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
 
  #401  
Old 12-23-2009, 02:28 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,134
Actually, if the government enacted legislation declaring the UK a republic, the Queen would have to sign it. She's a constitutional monarch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
...It is her government that the Prime Minister is the head of. They government can not make the Queen do anything.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #402  
Old 12-23-2009, 03:47 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
I

Now I would be all for keeping the monarchy if she turned over money from her own wallet to cover the costs (Duchy of Lancaster). [WHICH I DOUBT SHE WILL EVER DO] Then I will be for keeping the monarchy. They need to pay for themselves.

Why should anyone do a job like Head of State without having the costs of that position meet by the state of which he/she is head?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #403  
Old 01-01-2010, 01:00 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why should anyone do a job like Head of State without having the costs of that position meet by the state of which he/she is head?
I think that they should pay for their own PRIVATE EXPENSES. The Birthday celebrations, parades for the Queen, anniversaries and things like that should be taken out of her pocket. If she doesn't want to pay for them, then there should not be any.

I live here in the U.S. and our president's only get a inauguration and a funeral. All of these jubilees and birthdays don't happen here. It costs us less.

Dinners and banquets to foreign heads of state for business deals of the government should be paid by the tax payer because it is for the good of the tax payer. But all of that other stuff NO!!!!!!!

Now, in Saudi Arabia or in Thailand you don't hear about the people complaining about the cost of the monarch? No, because those people pay for themselves. Those oil rich billionaires don't do as QEII, they pay for all of that luxury from PRIVATE funds that their families have held for years. Brunei is tax free. His family pays for itself. And the British need a monarch that will either do the same, or leave the throne. (My Opinion)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #404  
Old 01-01-2010, 02:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
I think that they should pay for their own PRIVATE EXPENSES. The Birthday celebrations, parades for the Queen, anniversaries and things like that should be taken out of her pocket. If she doesn't want to pay for them, then there should not be any.

These celebrations etc are ones that bring in quite a lot of money as people actually plan to take holidays to London just for them. They are not PRIVATE EXPENSES as they are part of the duty of the monarchy to be seen and to honour the military - which is what the birthday parade does. The Colours are very important to British regiments and to have them presented by the monarch is significant so actually the birthday combines two things - a military role with a chance for the people to celebrate the birthday of the monarch. If the government didn't want to pay for them they could simply say no.

You seem to be suggesting that the Queen insists on the government paying for these when it is more the government insisting on these events happening as they know they are good for the British economy.

Having been in London for one such celebration I would say it was simply wonderful and I am glad that I planned by holiday to fit in with it and I wasn't alone. There were some in the crowd with me who had added an extra two days to a European vacation to see the Queen at this celebration - no celebration no extra days with the money that that brought into the British economy.

Who says that the Queen wants all these parades etc. They are part of her duty but the reports suggest that she wants a much lower key 60th jubilee (which an American President can't have as he can only have a maximum of 8 years and then out) than either the 25th or 50th.

You say it is cheaper to have only the inauguration and the funeral of the Presidents - I am not so sure.

There have been 10 presidents, so 10 inaugurations which take individual planning with the costs that that involves compared to 1 coronation, 2 jubilees and 57 birthday parades. The birthday parades are well planned and a military exercise so a lot of the costs are actually just the normal costs of running the army anyway and being every year don't take as much planning as they don't have to be done afresh every year.

You will have the funeral costs of 10 presidents compared to one queen and consort for this reign (two consorts if Philip dies before the Queen). The other royals are given private funerals. Diana's was a public funeral because that is what the public demanded. Of course if the Queen lives for another 20 years there could be another 5 presidential inaugurations and funerals to budget for compared to Britain.

How many presidents has America had in since 1901? Britain has had 5 monarchs so at most 10 funerals (including Elizabeth and Philip) - monarch and consort, plus the state funeral for Winston Churchill and Diana's funeral - seems a lot better to me than the number in the US.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #405  
Old 01-01-2010, 02:21 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,175
In addition to what Iluvbertie has mentioned, it should be noted that as an American not only do we pay for the current President and Vice President but we pay for the old ones as well. So right now we are paying retired government salaries and money allocated to the maintenance of their Presidential Libraries. They have to raise private money to initially fund and build the library, but the rest of the money comes from the US government. So that's Obama, Bush1 (and Cheney), Bush2 (and Quayle), Clinton (and Gore) and Carter (and Mondale). That includes life time secret service protection for them and their wives (although Bush2 only has it for ten years which I totally disagree with but that is the topic of another forum) as well as Lady Bird Johnson (who we have been paying for since 1968!) . And please note that I don't begrude paying for any of these men (and women) but these are the facts. I need to find the supporting information but I believe that equals what the British pay for the Queen. And not all of them are working on behalf of the American people doing 300 plus engagements a year.

