The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #221  
Old 07-01-2008, 03:19 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Except that's simply not true. There is no cost to the taxpayer. If I give you $100 every year, and you give me back $50, the net cost to you is zero.
We will have to agree to disagree, I think you are seriously wrong and would rather believe the UK treasury when they tell UK citizens that only 66pence of their tax contributes, towards the upkeep of HM.

The government would never miss the trick you are suggesting!

It is simple math - The Duchy of Lancaster brings in 8m, HM costs 40m (+15m).

This is the official notification
Quote:
'The money provided by the taxpayer to enable The Queen to fulfil her role as Head of State, is equivalent to 66 pence per person in the country. This is the annual cost, not the daily, weekly or monthly cost and is 3.1% lower in real terms than it was in 2001.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #222  
Old 07-01-2008, 04:48 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
The Duchy of Lancaster has nothing to do with it; that is HM's private income (it's called Privy Purse for a reason). The fact that she uses some of it to fund official engagements is neither here nor there.

And, sorry, but you're wrong. It's really simple math. HM gives the government a hundred-and-whatever million pounds a year. She gets back less than that. Net cost to taxpayer: zero. You're really not addressing that; you just keep saying "The Treasury is right!" Really.. it's just basic math. Like I said before, if I give you $100 at the beginning of the year, and you give me $50 at the end of the year, the net cost to you is zero. Yes, you can argue that the money I give you and the money you give me are separate entities, but that does not change the extremely basic arithmetic involved.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #223  
Old 07-01-2008, 05:10 PM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post

And, sorry, but you're wrong. It's really simple math. HM gives the government a hundred-and-whatever million pounds a year.
No, she doesn't. The Crown Estate hasn't been managed by or for the royal family for centuries, and I don't think it was in that good a shape when control was handed over to the government by George III - which I believe was why it was done. Its purpose was to provide revenue for the monarch to administer the goverment; since the monarch doesn't do that now, the revenue (apart from the Civil List monies) goes to the Treasury. The Queen is not making a donation to the government. The Crown Estate doesn't belong to her.

From the FAQs on the Crown Estate website (highlighting added):

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch – it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the sovereign.
The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation – established by statute – headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers.
To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels – part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

FAQs

Since revenues from the Crown Estate do not belong to the Sovereign, she can't give them to the government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #224  
Old 07-01-2008, 06:24 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
HM gives the government a hundred-and-whatever million pounds a year. She gets back less than that. Net cost to taxpayer: zero. You're really not addressing that; you just keep saying "The Treasury is right!" .
I think Elspeth has answered your point, with the fact that HM doesn't own the Crown Estates and wbenson also pointed out your error with regard to the proportion paid by the CE (0.03%).
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Sources of funding > Civil List
If you are still not convinced, I suggest you write to the Treasury and BP and suggest they use the media and/or their normal way of communicating to UK taxpayers (letters, P60's, Census forms, Banding notification, etc, etc) to explain to UK taxpayers that they have been telling lies all these years, as you suggest that they would be unable to communicate to us the error of our thinking!
From the website posted by Warren, this is the income HM has but in no way does it cover all her expenditure, hence the 66p contribution from UK taxpayers
Quote:
This money is mainly used to defray official expenditure not historically met by the Civil List - The Queen uses a large part of it to meet official expenses incurred by other members of the Royal Family.
You could try reading the official links provided!
The Monarchy Today > Royal finances > Privy Purse and Duchy of Lancaster
Quote:
The Privy Purse, mainly financed by the net income from the Duchy, is used to meet both official expenditure incurred by The Queen as Sovereign and private expenditure
The Monarchy Today > The Royal Household > Departments > Privy Purse and Treasurer's Office
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #225  
Old 07-01-2008, 06:54 PM
PrinceOfCanada's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 356
Quote:
Since revenues from the Crown Estate do not belong to the Sovereign, she can't give them to the government.
Interesting that the arrangement has to be renewed at the accession of each sovereign, wouldn't you say?

Quote:
I think Elspeth has answered your point, with the fact that HM doesn't own the Crown Estates and wbenson also pointed out your error with regard to the proportion paid by the CE (0.03%).
She hasn't, but whatever. And the proportion is immaterial. Again.. basic math.

Quote:
You could try reading the official links provided!
You could try not being rude.

Quote:
The Duchy of Lancaster has nothing to do with it; that is HM's private income (it's called Privy Purse for a reason). The fact that she uses some of it to fund official engagements is neither here nor there.
Since you didn't seem to read it the first time.

