairs are to be done and when.

This is the annual Report in full for 2013.

 https://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Sovereign%20Grant%20201314.pdf


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on November 28, 2015, 12:10:53 am
When they have enough for £4.5+ million just for Apartment 1A of Kensington (plus millions from Duchy money for decorating), but they've allowed £150million in needed repairs to pile up at Buck House, someone isn't doing their job. And someone isn't auditing and monitoring properly. No matter what reports are filed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136795/150m-repairs-force-leave-Palace-Surveyors-say-Queen-s-residence-needs-toe-overhaul-years-neglect.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3136795/150m-repairs-force-leave-Palace-Surveyors-say-Queen-s-residence-needs-toe-overhaul-years-neglect.html)





Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 28, 2015, 12:30:49 am
 Many of these buildings are ancient and need constant on-going repairs year-in and year-out. It's not just a question of 'fix this and the whole palace will be good for the next twenty years' with these places. In most cases it won't.

 There is no sign that the Queen or her family have used Sovereign Grant money to overhaul Anmer, Balmoral or Sandringham, their private homes. Kensington Palace is an inhabited Palace and as such comes under the appropriate funding through the Sovereign Grant.

The Auditor General is appointed by Parliament and is completely independent of the Royal Family. There's no indication at all that he is incompetent or in the monarch's pocket. The whole business is transparent and a report (after being approved by the Auditor General) placed before Parliament each year to be debated. I can't see that there can be any closer investigation than that.

As Meememe and the Daily Fail article have indicated, the real fault lies with decades of underfunding for these buildings before the Sovereign Grant came into existence.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 28, 2015, 03:15:05 am
Decades of underfunding? Yes, the palaces need constant updates, constant maintenance, but I do believe that PMs should start asking questions about just how HM can afford renovations for WK, but Buck House has not gotten some kind of significant overhaul. The RF buys estates, houses, endless horses and many other perks that are enjoyed. Each royal has dozens of houses and staff, but the major places, where they are supposed to live, are crumbling. They could hire experts to figure out the exact areas that need to be worked on and then get to it.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 28, 2015, 04:48:00 am
 The Queen has bought no estates, she just has the two that have been in the family since the Prince Consort bought them in the 19th century. Prince Charles's Duchy money is completely different. The Queen's Comptroller/Treasurer is questioned by Committe MP's in the House of Commons quite regularly.

This article below is from 2008 and refers to the freeze in funding. The repair for these houses and Palaces, which belong to the nation, would have to be paid for, even in a republic, unless they're all going to be pulled down.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/2206106/Queen-refused-government-grant-because-of-2012-Olympic-Games.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on November 28, 2015, 08:49:02 am
BP is state owned and so the funding for its repairs have to come from the owners - the state.

In return for having to live there (and the Queen didn't want to move in in 1952) she works constantly for the state - without actually receiving any salary.

The Sovereign Grant replaced many different areas of funding, including the Civil List.

A bit of history, if I may:

Until George III all the income from the Crown Estate was paid to the monarch from which he was expected to pay a large percentage of the running of the government. This often lead to conflict when the King wanted to fund xxxx to do something but the government didn't want that done. George was also finding it difficult to cover the expenses for those aspects he was expected to fund so he struck a deal with the government of the day - he would hand over the income of the Crown Estate in its entirety to the government who would then use that, and any other money from taxes etc to pay for the running of the government. Instead of two entities paying for different parts of the running of the country there would now be one but ... the government had to pay George a certain amount of money to cover his official expenses.

That was for George III's reign and has been renegotiated at the beginning of each reign.

By the late 1960s the Civil List that The Queen had agreed in 1952 was no longer covering the official duties of the royal family, due to inflation over the previous nearly two decades. That was the first time there had been an increase agreed during the reign of a monarch. By the late 1970s it was needed again as again inflation meant the Civil List was no where near covering expenses. An agreement was made to relook at the Civil List every 5 years which happened until 1997 when Blair froze it at the same figure as was paid in 1992. The next increase was 2012 with the Sovereign Grant.

I don't know about anyone else but what I was paid in 1992 wouldn't cover the same things I was able to but by 2012 (my salary, for instance more than doubled in that time although my actual job didn't - no promotions - just a standard teacher). The BRF however were expected to do the same amount, if not more, on the same money.

Since 1992 the Queen has also been subsidising the Civil List by repaying all monies paid to everyone except herself, Philip and the Queen Mum to the government. So the Duchy of Lancaster has been paying people like Andrew, and the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Princess Alexandra the money that before 1992 they had been paid by the government to carry out their duties (that covered things like paying for their official staff etc). As these people have no jobs to use and they are expected to work for the nation it seems only reasonable that they have their expenses for doing their duties paid for by their employers.

Until 2012 there were separate funds to pay for the maintenance of the palaces but that too was frozen at 1992 levels in 1997 when Blair refused to increase any moneys to the parliament - so by 2012 maintenance money was also, in real terms, about half what it had been in 1992. BP was last fully refurnished in the years after WWII and hasn't had a full overhaul ever since. Now the cost to do a proper refurbished has blown out as happens when people don't have enough money to spend on anything more than the basic maintenance expenses.

The Sovereign Grant is set, by legislation, at 15% of the income of the Crown Estate but does have an upper cap. If the income goes down then so too should the Grant although until that happens we won't know for sure. The SG also covers maintenance of the occupied royal palaces and none of it goes on the private estates which are paid for from the personal income - such as the Duchies. I suspect some people don't understand the difference.

The Duchy of Lancaster funds the private lives of The Queen, Philip, and any other members The Queen agrees - so the Gloucesters, Kents, Yorks and Wessexes. Anne has Gatcombe to provide her with an income but she may also receive financial assistance from The Queen - we don't know and just as what ordinary people do with their income what the Queen does with her private income is her business and no one else's. Many people argue that as the Duchies make money from taxpayers the taxpayers have a right to know but that only holds up if you agree that every public/civil servant AND every other landlord in the country has to produce the accounts from their books and justify their spending from taxpayer or tenants' money as well e.g. the Duke of Westminster owns most of Belgravia and makes millions more than The Queen from his private holdings from taxpayers and tenants but no one suggests that his books be opened for public scrutiny.

The Duchy of Cornwall is used to support Charles, Camilla, the Cambridge's and Harry. This is for their private and public lives although duties carried on specifically on behalf of The Queen, such as Harry's current visit to South Africa where he is representing the Queen, will be funded from the Sovereign Grant.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on November 28, 2015, 09:06:44 pm
The Duchies are not "personal income" per say. They are lands that rightfully belong to the people. Those are funds whose operations and books should be fully open to the public. 4.5 million last year for W&K plus Harry (not including security costs), yes, someone needs to be looking into those books and setting limits.   How much do their "private lives" really need to be paid?  Is the Duchy money going to pay for Sandringham and Balmoral?  For the staff or security? 

If so, that needs to be audited and stopped. HM chooses to go stay at those private properties, she should be paying all of those costs out of her personal fortune not the Duchy. Ditto Charles. Their public roles do NOT require them to live in those private houses, so those private houses shouldn't be funded with any money that could be seen as public money (Duchies, Sovereign Grant).  I feel the same way about Charles and his investment of Duchy money in Romania (ie. shouldn't be allowed).

Again, if they have 4.5 million to spend updating a mostly-unused portion of Kensington Palace, they should have been required to apply that to more needed repairs.   The asbestos removal that skyrocketed the costs were caused by W&K's ripping apart the original footprint. If they had left it as-is, the asbestos abatement wouldn't have had to be done. Someone should have been watching and telling them what they were NOT allowed to do, instead of letting them run amock destroying the interior of an historic building.

Is anyone doing an active audit of how much money the royal duties truly cost?  Or are they just taking HM's word for it as to how much she needs to pay the working royals to fund their "private lives" and public duties?   When the royals visit anywhere, much of the costs are born by the local community or country. That is why it is so deliberately-difficult to calculate how much these figureheads cost.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on November 28, 2015, 11:03:22 pm
The Duchies were set up, in the middle ages, to give the monarch and the heir to the throne a separate income to fund their private lives rather than have them using the income from the Crown Estates to fund both government business and private lifestyles. The idea was to make it clear what money they could use on their own personal lives and what was to be spent on running the country.

