Bumper Payrise for Her Majesty

[clapham_gull]

Errrm... yes, yes I have. You've clearly never been to London and seen the Asian and American tourists taking 100 pictures a minute at the changing of the guard etc etc.

Never been to London

Check out the visitor numbers at other ex-Royal palaces in Europe and come back.

Who on earth suggested the changing of the guard should go away ?

 

[clapham_gull]

What great public cost? 65p per person per annum - for security which would be provided for any head of state. This has been covered many many times.

The Treasury is better off with the income from the Crown Estates, than without it, which is why no politician has tried to get rid of the monarchy.

Technically politicians have tried got rid of the monarchy and succeeded but I'm not suggesting that.

So here we go. The only reason to maintain the current extended Royal Family, Palaces etc.. (and god knows what) is effectively because they are a tourist attraction and Prince Charles makes nice biscuits.

That's a sort of a Vegas style Royal Family isn't it ?

At least PLEASE bring a constitutional argument to the table ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Technically politicians have tried got rid of the monarchy and succeeded but I'm not suggesting that.

So here we go. The only reason to maintain the current extended Royal Family, Palaces etc.. (and god knows what) is effectively because they are a tourist attraction and Prince Charles makes nice biscuits.

That's a sort of a Vegas style Royal Family isn't it ?

At least PLEASE bring a constitutional argument to the table ?

Crown Estate income to the Treasury, as I stated in my post. £328M from St James market, source page 22 of today's Metro.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Never been to London

Check out the visitor numbers at other ex-Royal palaces in Europe and come back.

Who on earth suggested the changing of the guard should go away ?

The army serve the Crown, constitutionally. All those in the forces and police etc call the Queen , the Boss.
When you salute an officer,you're not saluting him or her, but the Crown.

 

[lawros left foot]

Not going to get involved in this, except, do the Americans pay for security for Donald Trumps cousins, and their children?

 

[clapham_gull]

Crown Estate income to the Treasury, as I stated in my post. £328M from St James market, source page 22 of today's Metro.

My understanding is that's a business nominally owned by The Queen but she has little control over it's day to day running.

Effectively put the land of the monarch to good use. But that in itself doesn't make a good argument to maintain the status quo.

 

[clapham_gull]

Not going to get involved in this, except, do the Americans pay for security for Donald Trumps cousins, and their children?

Yes and as he is pissing off to his country residence at the weekend it is costing them millions

Incidentally the cost of the Monarchy figures never include security or the cost of local authorities when they pay a visit.

Not making a particular point there - but they don't. Although a bit odd that they bother to massage the figures when the cost (quite randomly like the licence fee) is advertised as per person per day - which will always appear tiny.

I've never really think about the cost of the Royal Family in terms of "But look how much Sky costs".

 

[clapham_gull]

The army serve the Crown, constitutionally. All those in the forces and police etc call the Queen , the Boss.
When you salute an officer,you're not saluting him or her, but the Crown.

Do they have a weekly 1 to 1 with her ? A chance of a 360 or an appraisal ?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The Queen's personal properties are Sandringham estate, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, Clarence House, and Kensington Palace. Other residences are held in trust by the state for the royals.
They are managed by the independent charity Historic Royal Palaces, a nonprofit organization that does not receive public funds.

In contrast, the Queen Mother bought the Castle of Mey in 1952, and left it to the people when she died.




No confusion or secrecy. The facts are easily found, if you choose to look for them.

Nearly right. http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/733867/buckingham-palace-refurbishment-who-owns-worth-built-queen-elizabeth-pictures-photo-inside

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nearly right. http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/733867/buckingham-palace-refurbishment-who-owns-worth-built-queen-elizabeth-pictures-photo-inside

Thank you. There's one paragraph in that article that makes my point.

The Queen receives an annual grant worth 15% of the Estate’s profits. This year, she received £43 million, while the Treasury was paid £301.4 million.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Do they have a weekly 1 to 1 with her ? A chance of a 360 or an appraisal ?

She's married to, and related to several admirals of the fleet, and colonels in chief, but that isn't what you meant was it?

 

[clapham_gull]

Thank you. There's one paragraph in that article that makes my point.