Whatever, you are more happy snarking than actually engaging in discussion. That's your choice, but I have no interest in continuing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #226  
Old 07-01-2008, 09:31 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Interesting that the arrangement has to be renewed at the accession of each sovereign, wouldn't you say?
Interesting, yes, and "has to be" is an operative phrase. It's seen nowadays as a convention on the lines of appointing the proper person to be Prime Minister. It isn't the sovereign's personal property. The very title makes that quite clear. "Crown estates." As you most likely know, the Crown (i.e. the state) owns all government property. The Queen can no more take personal possession of the Crown Estates than she can a Via Rail train (a Crown Corporation).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #227  
Old 07-02-2008, 04:22 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by skydragon
You could try reading the official links provided!
You could try not being rude.
I fail to see how suggesting you get the information from the official links provided is rude!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada
Since you didn't seem to read it the first time.
I read it the first time, but as it is not only HM's private income, I disregarded it.
Quote:
The Privy Purse, mainly financed by the net income from the Duchy, is used to meet both official expenditure incurred by The Queen as Sovereign and private expenditure
Here are a couple of addresses where you can find out, for yourself, whether UK taxpayers actually contribute to the upkeep of the Royal Family. They may be able to explain it to you.

The Correspondence & Enquiry Unit
2/W1
HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
London
SW1A 2HQ
public.enquiries@hm-treasury.gsi.gov.uk

Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP
Chancellor of the Exchequer
HM Treasury
1 Horse Guards Road
LONDON SW1A 2HQ
ministers@hm-treasury.gsi.gov.uk
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #228  
Old 07-02-2008, 11:42 AM
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: ***, United States
Posts: 16,896
Mind you, I think PrinceOf Canada has a very valid point that most people don't know of the existence of the Crown Estate, or its origin or purpose, and just believe that the royal family is taking handouts from the taxpayer without any reason or basis for it. If more people knew about the surrender of the Crown Lands in return for the government paying for its own upkeep and also granting the Civil List payments to the Sovereign to pay for the upkeep of the monarch's branch of the government, it may lead to fewer misunderstandings. It seems as though a lot of people (not on this forum, but British people in general) believe that the Civil List is just pocket money for the royals and that somehow their expenses get paid in some other way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #229  
Old 07-02-2008, 02:58 PM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elspeth View Post
Mind you, I think PrinceOf Canada has a very valid point that most people don't know of the existence of the Crown Estate, or its origin or purpose, and just believe that the royal family is taking handouts from the taxpayer without any reason or basis for it.....Snipped
No they don't understand, but they are only interested in the fact that Royals take 66p of their hard earned money.

The main complaint I often hear, is that HM and all of the royals do not disclose their personal fortunes and until they do, they shouldn't be getting any money from 'us'.

My opinion is that there should be a bigger contribution towards the upkeep of the main royal palaces (a 100% turn around) but the priorities would be better decided/handled outwith the staff now employed or the government. With tight controls and penalty clauses to stop the work going massively over budget, it could be done.

If minor royals then had to live off their investments or seek employment, people would start to feel 'they' were making an effort. Many cannot see why many of them are paid by HM or allowed accommodation at peppercorn or subsidised rents.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #230  
Old 07-02-2008, 05:11 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
The tenants of apartments at Kensington Palace who have them out of favour and grace.....( I do not even know who is left these days) get rent free accomodations and from what I think I know, the Queen provides these apartments to them. Who is paying for these expenses?
( I love this thread. Thank you all for contributing it is amazing.....)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #231  
Old 07-02-2008, 05:55 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
i think my understanding of the crown estate situation is that the estates belong to the Soverign as Head of State, not the Queen as individual, thus no soverign could claim the money for herself of himself, they could though claim it back to pay for official costs but not personal costs.

the argument for the royal family costing nothing is better put this way:

"The Royal family brings in millions (or billions) of pounds in tourism etc"

The situation with the Crown Estates is one that some people will feel strongly about one way or the other, that either the Soverign costs nothing as the Crown Estate profits go to the State or that HM has no right to claim the monies herself anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #232  
Old 07-02-2008, 07:08 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
PrinceofCanada, i think you could compare the crown estates to what we call crown assets or crown property here in canada...it doesn't personally belong to the queen but to the "crown".
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #233  
Old 07-03-2008, 03:27 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duchess View Post
PrinceofCanada, i think you could compare the crown estates to what we call crown assets or crown property here in canada...it doesn't personally belong to the queen but to the "crown".
I agrre, i think that is the best way to describe the Crown Estates, in the same way the Queen does not get invovled or own the "Crown Courts" she does not own the "Crown Estates" they belong to the "Crown" and therfore belong to the state and the Crown represents the State.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #234  
Old 07-03-2008, 03:41 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odette View Post
The tenants of apartments at Kensington Palace who have them out of favour and grace.....( I do not even know who is left these days) get rent free accomodations and from what I think I know, the Queen provides these apartments to them. Who is paying for these expenses?
( I love this thread. Thank you all for contributing it is amazing.....)
I understand that The Duke and duchess of Kent, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and Prince and princess Michael of Kent live in Kensington Palace still. the Kents and gloucesters either live at the palace free or for a very very low rate. However controversy arose over Prince and Princess Michael of Kents rent and use of the palace as they do not officially represent the Queen and do not technically perform public engagements many MPs argued that they should be kicked out. Before this the Prince and Princess paid £6,000 a year in rent, afterwards however HM herself now pays £120,000 a year in rent for their apartment in the palace on their behalf.