They do not 'rightfully belong to the people' anymore than the property of other landed gentry does such as the Duke of Marlborough's lands which were given to him by a 'grateful nation' for the victory at Blenheim. The income from those lands funds his lifestyle and that land was taken from public lands to be given to him.

The royal duchies are the same - land that was Crown Land (and from 1066 all land in the UK belonged to the monarch who then parcelled it out to his supporters while those who worked the land didn't own it but paid rent for the land they worked. Over time more and more land has been handed over by the monarchs to people who were then able to buy and sell or exchange it but the Crown Land and the Duchies remained in the hands of the monarch until George III handed over the income of the Crown Estates to the government in return for the Civil List to pay for his official duties.

The Duchies are used to fund the private lives e.g. Balmoral and Sandringham and Highgrove are funded from whatever they make themselves plus the duchies, any private activities such as the polo ponies and training is paid from from the Duchies as is Philip's carriage driving activities but the State Opening of Parliament is funded from the Sovereign Grant.

The books of both Duchies are made public annually. Charles has done so since he was in his early 20s (this is how we know that the amount of tax he was paying was halved when he married Diana so he could cover her expenses). The Queen has done so since 1992 when she too started paying tax, officially voluntarily but in her case she really was forced to do so whereas Charles has always done so voluntarily from when he turned 21 and took control of the Cornwall Estate.

The money Charles decides to give William and Harry is his right as a father.

As the BRF receive no salaries for their work for the nation it is only fair that there is some income for their private lives and that is what the Duchies provide them - the money for their private lives which is separate to their public lives which is funded from the SG.

The Duchies pay for their private staff.

Their security is paid from from the police budget at a level determined according to the threat by the experts at doing that - the police and intelligence services.

The work at KP was funded from the SG because it is an occupied royal palace.

Their personal fortunes have been accumulated by good stewardship of the duchies over the generations.

The books of the SG and the Duchies are presented to parliament every year so there is a public accounting happening.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on November 29, 2015, 01:07:54 am
Times change; the BRF has the ability to invest and make much with their private portfolios; they don't need the Crown Estates income or the Civil List for their royal role. The Crown Estates could be administered by a committee and that could pay for the upkeep of the palaces.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 29, 2015, 03:17:19 am
^^ The Crown Estates are administered by a committee already, headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners. This was set up by Parliament and is completely independent. The Commissioners also present an annual report to Parliament.

The Civil List was abolished in April 2012. The Sovereign Grant money IS needed. As already explained, this Grant covers the out of pocket expenses of royals like the Kents, Wessexes and Gloucesters when they perform Royal engagements. It's also needed for the maintenance and upkeep of inhabited palaces like BP, Windsor and KP.



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on November 29, 2015, 10:10:49 am
No SG = no State Visits, no Trooping the Colour, no State Opening of Parliament, no Investitures, no Remembrance Day attendance, no Maundy Thursday, no 1000s of other engagements as it is the Sovereign Grant that covers these things.

No employee is expected to pay the costs associated with doing their job so why should the Queen and the rest of the BRF?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on November 29, 2015, 02:30:11 pm
Whatever way I look at it, there is no justification for this 7% increase.  HM does not dip into her own pocket at all to run these places, public taxpayer money is used for everything.  Why couldn´t bill medd dip into his own inheritance to do up KP as he so lavishly wanted it done  -  which having said that also came from taxpayer money as it came from chucky and he is taxpayer funded.  There are millions out there dependent on food banks, clothing banks, they are taking away more and more from the poor, yet they can give HM a 7% increase  -  outrageous and unjistified IMO.  The sh*t government the UK has are taking away more and more from the everyday person, yet cameron the pig man can afford to use taxpayer money to kit out a 10 million plane for himself and the royals to use.  Yeah rate, welcome to austerity in the UK  -  but not for the upper classes, they get more and the genral public get less.  It is sadi that HM is worth billions/trillions of pounds, let her use some of her own money.  She might well be the Queen, and "worsk" for her money, but how many workers get a palace to live in, servants and etc, that comes with the job.  She pays for nothing, and yet still the government keep allocating more and more money to her to spend on the rest of her idle family.  Quite frankly she should be ashamed of herself in my view.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on November 29, 2015, 03:59:48 pm
Cameron is a brown noser always sucking up and trying to earn brownie points.  Still trying to live down his statement about the Queen practically 'purring' down the 'phone to him after the Scottish Referendum.  I was a life long Monarchist and Tory but no longer.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on November 29, 2015, 04:08:39 pm
Yes, well most of us have a pretty good idea as to how the referendum was "manipulated" shall we say, with many not receiving their voting forms. As for the last general election, there are so many who think it was rigged for cameron´s lot to stay in power  -  to be honest it would not surprise me one bit, my eyes have been opened very widely this last few years re how the rf et al try to fool us into believing untruths  -  I don´t think any of them know the meaning of the words truth and honesty  -  more a case of how can we scam them this time.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on November 29, 2015, 08:01:30 pm
The Duchies and Crown Estates were established to fund the instrument of government, which included the monarchy *at the time*.  If the monarchy no longer exists, the Windsors don't walk away with those lands as personal property. That things have gotten so muddled has been deliberate on the part of the royals, IMO.  They want everyone thinking those lands are their personal property. Like Charles's recent proposal to eliminate the Sovereign Grant - in exchange for giving him legal ownership of the Crown Estates? Trying pulling the wool over someone else's eyes.

There need to be annual, external digging through of those books.  In times of "austerity", their profligate spending is not to be tolerated.

Independent contractors are frequently required to fund their own business expenses, everything from phones, internet access, travel, and computers.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on November 29, 2015, 08:40:32 pm
^ The Duchies and the Crown Estates expenditures are already audited and presented in Parliament each year, open to questioning by MPs as has been pointed out in previous posts. The system can't be more open. The Duchies and the concept of Crown Estates go back to the Middle Ages. A president in a republic would also cost a great deal of money and the historic buildings like Windsor, KP and BP would still have to be funded unless you wish them to be demolished. If you have an argument about how the monarchy is funded you could write to your MPs'.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rebecca on November 29, 2015, 09:06:42 pm
^If I were a British citizen, my argument to my MP wouldn't be how the monarchy is funded but why is it funded. Just because something goes back to the Middle Ages doesn't make it a good thing.....


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on November 29, 2015, 11:28:51 pm
@My2Pence...if Charles wants legal ownership then fine let him have it as he would then have to pay for all the upkeep, repairs etc. I doubt it will ever happen though.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: My2Pence on November 30, 2015, 04:42:54 pm
There does not need to be both a president and a prime minister. Why is that always the argument that comes out? That if the monarch is eliminated, all costs will skyrocket? 

The historic buildings could be transitioned into something else, to be OF USE to the people instead of just this handful.

IF a monarchy is maintained, it does NOT need to be maintained at this ridiculous level of funding. They've gotten away with far too much for far too long. A big push back came after the Windsor fire, and there will be more.



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on November 30, 2015, 10:59:35 pm
^If I were a British citizen, my argument to my MP wouldn't be how the monarchy is funded but why is it funded. Just because something goes back to the Middle Ages doesn't make it a good thing.....


Why is it funded?

To pay for the official duties - simple.

No SG = no official duties including no State Visits, no Trooping the Colour, no State Opening of Parliament, no Investitures, no Garden Parties, no myriad of other events. The money for these events has to come from somewhere and it is normal for a country to pay for the official work of their head of state whether that Head of State is political or ceremonial.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on December 01, 2015, 01:22:00 am
^ The vast majority of republics in the West have both a President and a Prime Minister, unless Britain is going to have an American-style Parliamentary system, in which case its Westminster-style government would also be swept away. Hardly likely, I think. Presidents plus Prime Ministers are certainly the norm in Europe, and the expenses for having ANY head of State are substantial. Anyway, talk of a republic in England is academic.