It should also be noted that the money the British pay for The Royal Family goes mainly for the expenses that go with doing their "jobs." So a large portion of that money is allocated to salaries. Yes, some of that money (especially during these rough economic times) can be spent a little bit more wisely. Yes, I am talking about the transportation costs of some royals (i.e. Andrew and Charles).

Iluvbertie is totally right in mentioning that many people plan their vacations and weekends around these sort of events. And while the Queen will certainly hope that the 60th Jubillee will be low key, you can bet that a lot of peolple (and not just the British) will make it their business to partake in the festivities. Again, more tourist money for the British. And if William marries in the next year or two, I would imagine the same. And with total respect to the other monarchies in the world, and my own government, nobody NOBODY puts on a show like the British. All the evidence you need to see is exhibited in the funerals of Churchill, Diana and the Queen Mother. Presidents Reagan and Ford received a nice send off but it was nothing like the funeral of the three British or JFK.

ETA: There have been 20 US Presidents since 1901. Its a little late so my count might be off. It worth noting FDR had four terms (served 3 1/2 terms), and two Presidents died in office (McKinley and Kennedy). Since five Presidents are alive that means the US has paid for 15 state funerals.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #406  
Old 01-01-2010, 03:27 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post

Now, in Saudi Arabia or in Thailand you don't hear about the people complaining about the cost of the monarch? No, because those people pay for themselves. Those oil rich billionaires don't do as QEII, they pay for all of that luxury from PRIVATE funds that their families have held for years. Brunei is tax free. His family pays for itself. And the British need a monarch that will either do the same, or leave the throne. (My Opinion)
So why does the Sultan of Brunei get to have all of that lavishness and his people don't seem to mind. But when QEII does it, it is a big deal? (Explain to me)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #407  
Old 01-01-2010, 04:10 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

How many presidents has America had in since 1901? Britain has had 5 monarchs so at most 10 funerals (including Elizabeth and Philip) - monarch and consort, plus the state funeral for Winston Churchill and Diana's funeral - seems a lot better to me than the number in the US.
Hey I have a question for you. In the Commonwealth Realms where the Queen is head of state doesn't the Prime Minister and Governor-Generals receive a state funerals when they die? Don't they get a retirement package with protection and all of that like U.S. presidents? I was just curious?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #408  
Old 01-01-2010, 05:22 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
So why does the Sultan of Brunei get to have all of that lavishness and his people don't seem to mind. But when QEII does it, it is a big deal? (Explain to me)
Well...you are making an apples to oranges comparison.

Brunei is an absolute monarchy, the media is pro government and if there is opposition...its never heard.

Britain is a democracy with a vocal public and press.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #409  
Old 01-01-2010, 05:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedmonds View Post
Hey I have a question for you. In the Commonwealth Realms where the Queen is head of state doesn't the Prime Minister and Governor-Generals receive a state funerals when they die? Don't they get a retirement package with protection and all of that like U.S. presidents? I was just curious?

I can only speak for Australia and yes they do - but they would do so regardless of being a republic or a monarchy - we will have more of them when we become a republic (of course until the early years of the Queen's reign we didn't have to worry about GGs as they were British and lived there after their term here).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #410  
Old 01-01-2010, 08:37 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,158
In the United States, we also have state dinners, parades, commemoration of events such as Veteran's Day, Memorial Day, etc., Kennedy Center Honors, Presidential Medal recipient awards ceremonies, and so on, all paid for largely by the taxpayers. I think if it were left up to the Queen, she would probably keep a lower public life but that is not her role or duty. She is the Head of State and the government should cover the expenses for the public events of which she is a major part.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #411  
Old 01-30-2010, 10:51 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,232
Royals take taxis to official engagements as the Queen pulls rank on costs | Mail Online

Member of the Royal Family are using black taxis to travel to unofficial engagements instead of expensive fleet cars as the Queen tries to keep a lid on costs.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #412  
Old 02-03-2010, 04:37 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,738
Good idea. I would also like to see the likes of Beatrice and Eugenie use the tube or the bus as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #413  
Old 02-04-2010, 02:51 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
I thought that Prince Phillip had his own black taxi for use in London.
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #414  
Old 02-04-2010, 03:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalistRiley View Post
I thought that Prince Phillip had his own black taxi for use in London.

I think the difference is that the idea is that if a royal has to get to an engagement, rather than using an expensive 'fleet' car they should ring up and hire a taxi.

Philip has owned a black taxi for many years.

That isn't the same as using a taxi and its driver for say 20 minutes to get from a to b.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #415  
Old 02-15-2010, 08:15 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,738
Key areas we would like to see the BRF better manage their costs

It is often mentioned that the BRF is an expensive institution to maintain, and they are often criticised for their lifestyle. Given the current economic environment, I thought it would be interesting to hear the areas where members of TRF felt that the BRF could trim costs
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #416  
Old 03-07-2010, 10:23 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,232
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: Royals rake in 1m a year on holiday lets

The royals are raking in a staggering 1 million a year renting out holiday homes on their land.