Staff who live in Kensington Palace pay 16.7% of their salary in rent.

BBC NEWS | UK Politics | Kensington Palace: Who lives there
Queen to pay £120,000 palace rent for the Kents - Telegraph

Incendentley Kensington Palace only costs the taxpayer £100,000 a year in unkeep at the moment not millions of pounds as other residences do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #235  
Old 07-03-2008, 05:49 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy1716 View Post
i think my understanding of the crown estate situation is that the estates belong to the Soverign as Head of State, not the Queen as individual, thus no soverign could claim the money for herself of himself, they could though claim it back to pay for official costs but not personal costs.
I don't believe they are able to claim it back, the amount HM receives in total, is argued about and then set by the government of the day.
Quote:
"The Royal family brings in millions (or billions) of pounds in tourism etc"
The BRF may bring in some tourism revenue, but many if not most, come to see the palaces and other landmarks such as Big Ben, The Houses of Parliament, therefore would the money be better spent on restoring and preserving these sites?

Complete Official residents list
The Royal Residences > Kensington Palace > Today
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #236  
Old 07-03-2008, 01:55 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
.

BBC NEWS | UK Politics | Kensington Palace: Who lives there
Queen to pay £120,000 palace rent for the Kents - Telegraph

Incendentley Kensington Palace only costs the taxpayer £100,000 a year in unkeep at the moment not millions of pounds as other residences do.[/quote]

Thank you for your clarification. I have gone in Kensignton Palace but at this moment I draw a blank so I cannot remember whether there is an admission fee or not. However there is a gift shop so I suppose there is some sort of income to defray some of the costs of running it.
I suspect all arrangements about giving the sovereign's assets to the Crown and getting the amount they get back had to be negotiated with friendly to the Monarchy Prime Ministers. No? There must be some sort of advantage for the Queen to keep this arrangement with the government.
I would have loved to write my house over to the name of the City if they would send me a check each year to maintain it, let me live there rent free and have them absorb the property and other taxes.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #237  
Old 07-03-2008, 04:40 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
only £100, 000 a year maybe but that's only for one place you have to remember that these palaces bring in a lot of money as well and rightfully so as the cost to maintain them is enormous. one of the best things about the uk is the history and longevity of it buildings and these palaces and castles are all part of it.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #238  
Old 07-21-2008, 02:24 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: london, United Kingdom
Posts: 277
Does the Queen pay members of the royal family more than their civil list payments? Having read about the civil list i was surprised to find that hte Queen REpays the amonts to members of the royal family, the Treasury paying the amount and then being reimbursed by the Queen. This means the Queen can claim tax back on the amounts she pays, according to Wikipedia (Civil list - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). However the civil list amounts have stayed the same for many many years, so does the Queen pay her family more but just not say so by having the amounts changed on the civil list?

If this is not true where do you think members of the royal family get their income, i mean when you take into acount staff costs, travel, clothing etc for poublic engsgments that doesnt leave alot for private holidays, food etc does it?

Pehaps this answers my own question
QUEEN TO THE RESCUE IN ANNE'S CASH CRISIS | Sunday Mirror | Find Articles at BNET
Though i have to say i don't know whether to beleive it or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #239  
Old 07-22-2008, 01:30 PM
Claire's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 842
I don't think any of the royals, except the Wales are actually well off. More than two thirds of their money is to pay for staff and then they have to buy clothes to keep us happy.
I laughed when I heard that Prince Philip and Prince Edward go to the public library as they couldn't afford to buy books, but the sad thing is counting your pennies helps.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #240  
Old 07-22-2008, 01:40 PM
Odette's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tampa, United States
Posts: 2,481
I remember reading a long time ago that Prince Philip brought Buckingham Palace to the 20th century so to speak trying to streamline and economize.
Isn't it refreshing to read that the Royals count their pennies instead of wasting it? I love it.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, civil list, finances


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 69 12-04-2014 08:44 PM
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 111 10-12-2014 05:39 PM
Royals and Wealth, Costs and Finances kcc Royal Life and Lifestyle 384 09-28-2012 02:27 AM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Germany and Austria 12 12-30-2007 04:35 AM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]