 The costs of 'transitioning' buildings like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace would be mind blowing, and because they are historic dwellings it's likely they would be museums anyway. Establishing a non-revolutionary republic doesn't mean ancient buildings' Heritage listing and status would be swept away and they could be converted to anything the new owners desired.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 04, 2015, 05:14:36 am
If I were in charge, I would turn Buck House into a large housing complex for diplomats, a vast large series of embassies. The reception rooms are still there and could be easily used and the cost of changing things could be sustained by the governments of each representative diplomat. It would be the perfect secure place and the palace would get used a lot more effectively and I am sure there would be a lot of appreciation from the diplomats. It could also be used for heads of state when they visit, allowing them to stay in a safe place and near their ambassadors. The BRF don't need that huge cavernous place. They have vast estates and houses on them, so no major need for so much land.

There does not need to be both a president and a prime minister. Why is that always the argument that comes out? That if the monarch is eliminated, all costs will skyrocket? 

IF a monarchy is maintained, it does NOT need to be maintained at this ridiculous level of funding. They've gotten away with far too much for far too long. A big push back came after the Windsor fire, and there will be more.

Exactly; WK use money to revamp a place that isn't really used anymore and there is no reason that they need such VAST sums of money for simple appearances. No need for couture for basic tours and no need to really pay in spades for going out on a half hour appearance. If the monarchy isn't streamlined (not cutting the perks and wages of staff, but actually taking more away from the RF) then things will even out. If a royal doesn't do appearances, no large budget for clothes or staff or a redecoration. Let it come out of their personal finances, not even more public money. If I had my way, I would order a full investigation and audit of the RF finances and find out where the money is going and what it's being saved up for (if at all).


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on December 04, 2015, 05:48:36 am
^ It's already been explained in previous posts  that the expenditure for both Duchies and al. other monies the Royals receive are presented to Parliament each year, in report form, and are fully audited. They are fully audited by an independent auditor.

Every major country in Europe and indeed from all over the world, including the US, have their own large embassies and High Commissions in London already. I know from personal experience that Australia House is very large as is Canada House. Most embassies such as the French and US are huge. I don't think that a few rooms in BP per country would cut it really! Why would ambassadors, High Commissioners and staff want to move from roomy locations  to cramped quarters at BP? The security risks of having so many embassies together in one building would also be an absolute nightmare.

Royal visitors to London do often sleep in BP anyway on State visits to London. They also stay at Windsor. The Queen does sometimes wear couture gowns for the evening. However, the Queen's Royal engagements continue in the hundreds annually even though she is nearly ninety and many of her outfits are made for her by her dresser, Angela Kelly.



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on December 04, 2015, 06:08:36 am
 ^^ Australia House, just one High Commission (Commonwealth country's) of the major buildings in London representing Commonwealth countries, is on the Strand and is Heritage listed. How many rooms do you think this one building's officials and staff would need at Buckingham Palace?

https://sourceable.net/australia-house-london-heritage-list/#


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on December 04, 2015, 06:32:39 am
^ This is the Danish (and Finnish) Embassy, one of the smaller embassies in London, all four floors of it.

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/danishembassy


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on December 04, 2015, 07:11:06 am
The major problem with that idea is who would actually own the property as Embassies and High Commissions are actually the property and part of the country they are representing i.e. the Australian High Commission is actually part of Australia and not the UK (the reverse is also true - the British High Commission in Canberra is UK soil and not Australia)

So in one building there would be multiple national owners and national laws in place - not to mention national military forces and other national security forces.

There was a suggestion some years ago now about the US buying KP as its Embassy. The Queen refused to allow it to be sold to the US but is was seen as the right size for the US Embassy and able to be secured by US Marines (once inside the doors/gates of the embassy it is the job of that nation to provide protection and not the local force who provide protection outside only).

BP isn't just a home. It is the centre of the royal family's operations and many, many engagements are carried out there by numerous royals throughout the year. There are occasions when there are two or three events taking place at the same time in different parts of the palace.

It is also the London home for Andrew and Edward - not just The Queen.

It is also the place of operation for the entire office of the Head of State. There are literally 100s of people who are employed there. Move the royal family out and many of them would be unemployed.

It is where the carriage and horses are kept for the official occasions. etc etc etc etc


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on December 04, 2015, 01:17:49 pm
@KF "If I were in charge, I would turn Buck House....."

Good idea - Charles has already said he won't use BH except for state events and intends to base himself at Windsor.  Might be nice though if he waited for his mother to die before he makes his plans public; ER looks a lot healthier than he does so you never know, she might outlive him. 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on December 04, 2015, 02:11:58 pm
^ Charles has never spoken about not living in BP when he's King, I believe. I have read that he's very comfortable at Clarence House. According to Richard Palmer's Twitter Page today Richard says that he's always been assured that it's not true that Charles doesn't want to live at Buckingham Palace.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on December 04, 2015, 03:52:14 pm
^https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiljJvwxsLJAhXFjg8KHfLiAdAQFgg1MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2Ftheroyalfamily%2F8844432%2FBuckingham-Palace-could-be-turned-into-museum-when-Prince-Charles-becomes-king.html&usg=AFQjCNFUw22bYvtlHiv1jtlJgTxQhggkDg


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on December 04, 2015, 08:29:55 pm
I remember him saying that back in 2011  -  thought it a strange thing to say, but then he is one strange chap from start to finish.  Maybe he wants more income to fund his lifestyle, he could earn quite a bit each year on entrance fees for people to visit BP.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on December 04, 2015, 09:27:49 pm
Entrance Fees for the occupied royal palaces go to the Historic Palaces Trust not to the BRF. That is the organisation who runs the palaces and maintains them so if Charles did open BP year round he wouldn't benefit financially at all - but would have to overload St James, KP and Windsor (probably closing those later two more often for official duties to be undertaken there anyway).


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on December 05, 2015, 01:10:33 am
If the BRF have Duchies and income from that, why are the palaces such a mess? That it what I don't get; HM reaches into the poverty fund and pays the staff diddly, cries pooor, while her family indulges in a lifestyle like that of celebrities. Why is Buck House crumbling so badly if money is coming in from entrance fees from tours and of course, the duchies themselves generate vast sums. The Duchy of Cornwall is something that brings in millions a year and of course, HM has her private monies as well. That is the inconsistency I'm intrigued by. If a President had such issues, the countyr would be all over it. As it is, the citizenry in the US are up in arms over Obama's family taking yet more vacations and naturally UK taxpayers are paying for WK renovations and yet, HM is supposedly loaded. The issue to me is where does private begin/end and where does being a public figure begin/end with the BRF. There's no clear line.

With the money the Lancaster and Cornwall duchies bring in, the palaces should be in top form and have brand spanking new features and of course, be open for tours and well decorated. Not falling to pieces in a way that almost got Princess Anne killed by falling debris. A new restructuring would be insanely expensive, but that is what the income is for and second, it would provide huge work to British workers who would gladly work on this in exchange for vast sums of money infused into their businesses. If HM can afford to replace Windsor castle at her own expense, then she should be using the money she's granted by Parliament on ongoing repairs. She's not poor and never will be, not by a long shot. She should be ponying up. As for the rest of the RF, it's tiring hearing about how they keep insisting that being royal doesn't help them, it does. How many would move so quickly as champ equestrians if they didn't have the Queen's best horses and money to burn paying for upkeep and of course, paying for the world's best trainers to train them.

One of the good things Blair did is get rid of the royal yacht and other various perks cut. The BRF keeps wanting to live like the sheiks of the MIddle East, but unlike the BRF, the sheiks run the country and work 24/7 all the time. They EARN their large yachts and parties and massive sums of jewels. If I had my way, I would be asking the BRF why it is that the Queen wanted to dip into the poverty fund and why HM is having issues installing a better heating system in the rooms that are used by the BRF. Or why the staff are paid so little and not really well looked after while being hamstrung by zero-hour contracts. The kind of penny pinching that the BRF does is mind-blowing. Enough for renovations and a decadent lifestyle, but nothing in terms of keeping the palaces updated or in good form, but enough to blow taxpayer money on renovations foir the Cambs and a luxury lifestyle for the Yorkies and Camilla./her family.