The thrifty Queen makes more than 250,000 a year letting out cottages next to Balmoral Castle and Sandringham while savvy Prince Charles is banking around 800,000 annually from holiday homes on his vast Duchy of Cornwall estate.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #417  
Old 03-11-2010, 01:28 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,305
I found this today by accident.
Interesting, but of course how would they know?
For the record and for whatever it's worth...

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother 1900-2002: The Legacy: Charles to | Sunday Mirror Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

The Queen Mother was worth an estimated 60 million - making her the third richest member of the Royal Family behind the Queen and Prince Charles.
The lion's share of the Queen Mother's wealth will go to her great-grandchildren.

Prince William and Prince Harry will receive nearly 2.5 million each when they reach 21.
They will each get a further 8 million when they reach 40.

Zara and Peter Phillips and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will share 6.1 million.
The children of Lady Sarah Chatto and her brother Viscount Linley will also benefit.
. . . . . .

A couple of obvious points...

The Queen Mother may have left an estate worth 60m (US$90m) but she didn't leave this amount in cash. Most of the assets (which were non-income-producing such as jewels, paintings and objet d'art) would have passed directly to the Queen in the traditional Sovereign-to-Sovereign transfer. The cash amounts listed above total over 27m (US$40m). Would conservatively-managed trust funds generate this sort of return?

Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah don't get a mention, although their children do. While they would be the beneficiaries of their mother's estate (the bulk of which I assume to be in the form of fixed assets rather than cash), how likely is it that the Queen Mother would not have made direct provision for them or have set up trust funds in their names?
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #418  
Old 03-11-2010, 03:02 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
I found this today by accident.
Interesting, but of course how would they know?
For the record and for whatever it's worth...

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother 1900-2002: The Legacy: Charles to | Sunday Mirror Newspaper | Find Articles at BNET

The Queen Mother was worth an estimated 60 million - making her the third richest member of the Royal Family behind the Queen and Prince Charles.
The lion's share of the Queen Mother's wealth will go to her great-grandchildren.

Prince William and Prince Harry will receive nearly 2.5 million each when they reach 21.
They will each get a further 8 million when they reach 40.

Zara and Peter Phillips and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie will share 6.1 million.
The children of Lady Sarah Chatto and her brother Viscount Linley will also benefit.
. . . . . .

A couple of obvious points...

The Queen Mother may have left an estate worth 60m (US$90m) but she didn't leave this amount in cash. Most of the assets (which were non-income-producing such as jewels, paintings and objet d'art) would have passed directly to the Queen in the traditional Sovereign-to-Sovereign transfer. The cash amounts listed above total over 27m (US$40m). Would conservatively-managed trust funds generate this sort of return?

Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah don't get a mention, although their children do. While they would be the beneficiaries of their mother's estate (the bulk of which I assume to be in the form of fixed assets rather than cash), how likely is it that the Queen Mother would not have made direct provision for them or have set up trust funds in their names?

I also find it stange that the ones that will get the most anyway in the future would get more from her.

Traditionally it has been reported that the bulk of the estates go to the younger children and their descendents as the eldest will get the crown.

I have my doubts about the legitimacy of this account.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #419  
Old 03-11-2010, 03:42 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,305

Yes, it looks dodgy. If there is a trust fund for Wills and Harry, how could they know it will be worth at least 16m in 2022-24 when they turn 40?
As they are due to receive millions from Diana's estate and will in any case be well looked after by their father, why would the Queen Mother need to make provision for them?

Another question concerning any trust funds set up by the Queen Mother: as she was always short of cash due to vastly overspending her Civil List income, where did the seed capital come from?
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #420  
Old 03-11-2010, 05:22 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I also find it stange that the ones that will get the most anyway in the future would get more from her.

Traditionally it has been reported that the bulk of the estates go to the younger children and their descendents as the eldest will get the crown.

I have my doubts about the legitimacy of this account.
While it is often true that a larger proprtionof wealth is left to younger children, ie ones who will not inherit the crown, I can see the rationale for QEQM to leave larger shares for William and Harry as she does not want to see her wealth being divided too widely, and larger shares remaining "closer" to future monarchs. No doubt that Princess Margaret was provided for well during QEQMs lifetime, and it is likely that HM took the view that that should provide the bulk of the inheritance for the Linley children.
__________________

__________________
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
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 109 02-06-2014 05:00 AM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 64 07-27-2013 05:49 AM
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 03:35 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince laurent prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marie princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

RV & Travel Trailer Communities

Our RV & Travel Trailer sites encompasses virtually all types of Recreational Vehicles, from brand-specific to general RV communities.

» More about our RV Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 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]