The Queen receives an annual grant worth 15% of the Estate’s profits. This year, she received £43 million, while the Treasury was paid £301.4 million.

It doesn't really.

The Government maintain a load of business based on land nominally owned by the monarch - which she can't sell. Out of the profits they bung the monarch a few quid.

Can't be that hard if you look at the land in London.

You can't suggest for 1 minute that the Royal Family is actually a hugely profitable business and the economy would suffer if it was scaled back.

If she resigned from the board the "company" would save £43 million and still make a profit. I'm not aware it sells Tea Towels with her face on it.

Again - I'm not actually saying get rid of the Royal Family - you can't. But last chance - can we drop this money making bullshit and present a constitutional argument ?

Whatever has been agreed to make money out of their historical landownership and how that helps pay for them is a side argument.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It doesn't really.

The Government maintain a load of business based on land nominally owned by the monarch - which she can't sell. Out of the profits they bung the monarch a few quid.

Can't be that hard if you look at the land in London.

You can't suggest for 1 minute that the Royal Family is actually a hugely profitable business and the economy would suffer if it was scaled back.

If she resigned from the board the "company" would save £43 million and still make a profit. I'm not aware it sells Tea Towels with her face on it.

Again - I'm not actually saying get rid of the Royal Family - you can't. But last chance - can we drop this money making bullshit and present a constitutional argument ?

Whatever has been agreed to make money out of their historical landownership and how that helps pay for them is a side argument.

The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.

The estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right". The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government and thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury for the benefit of the British nation.

Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the treasury, thus relieving him of the responsibility of personally paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil list.

In 2012, the Civil List was amended to the Sovereign Grant/Purse. he monarch was thenceforth provided with a stable source of revenue indexed to a percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenue (currently set at 15%). This was intended to provide a long-term solution and remove the politically sensitive issue of Parliament having to debate the Civil List allowance every ten years.

That is the constitution, whether you like it or not.

 

[clapham_gull]

The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.

The estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right". The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government and thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury for the benefit of the British nation.

Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the treasury, thus relieving him of the responsibility of personally paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil list.

In 2012, the Civil List was amended to the Sovereign Grant/Purse. he monarch was thenceforth provided with a stable source of revenue indexed to a percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenue (currently set at 15%). This was intended to provide a long-term solution and remove the politically sensitive issue of Parliament having to debate the Civil List allowance every ten years.

That is the constitution, whether you like it or not.

Nice cut and paste from Wikipedia.

Your contribution ? "That is the constitution, whether you like it or not."

Have you actually read it ? It completely undermines your argument.

Superb.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Nice cut and paste from Wikipedia.

Your contribution ? "That is the constitution, whether you like it or not."

Have you actually read it ? It completely undermines your argument.

Superb.

I don't see how it does. Please enlighten me. In the meantime, I'm turning in. Good night.

 

[ExmouthExile]

8% or £6m increase this year for her hard work.

A slap in the face for all of our hard working nurses who haven't had a pay increase for years!

 

[Mo Gosfield]

A slap in the face for all of our hard working nurses who haven't had a pay increase for years!

At least they get paid. I'm self employed and haven't paid myself for 14 months and many self employed are exactly the same, living off scraps to make sure their businesses survive.
I'd like to see these hard done by nurses working as hard as Her Maj at 91 years of age.

 

[Simster]

At least they get paid. I'm self employed and haven't paid myself for 14 months and many self employed are exactly the same, living off scraps to make sure their businesses survive.
I'd like to see these hard done by nurses working as hard as Her Maj at 91 years of age.

I don't want to sound unsympathetic but your personal struggles really have no bearing on whether or not nurses are more or less deserving of a pay increase than the £6m increase in the Queen's sovereign grant.

 

[Clive Walker]

At least they get paid. I'm self employed and haven't paid myself for 14 months and many self employed are exactly the same, living off scraps to make sure their businesses survive.
I'd like to see these hard done by nurses working as hard as Her Maj at 91 years of age.

She doesn't actually work.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

A slap in the face for all of our hard working nurses who haven't had a pay increase for years!

The Queen is getting money to refurbish Buckingham Palace, in the same way as the NHS is getting £420M to refurbish the Sussex County.
It is not personal money or wages.