They have no right to leech like this and sit on a mountain of cash gained from being royal. I dislike how HM is double dipping. If anyone pulled that while on welfare, they would be prosecuted, kicked off the dole, and made to pay back the money they cheated/ lived off of. As for ambassadors living in Bucking ham Palace, I am well aware that each embassy area is considered sovereign territory of the nation they represent. I just think it would solve a lot of issues and free up a lot of prime real estate in London. As for royals living there, Queen Victoria didn't have problems living there. If royals had to live there and basically required to give up various houses it would solve more issues as well. Just think of all of the space that could be freed up.

Frankly the way finances work needs an overhaul and spending should be streamlined and not in the hands of the Queen. She prefers to cut employee perks instead of trimming her own family's extravagances. If I were PM, I would set up an organization to become fully informed of where the money is going and I would then require a report on which areas need to be cut. IF HM paid the RF less for parties and jet setting, I am certain that the wages and benefits of her employees would increase and their employees would get better pay for all those hours of work they put in. Just think, an employee would get a good paycheck and benefits and HM would be able to afford to pay them well, better since they do so freaking much for that family and household. one of the good things Blair did was get rid of the yacht and unburden the taxpayers from being forced to finance that.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on December 05, 2015, 02:10:06 am
^^ Foreign Embassies crammed together in one building, Buckingham Palace, just wouldn't work, space-wise, security-wise and in several other ways that have been pointed to in previous posts. Foreign and Commonwealth governments just would not agree to that proposal.

In 2000 the Prime Minister froze any increase in the Civil List, (forerunner of the Sovereign Grant) for ten years. During that time, because funding was tight, essential repairs to royal palaces were put off. Deterioration occurred during that time. When the Sovereign Grant began some repairs commenced but everything that deteriorated over a decade as well as maintenance problems that were already waiting cannot be suddenly repaired and maintained in a five year period.


The Queen doesn't administer her source of  income from the Duchy of Lancaster any more than Charles does the Duchy of Cornwall money, though Charles is far more pro-active in the administration. In both cases others administer the Duchies.

KF, you stated in your post that Queen Victoria didn't mind living in Buckingham Palace. That just isn't so. She and Prince Albert complained incessantly about the drains, the cold and the inconvenience of the place in bringing up a young family. As a widow she was barely at BP, ever. It was Osborne House on the Isle of Wight during the Spring, early summer and sometimes at Christmas, Balmoral in the late summer and autumn and Windsor the rest of the time. She complained in her old age if she had to go to BP and greet foreign monarchs in London on official visits.

Balmoral and Sandringham are private residences, estates, bought over 150 years ago in both cases. The maintenance for them comes out of the Queen's Duchy of Lancaster money. Why should she have to sell private property that are old family homes?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 10, 2016, 03:57:37 pm
Interesting about how much the queen is worth.  And she still wants to grab more.  Greedy in my view.

An article in Fortune Magazine's archive of Billionaires 1991 listed QUEEN ELIZABETH II, as 7th. The queen then 65 as owning $10.7 270,000 acres of agricultural land; premier London real estate; vast stock portfolio; art; jewellery; stamps; porcelain; furniture; racehorses.
It also noted Elizabeth II disclosed the previous fall that the royal family spends $105,169 a year on laundry and $62,656 on flowers. bet that was payed for by tax payers. That was 1991 what's the laundry and flowers costing in 2016 ????
2012 Forbes Magazine called into question her worth, claiming it to be as much as 44 Billion.

http://archive.fortune.com/…/for…/1991/09/09/75462/index.htm
http://www.forbes.com/…/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-worth-44-bil…/


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on January 10, 2016, 04:43:32 pm
^

Allegedly Ma has mentally already spent it on tacky alterations to the palaces (once she gets her hands on it via Willy) according to those in the know.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 10, 2016, 05:16:08 pm
Interesting about how much the queen is worth.  And she still wants to grab more.  Greedy in my view.

An article in Fortune Magazine's archive of Billionaires 1991 listed QUEEN ELIZABETH II, as 7th. The queen then 65 as owning $10.7 270,000 acres of agricultural land; premier London real estate; vast stock portfolio; art; jewellery; stamps; porcelain; furniture; racehorses.
It also noted Elizabeth II disclosed the previous fall that the royal family spends $105,169 a year on laundry and $62,656 on flowers. bet that was payed for by tax payers. That was 1991 what's the laundry and flowers costing in 2016 ????
2012 Forbes Magazine called into question her worth, claiming it to be as much as 44 Billion.
http://archive.fortune.com/…/for…/1991/09/09/75462/index.htm
http://www.forbes.com/…/queen-elizabeth-ii-is-worth-44-bil…/

With that much dough she should be able to pay staff better and of course, not ask for more. She could finance the restoration of Buck House and she could end up easily supporting household expenses like heat and other utility bills. I thought that was the whole point of her income.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on January 10, 2016, 09:18:34 pm
She has income for two reasons:

Her private income and fortune that pays for the private expenses of everyone except the Wales branch of the family and the official expenses for everyone from Andrew down in the line of succession.

Her public income to pay for her and Philip's official expenses - called the Sovereign Grant. This is also to pay for the repairs to the publicly owned palaces that she uses - BP, Windsor, KP, St James' and Holyrood. This money has to pay for events like State Visits, Trooping the Colour, Investitures, overseas tours for herself and Philip not picked up by the visited country.

Why should The Queen pay for the upkeep and maintenance of BP when she doesn't own it? Would anyone expect the President of the USA to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the White House for instance?


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on January 10, 2016, 09:33:05 pm
^The US would never support a Presidential residence in addition to a showy monarchy and its descendants, so that argument doesn't quite work.  If we had a monarchy in the States, which is kind of a good laugh today, they would be on their own.  It's the paying for a PM and Parliament in addition to a monarchy that I find absurd.

However, for those of us, including myself, which find the BRF funding extremely murky and like pounding nails in jello, there's this article from the NYT that kinda helps:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/opinion/sunday/malik-britains-welfare-queen.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/opinion/sunday/malik-britains-welfare-queen.html?_r=0)


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Countess of Holland on January 11, 2016, 02:28:23 pm
^^

But since the Queen doesn't own BP, why give her money for maintenance in the first place? People who live in rental houses don't get money from their landlord to pay for maintenance or repairs: the landlord handles that himself.

So why not keep the money for the maintenance at a dedicated government agency who is responsible for the upkeep? That will also make the who discussion about the price of the monarchy more straightforward since the money for the upkeep of a palace isn't really money for the monarchy: in a republic that palace would also have to be maintained; as a presidential palace, a musuem or something else.

In The Netherlands, the Dutch King doesn't get the money that is destined for the maintenance of the palace. That money is directed to the Rijksgebouwendienst who is not only responsible for the royal palaces, but also for national museums, buildings of government departments etc. The people working there are professionals who have studied things like architecture, engineering etc. And as they are a proper government agency, the annual financial statements are open to anyone. Although some of the expenses are adressed as a group, like security costs because you don't want people to know what security measures are in place; not at the royal palaces and not at our national bank  :tehe:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 11, 2016, 02:31:18 pm
This is what I don't understand about HM and Co.; they claim they don't owe any of this, but they change things around when they want to and live there often, so how on earth is it not theirs? They are the BRF and to me they're just shirking their responsibility to keep up the palaces.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 11, 2016, 03:17:09 pm
The trouble is they want it both ways, cake on the plate and eat it as well.  Sheer greed is my opinion  -  they sould be galled the Gimmee Family, all they want to do is take, take, take.  A wonderful luxurious and undreamed of life at the taxpayer expense, yet for what the return is it is well over-priced.  One of the reasons she was over budget a couple of years ago was because of the renovations at KP and AH  -  and no, chucky did not pay for the renvoations at AH, that is what they want us to us to think, however it all came from the public purse along with all the money spent on KP. There was an article on one of the papers a good while back, stating that the renovation costs for AH and KP totalled approx 8 million sterling.  Started off at a low figure and grew higher and higher. 


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on April 24, 2016, 11:06:12 am
Queen Elizabeth II, the United Kingdom’s monarch who turned 90 on Thursday, costs the British taxpayers 1,900 percent more than previously estimated, an analysis by the British press revealed.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160421/1038391817/spending-queen-uk.html#ixzz46jlNs4bS
 
http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160421/1038391817/spending-queen-uk.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on June 28, 2016, 07:38:49 pm
Monarchy Cost UK Taxpayers £40m Last Year

http://news.sky.com/story/1718608/monarchy-cost-uk-taxpayers-40m-last-year

Queen in line for £2.8m pay rise in 2017-18

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/28/queen-28m-pay-rise-taxpayer-sovereign-grant



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Akasha 85 on June 29, 2016, 12:24:51 am
Yup but now that ppl have numbers for the bottomless-european-money-pit to compare it with, most of the comments are along the line of
 "A cost of 40M a year?! Pfft that's peanuts compared to the 300M a week we send to the EU! I say it's a good deal we get from HM in return in tourism etc"

Perspective is everything I guess  :sigh:
What a difference a year makes.... gotta love the short term memories of the commenting ppl lol
the palace PR ppl must be relieved that they won't have to spend as much time on this topic so they can use all of their effort to try and prop up willnot and kannot some more :bored:



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 29, 2016, 02:07:33 pm
I'm sure there are a number of us who have spent some time on a board, committee, what have you and have spent half the night arguing over the price of something worth $25 (argue/unimportant) v $100k (pass/important).  Numbers in the millions have little or no meaning in the real world so they're easy to dismiss, which is a real shame. 

What will become important is how the economy goes and what the cost of a liter of milk/petrol/rent becomes.  That is what people can relate to.  So, until that dust settles and people feel that they're getting some kind of a bang for their buck, all will be well and those millions will be just ducky.  If not?  People get hungry, broke and, inevitably focus their anger.  The monarchy, of late, are making themselves an all-too-easy (and justifiable) target. 

No more moving tennis courts, iow, plz.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Akasha 85 on June 29, 2016, 10:03:54 pm
Yeah I know what you mean, they should prune the tree and get those real estate, travel and security costs under control. :thumbsdown:

Focus your upkeep efforts, for example: Highgrove and Balmoral as private family palace (home), Windsor and Holyrood as official state palace (office), hand other residences over to the gov and/or open it up permanently for public.
If a family member wants a new separate place or live an old one let them pay a normal market rent for it or buy out of their own pocket. (wonder how long WK would stay in a 20 room app at KP if they had to pay market rent for it)

If you reduce the active royals, travel and security costs should come down automatically although visits around the country and to charities would be lesser and further in between.
I heard that Charles wants cut severely into active royals once he becomes king, now that's not a bad idea in theory but if you consider the practical side..
I don't know how many patronages HM, DoE, Anne, the Yorks and the Wessexes have between them but I'm pretty sure Will Kate Harry Charles and Camilla won't be able to continue all of them.
There's only so many things Harry and his eventual wife can do and since Kate can't even be bothered to hand out some shamrock for an hour or two every year... :o bignono

Charles is gonna need Anne and the Wessex couple at least on a half time basis to keep the royal appearances more or less going.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on June 29, 2016, 10:05:56 pm
Charles needs to unload Worthless and The Idiot Potato Head.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 30, 2016, 12:15:24 am
I think Charles needs to target his relatives less and deal more decisively with his own immediate family. If he wants to deal with titles, maybe he should strip Fergie of her courtesy title, since it's been nothing but tool for her to freeload off of. If Charles wants to get creative, as King he can set a new standard stating that titles are no longer to be considered part of a surname and have divorced wives known as "Ms. X Windsor" and then have that cord cut completely.


Second, if a royal wants a new place, they should just get apartments in one of the zillions of palaces and castles they own.

List of British Royal residences:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_royal_residences

These places are palatial and frankly there is no reason for someone to have so many when they don't live there all the time. Camilla shouldn't be allowed to keep Raymill as her own retreat. She has more than enough now, time to cut ties with the past and move forward.

Quote
I heard that Charles wants cut severely into active royals once he becomes king, now that's not a bad idea in theory but if you consider the practical side..
I don't know how many patronages HM, DoE, Anne, the Yorks and the Wessexes have between them but I'm pretty sure Will Kate Harry Charles and Camilla won't be able to continue all of them.

The real issue is that the majority of these gestures are for PR, not about being realistic about the realities of the expectations that will cover the royals. There is the expectation of charity work and while I think the Yorkies should be allowed to decide, realistically, a lot of charities are going to still want royals and culturally, Britain is all about their royals.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: YooperModerator on June 30, 2016, 01:27:19 am
If I happened to live in a country where there was such a lack of transparency involved such as there seems to exist with the BRF's finances, it would become a huge problem for me if I couldn't meet my own expenditures no matter how hard I or my family worked.  Other than the Queen and Her finance ministers I doubt there is anyone who really has a firm grasp of just how much wealth exists nor how it is spent.  They keep it muddied just enough and control the media handily enough to keep those pesky matters quite fluid and out of reach.

So, what you end up with here is a situation of real money vs perceived money.  The government can throw around the words "budget restrictions", "times of austerity", and "infrastructure depletions" until he## freezes over but it never really matters until there are empty stomachs pitched against golden carriages.

I believe there are going to be two different modern ages in GB and those are the days before HM and after.  No matter how much people have to tighten their belts or be struggling with this/that, there is a perception that Queen Elizabeth has put in years of steadied devotion to her People, God and Country and as long as that exists, the BRF is safe and secure.  It's an understandable point of view.  She was there during the War, she takes the train, she, herself, remains scandal-free, she does everything in her power to appear steadfast and conscious of her role and its appearance.  If we looked behind the curtain, I don't know that it would be quite as comforting.

With the world going the way it is now, and nobody has a crystal ball, then we are going to be faced with a collapsing and drastically changing world economy that will eventually affect every human being and it will become an immovable Truth that the party is over.  How important will Kate's new hat be at that point?  It will be a challenge for the BRF to prove their own worth, iow.  Will they be able to justify their existence?  I don't know.  But, I do believe a time will come in the not so distant future when it will be imperative that they do so.  Long history?  Yes.  Long bread lines?  Another matter in the instant info age.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 30, 2016, 02:19:31 am
Thing is, HM has a habit of going wild over her 'state' stuff, but when it comes to her homes and such, she slacks off. Buckingham Palace is falling to pieces and when Windsor castle burned, she ended up asking taxpayers instead of paying for it out of her own fortune. It's not like the public is allowed to go and see the palaces and interact with the BRF. What doesn't make sense is how 'state' stuff is and which stuff is private since after all, the BRF uses it the most often and they get piles of money to maintain and protect these historical places. I wonder how Buck House could be in such a state of disrepair since after all, HM has been getting money for decades to maintain and keep it intact.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on June 30, 2016, 06:19:28 pm
BP is in a state of disrepair because HM has been funneling tons of moolah to all of her spawn big time.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on June 30, 2016, 11:41:24 pm
^ This is also why the monarchy, if it stays, needs to be cut down to only monarch + spouse and heir. Any spare should go their own way once adults. The problem with the BRF and why they need so many people is bc they still have the commonwealth. Many plan on cutting ties once the queen is gone and rightly so. Due to the commonwealth they kind of need more members for keeping up appearances. Best thing the other monarchies have going for them is that they can concentrate on their own country, bc there are no others attached to them and thus keep it short and sweet. It is also ridiculous that they have so many residences. The monarch should have only one official residence which fine the public helps to keep up and that's it. All other residences they should pay for themselves. As some also said, no one gets to set a foot into Windsor castle, but the Windsors demanded the public pay for repairs. Sometimes they don't look like it, but they are one of the richest families. There is loads of money and estate stashed away somewhere. I keep repeatedly reading how many jewels the queen has which have never seen the light of day (at least officially), like pearl necklaces and tiaras. Ridiculous. Really wish the monarchy gone tbh. The small people struggle and yet one of the richest families gets public financial support. Laughable.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: leogirl on July 01, 2016, 08:08:43 am
^ They should really invest their money in businesses (or something else?) to become self-sufficient (pay their own bills without public assistance). There are too many people living in poverty, who really need the help, to give all that money to one of world's richest families. Millions of dollars that could go much further if given to the poor. Think of all that money spent on all those expensive homes they don't even live in, that could go to housing programs to give homes to many families in need. In better economic times, I think there could be a small budget for home repairs for a single main residence, travel expenses, guards, food and clothing. But right now the taxpayer money needs to go to the people who actually need it. Food, jobs/training, education, housing.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Val on July 01, 2016, 09:23:15 am
^

They need to sort things out before Willy takes over (although the Republicans predict that there won't be a monarchy by then).  It is reported that Ma Midd is already spending the money she is planning to get her hands on through dumb weak manipulated Willy.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on July 01, 2016, 08:49:23 pm
^^ Fully agree.

^ No wonder ma spends already as much as she can, she won't be around forever and she can't be so stupid as to not see that people want the monarchy gone after Charles. There'll be nothing to spend then.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 01, 2016, 09:04:07 pm
I think HM's private finances need to be audited and then revealed to the public; F-her if she yelps about being a private citizen. If she's skimming public funds (likely) and pleading poverty while leaving Buckingham Palace to shambles, she deserves to get her arse kicked around.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRH Tiana of NOLA on July 01, 2016, 11:29:09 pm
^I think the British tax payers have every right to demand this. Every person that runs for and holds the office of US president has to release their taxes.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 03, 2016, 07:49:33 pm
The Queen presents her annual accounts from the Duchy of Lancaster and from the Sovereign Grant to Parliament every year as does Charles from the Duchy of Cornwall.

In other words their finances are a matter of public record already.

It should also be noted that the elected officials in the UK do not have to make their taxes etc public.

Since 1992 the Queen has voluntarily paid income tax on her private income. She was shamed into doing so then as George VI had negotiated a tax-free status for the monarch when he came to the throne. Charles had paid tax voluntarily before that - at 50% until he married Diana and then he reduced it to 25% to cover the extra expenses that came with being a husband and father.




Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on July 26, 2016, 11:29:16 pm
Some comments from other sites re their finances:

Someone on another site posted that travel between residencies for the 6 senior royals (including the Cambridges) will be considered as official duty and is therefore tax payer funded. They posted this passage:

 The Sovereign Grant meets the cost of official journeys undertaken by or in support of The Queen and other Members of the Royal Family. Travel by The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge between residences is categorised as official.?

I found the link through quick research:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/532342/FINAL_Royal_Household_Annual_Report_2015-16.pdf
---
Also from the comments from http://www.celebitchy.com/496434/prince_william_gets_free_range_rovers_so_hes_selling_one_on_auto_trader/

The Bentley was gifted by Charles using Duchy money. It’s supposed to be used for official purposes. Like the Heli. ;)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2524301/Kate-Prince-Williams-250k-bulletproof-Bentley-speed-200mph.html
Btw, speaking of the heli, did anyone notice a throwaway line in the accounts that said all heli travel by WK, whether it’s for private or public reasons has now been reclassified as public duty so that taxpayers have to pick up the cost?

The accounts dropped during Brexit. Great day (set of days) for burying this particular news since the public was occupied elsewhere.

Excellent catch! So now every time they flit off on the helicopter, whether for work or play, the taxpayer pay? Have you submitted that finding to RepublicUK? Which accounts? Duchy?

I live very close to Kensington Palace and I see that helicopter flit in and out ALL the time!

Why yes, I did notice that a bit ago. I can’t remember where I originally heard it briefly referenced in. Might have been photos of George given how these people roll. LOL, *eye twitch* Here ya’ go for a breakdown https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/royal_travel_appendix_2015-16.pdf The fun part is the “Various journeys” that cost less than £10,000, (and £5,000-8,000 is the estimation for the average round trip… only £5-8K). Last year, those 221 bitty journeys were lumped together to the tune of £569,483. It’s classic obfuscation from the BRF, where you’re not really sure what you’re looking at, where the money is going, whose paying that bill, why things have been divided and tallied up like this, what’s been left off, etc.,

And true to form after their long day’s work of taking in a boat race and a shoehorned photo-op with some kids, The Heir of The Heir and The Hair hopped on a heli and f*cked off back to Amner. Now, that (1851 Trust) is NOT Bill’s charity. He had no reason for being there. (And if they weren’t constantly tying in Ainslie with her visits I don’t think “1851″ would see much of Kate’s support either.) So the excuse that the royals need the choppers to get to multiple engagements in a day doesn’t apply here. And if the kids are the reason Will and Kate can’t work more, they should also be cited as the reason Bill and Kate shouldn’t do so many joint engagements. I mean, there would be no hurry to get home to the kids if Bill had just stayed home! I’m astonished The Firm got this one over. So Bill possibly flying back back and forth for a picnic, to polo, to horse trails, might show up on the tax payers bill and they’d be within their right to do so. I’m guessing the “various journeys” will double this year. But I’m assuming they went back to Amner the other day. We don’t know. You know, it’s security and such. (Another reason we don’t know what those various journeys are.) And transparency is not The Firm’s “thang”. But, since Bill and Bucket (who’s made a grand four appearances this month) have nothing scheduled and we’ll likely see very little of them until September, and won’t see them “consistently” until October, I just assume they have no reason to stay in London. *eye twitch intensifies*


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on July 27, 2016, 12:21:41 am
I suppose this fits here as well:

Members of the Royal Family aren’t usually seen wearing clothes covered with logos.

Yet there were the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge last Sunday, cheering on sailor Sir Ben Ainslie’s America’s Cup effort in Portsmouth, togged out in polo shirts with Land Rover written across their chests, waving from a boat bearing the Land Rover logo, before being driven home in, you guessed it . . . a Land Rover.

Nor is this the first time Land Rover — or Jaguar Land Rover, to give the company its full name — has received some very favourable publicity courtesy of the Royal Family.

[...]

Oddly, this most British-sounding of companies — which employs thousands of people at its plants in Coventry and Solihull — is owned by Indian conglomerate, Tata, which also owns Tata Steel, whose threat to pull out of Port Talbot steel works has left 4,000 jobs hanging in the balance.

Last weekend, it emerged that Auto Trader is selling the Range Rover SE Vogue 4.48 Prince William used to take Prince George home from hospital, for £150,000 (it would cost under £80,000 new, without the royal connection). It had already been bought by a private buyer who is selling it for charity. William and Kate were given the souped-up motor by Land Rover’s VIP department and clocked up thousands of miles before handing it back.

Kate now has a newer version, and drove it to her recent Vogue cover shoot, shot in Norfolk. You can even see it in the background of one of the shots.

Product placement, or just as much a part of her life as her cocker spaniel, Lupo, and her swishy hair?

You could say this is Britain taking its part in globalisation at its best — the Royals helping sell British-made goods to the world. Either that, or as cynics might say, we’re all being taken for a ride.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3709726/Is-seemly-Royals-crass-ad-Land-Rover-Car-maker-receives-favourable-publicity-special-relationship-Royals.html
---
They can accept free cars, but no free clothing? I bet you anything that they accept freebies of any kind, there's always a loophole.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Little light on July 28, 2016, 12:41:29 am
Now I know why "I used to be a Monarchist" uses that moniker. It's a fabulous moniker, BTW.  :hello:

How apt. How very apt.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: i used to be a monarchist on July 28, 2016, 06:07:31 am
Thank you, la petite lumiere...it's how I feel.  And the reason is because the Middleton influence is obliterating all the good work of Queen Elizabeth and the RF.  KM's lack of the right stuff, and the grasping antics of her family, have caused many to carefully examine their feelings about how the RF has devolved in the last five years.  I've more than lost interest, I'm disgusted, albeit with KM and PW.  The Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles and Princess Anne all have my admiration.  But I am no longer a monarchist.  I believe it all needs to be drawn to a close and Prince Charles is capable of accomplishing what needs to be done.  He will make a good final king for the UK and the Commonwealth.

Princess Elizabeth was only 21 when she made this speech regarding duty and her promise of serving for the rest of her life.  She was, and is, inspiring.  PW and KM should be made to sit and listen to this dedication over and over again until they come to understand their lives are not about celebrity but about service. 

It is an excellent speech but you may skip to the essence at the 5:13 mark.

https://youtu.be/HIdbbpOj1iw


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Fly on the wall on June 29, 2017, 03:45:35 am
The Royal Household today published its annual financial statement, The Sovereign Grant Report 2016-17. During the financial year in question, the Sovereign Grant amounted to £42.8m. This was supplemented by additional income of £14.9m, generated from sources including property rental and facilities management charges. Total expenditure amounted to £56.8m, with the residual £0.9m transferred to the Sovereign Grant Reserve.

https://www.royal.uk/financial-reports-2016-17


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on July 02, 2017, 10:40:49 pm
It’s time for the Queen and her 426 members of staff to think about downsizing

As well as being forced to temporarily vacate Buckingham Palace, the Queen is facing a £2.2m pay cut thanks to Nicola Sturgeon

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/it-s-time-for-the-queen-and-her-426-members-of-staff-to-think-about-downsizing-10342878.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on July 22, 2017, 02:32:22 pm
^ Well I shouldn't worry too much, Betty has plenty stashed away.

Interesting piece re her income from the Duchy of Lancaster - utterly outrageous amounts involved. If you click on the link in the story to the Duchy of Cornwall accounts to shows that Charles gave £3 plus million to Bill Midds and Harry in 2017. I seriously cannot see either duchy surviving after the Queen goes. Extravagance beyond comprehension.

I doubt either W or H have ever even dipped into the millions left by Diana. State sponsored millionaires.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/19/queen-spend-mushrooming-pay-revenue-estate


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: leogirl on July 22, 2017, 07:06:47 pm
It must be nice to be able to spend millions of pounds of other people's money.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 24, 2017, 09:22:59 pm
This is why I truly believe that the State needs to do an audit; all that money and Buckingham Palace is in disrepair. HM keeps pleading poverty and the staff are paid slave wages. With all that money they could easily afford high salaries, perks, and help family members of staff find good positions in the wider market.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 24, 2017, 11:43:25 pm
The State does an audit every year and the results reported to parliament. It is required and happens.

The reason why BP is in such a state was the in 1997 Tony Blair froze the money given to the Queen for the maintenance of the palaces. Over time she had built up a contingency fund to pay for major repairs because like any sensible person she knew that major repairs would be needed along with ongoing maintenance. Freezing the money meant that to do the ongoing maintenance they had to use up the contingency fund. By around 2007 the contingency fund was gone and the money given for ongoing maintenance wasn't covering those expenses as the cost of doing things in 2007 was a lot higher than in 1997 but they were getting the same amount of money as in 1997 (a comparison - in that 10 year period my job didn't change but my income went from $44,000 to $80,000 Australian - nearly double and yet I was able to buy less with it and the UK was on different - costs went up at a much greater rate).

When they finally decided to address the shortfall in 2012 even the ongoing maintenance wasn't able to be done due to lack of funds.

What seemed like a 'saving' in 1997 has turned out to be the exact opposite. Had the amount for maintenance kept pace with costs and the contingency fund been allowed to continue to grow by now they would be able to cover most of the needed work without having such a large amount needed as it would have been done as an ongoing set up.

Blair did the same with Westminster and again there is a massive bill coming for its upkeep which should have been maintained but again Blair's 'savings' have turned into anything but.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 25, 2017, 01:44:17 am
At the risk of being flamed, someone isn't doing their job; there's zero excuse and I am fed up with how the palace gets away with so much money grubbing.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 25, 2017, 03:24:02 am
If anyone isn't doing their jobs then it is the Parliamentary committee to whom these accounts are referred annually and who ask the questions about these accounts in a very public hearing.

There is no secrets about where the money goes - it is all accounted for to the last penny as shown in the annual accounts to parliament.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 25, 2017, 04:12:34 am
Can't the BRF fix up Buckingham Palace? All that free time on their hands and clearly no one in the RF is interested in putting a team together to set up a revamp? If WK spent all their spare time working on a revamp it would be fully fixed within a week.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Rosella on July 25, 2017, 04:29:55 am
Buckingham Palace is quite an old building. Wallpapers, timber, carvings, plasterwork and the treasures within, all need a great deal of care, under the supervision of conservators and technical experts in the various materials used. The last thing a building like BP needs, IMO, is a band or couple of enthusiastic amateurs, without architectural or technical expertise, putting their oars in, even if they are Royal.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on July 25, 2017, 05:27:01 am
BP is also a Grade 1 listed building so there are a lot of rules about what can and can't be done and who can do it - i.e. everyone has to be fully qualified to work on the site. This isn't a building that a handyman can do some work on. There are strict rules about changes to the interior and exterior even to the point where the wallpaper and carpets have to keep to much the same pattern for instance.

This will cost millions due to the standards required to maintain a Grade 1 listed building - that is one of the 'exceptional interest'.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 25, 2017, 05:53:42 am
I was speaking rhetorically. I do know that the BRF has got to stop worrying about politics and start worrying about getting their household in order; more money won't fix their problems.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: windsor2 on July 26, 2017, 04:51:29 am
Biggest winner from the Queen's 90th charity bash? Her grandson: Peter Phillips' firm was paid £750,000 while 291 organisations shared £762,000

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4730440/Peter-Phillips-firm-paid-750-000-organising-birthday.html#ixzz4nuDqGOTm
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
This is so very wrong.  :thumbsdown:  This is why people like the Midds and the rest of the hanger-ons think it's ok to use their connection to the royal family for opportunity and profit.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRH Tiana of NOLA on July 26, 2017, 05:25:21 am
^Wow!


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 26, 2017, 03:31:17 pm
This is why I never fell for the BS about how Princess Anne oh so wonderfully raised her kids; both are as spoiled and corrupt as the rest of them.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on July 26, 2017, 03:59:56 pm
Wasn't there talk at the time of ER's bash that PP would benefit and it was denied?

Everyone else in the UK has to dip into their savings at the moment, why should the RF be any different.  All this talk about how hard they work is BS - the average Joe in the street works a full day then goes home to ship, cook, clean, look after kids etc



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 26, 2017, 05:16:16 pm
I truly believe that the Arab royals have the right idea; if they want to see a star perform, they hire the star and the entire concert is put on for the public, not just in any private arena. The Arabs also work 24/7 in every possible area of industry and adhere to unquestioning obedience to the King so no issues among family.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on July 26, 2017, 05:31:31 pm
 :thumbsup:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on September 06, 2017, 08:46:18 pm
‘Brexit’ Threatens Subsidies for U.K.’s Landed Gentry, and Queen

SANDRINGHAM, England — It is a club that includes some of the world’s richest people. There are dukes, sheikhs, flamboyant entrepreneurs — even Queen Elizabeth II and other members of the royal family.

What they have in common besides ownership of some of Britain’s finest estates — adorned with stately homes, manicured gardens and, sometimes, racing stables — is their legal status as farmers, which means they are on the dole for European Union farm subsidies.

The queen’s idyllic 20,000-acre estate at Sandringham is among the huge holdings supported by the annual payouts, receiving more than $675,000 in European farm subsidies last year (down from $975,000 the year before).

But that could be about to change because of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union, known as Brexit.

[...]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/03/world/europe/uk-queen-elizabeth-brexit-subsidies.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on November 05, 2017, 08:49:32 pm
This makes my blood boil. Comments on DM very scathing. ER salts millions away that could be used to fund the NHS etc.  So much for how she cares about her people. Greefy old woman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052077/Secretive-dealings-powerful-revealed-Paradise-Papers.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on November 05, 2017, 09:49:14 pm
Queen's private estate sent millions of pounds to Bermuda and Cayman Islands tax haven and invested in BrightHouse hire-purchase retailer that is accused of exploiting the poor

    The Duchy of Lancaster invested in retailers such as BrightHouse and Threshers
    It says it is unaware of its £3,000 stake in BrightHouse which it bought in 2005
    BrightHouse had to repay £14.8m in compensation after exploiting customers
    The Queen is not believed to have any direct knowledge of the investments


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052183/Queen-s-private-estate-invested-millions-tax-havens.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on November 06, 2017, 10:55:10 am
'Her Majesty would be shocked... her reputation has been sullied': Politicians say Queen did not know her millions were invested in offshore tax havens also 'used by Bono and Trump's cabinet', new Paradise Papers leak reveals

    'Paradise Papers' leak exposes how rich and powerful are protecting their wealth
    Millions of pounds from Queen's private estate invested in Cayman Islands fund
    Her Majesty said to be unaware of where her cash went and will be 'shocked'
    Donald Trump's cabinet members including US secretary of state are also named
    Twitter and Facebook received investments traced back to the Russian state
    Newly-uncovered $450m offshore trust sheltered the wealth of Lord Ashcroft
    Offshore webs used by billionaires to buy Arsenal and Everton football clubs
    John McDonnell 'shocked but not surprised' - and said public will be 'outraged'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052077/Secretive-dealings-powerful-revealed-Paradise-Papers.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: india on November 06, 2017, 01:00:21 pm
^ She damn well knew.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on November 06, 2017, 01:20:45 pm
^ Of course she did, oldest excuse in the book of excuses, "I didn't know", sure you didn't.... :yeahright: :sly:


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on November 06, 2017, 01:21:20 pm
^ and ^^  Exactly. She probably doesn't know about every  investment but she could easily have made it known she didn't want to use any off shore tax havens or invest in dodgy companies i.e. those that use child labour. But then anyone who is so friendly with the Saudi RF has questionable morals.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Fly on the wall on November 06, 2017, 04:40:39 pm
Paradise Papers: Tax haven secrets of ultra-rich exposed
A huge new leak of financial documents has revealed how the powerful and ultra-wealthy, including the Queen's private estate, secretly invest vast amounts of cash in offshore tax havens.
Donald Trump's commerce secretary is shown to have a stake in a firm dealing with Russians sanctioned by the US.
The leak, dubbed the Paradise Papers, contains 13.4m documents, mostly from one leading firm in offshore finance.
BBC Panorama is part of nearly 100 media groups investigating the papers.
Follow live updates
As with last year's Panama Papers leak, the documents were obtained by the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, which called in the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) to oversee the investigation. The Guardian is also among the organisations investigating the documents.
Sunday's revelations form only a small part of a week of disclosures that will expose the tax and financial affairs of some of the hundreds of people and companies named in the data, some with strong UK connections.
Many of the stories focus on how politicians, multinationals, celebrities and high-net-worth individuals use complex structures of trusts, foundations and shell companies to protect their cash from tax officials or hide their dealings behind a veil of secrecy.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41876942



Paradise Papers: Queen should apologise, suggests Corbyn

Jeremy Corbyn has suggested the Queen, among others, should apologise for using overseas tax havens if they were used to avoid taxation in the UK.
The Labour leader was asked at the CBI conference whether the Queen should say sorry for making overseas investments.
He said anyone putting money into tax havens for the purposes of avoidance should "not just apologise for it, recognise what it does to our society".
The BBC has revealed that the Queen's estate has used overseas tax havens.
It comes after a leak from the tax haven of Bermuda revealed the secret overseas investments of the rich and famous, including the Queen.
Mr Corbyn's spokesman later clarified his comments, saying the Labour leader did not specifically call on the Queen to apologise but thought "anyone who puts money into a tax haven to avoid paying tax should acknowledge the damage it does to society".
Buckingham Palace has not commented on the revelation that the Duchy of Lancaster, which handles the Queen's private wealth, used offshore investments.
A spokesperson for the Duchy of Lancaster said: "We operate a number of investments and a few of these are with overseas funds. All of our investments are fully audited and legitimate.
"The Queen voluntarily pays tax on any income she receives from the Duchy."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-41883472


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: dianab on November 06, 2017, 08:22:33 pm
Corbyn suggests the Queen should APOLOGISE for offshore investments as he demands a public inquiry into leaked 'Paradise Papers' that lay bare how cash is stashed overseas
-McDonnell said the leaked Paradise Papers proved the need for rapid reform
-He said overseas territories should be forced to maintain public registers
-Theresa May played down the need for change, insisting reforms were working

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5053905/Labour-demands-public-inquiry-tax-avoidance.html

'The Queen's done nothing wrong and she's got nothing to apologise for’: Royal expert says Her Majesty should not bear brunt of Paradise Papers tax-dodge revelations ahead of hypocritical celebrities

-'Paradise Papers' leak exposes how rich and powerful are protecting their wealth
-Millions of pounds from Queen's private estate invested in Cayman Islands fund
-Her Majesty said to be unaware of where her cash went and will be 'shocked'
-Donald Trump's cabinet members including US secretary of state are also named
-Twitter and Facebook received investments traced back to the Russian state
-Newly-uncovered $450m offshore trust sheltered the wealth of Lord Ashcroft
-Offshore webs used by billionaires to buy Arsenal and Everton football clubs
-John McDonnell 'shocked but not surprised' - and said public will be 'outraged

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5052077/Secretive-dealings-powerful-revealed-Paradise-Papers.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: marion on November 06, 2017, 08:30:50 pm
You can be sure if Corbyn's mob ever got into power ER wouldn't have any luck getting more from the taxpayer !! Even that cloud has a silver lining


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRH Tiana of NOLA on November 06, 2017, 10:33:43 pm
I'm joining the rest of you in calling bullshizz on the queen not knowing.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Alexandrine on November 09, 2017, 09:50:14 pm
All the family probably has most of their assets outside UK. You never know what may happen.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRH Tiana of NOLA on November 09, 2017, 09:52:35 pm
^Just in case there is an uprising and they have to flee.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: Fly on the wall on June 28, 2018, 01:50:20 pm
Cash boost for William and Harry as funding for young royals increased by £1.5MILLION - Mirror Online

Funding for young members of the Royal Family has shot up by 40%, from £3.5million to £5million.

The figure is revealed in accounts for Clarence House, which cover Prince Charles, as well as sons William, Harry and their families.

While no breakdown was provided, royal sources sug­­gested the rise was partly due to Charles paying for Harry and Meghan’s wedding in May.

Charles funds his own duties and his immediate family’s activities from the income of his vast estate.

Meanwhile, the Queen’s income from taxpayers – Sovereign Grant – increased by 13% due to ­Buckingham Palace renovations and extra payroll and travel costs. It rose from £41.9mil­­lion to £47.4mil-lion.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/cash-boost-william-harry-funding-12809277



Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on June 30, 2018, 02:20:44 pm
Interesting that the latest royal accounts now list W&K (along with the Queen and Philip and Charle and Cam) as being allowed to class travel residence to residence as official - and therefore payable by taxpayer. More helicopters Anmer to KP in the future I guess.

Such a hard life & hard work.


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: HRHOlya on July 20, 2018, 04:24:59 pm
Queen's coffers are boosted again as income from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate rises by almost 5 per cent to just over £20million

    Queen's private income boosted by almost one million pounds to £20million
    Money from Duchy of Lancaster estate has increased by 4.9 per cent
    The 18,433 hectare estate of land and property was founded in the 13th century

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5973881/Queen-s-income-estate-rises-1m.html


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 31, 2018, 09:57:05 pm
Similar article in the Express.

With all the money she has coming it, why does she need the taxpayers to fund the refurb of BP.  She lives there, free, she should pay for these things herself.  The greed of the vile family knows no bounds, at all.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/992150/5-boost-property-empire-queen-1m-extra-earnings


Title: Re: British Royal Finances
Post by: meememe on August 01, 2018, 07:37:33 am
She doesn't own BP and so the people who do own it have to pay for the refurbishment. She never wanted to even move into the place. She has to live there - no choice as the government has made her do so.

Had Tony Blair not been so short-sighted in 1997 the cost would be a lot lower as a lot of maintenance would have been done that wasn't able to be done as the money wasn't there for it. What he did do was see a 'contingency fund' being built up to use for the major refurbishment (of Windsor, BP and the Houses of Parliament) and decided that instead of continuing to build that fund that he would freeze funding for the maintenance of these palaces and force the contingency fund moneys to be used up - was all gone within a decade and no increase in funding until 2012 so of course there was no money available, a lot of maintenance had to be prioritised and some things were not able to be done.

Charles is on record as saying he doesn't want to move in there at all and wants it handed over to the public more often. I suspect that when the time comes the government will again say 'no - the home of the monarch is BP - no ifs or buts'. Unlike you and me the monarch can't choose where to live - they are told.

The money she has coming in also has to pay for a lot of staff, the working expenses of the BRF (other than the Wales' branch of the family), maintenance of her private properties - Sandringham and Balmoral - and the expenses of her younger children and their families as needed - that is after she has paid tax on it as well.