thanks for the google hint - out of
interest what does it mean when it states - 'she can not receive remuneration
for public service' in part 2? it almost sounds
as if the bill at the time doesn't allow her to take on other jobs - but
she has?! Or does it just mean jobs paid by the State/Government?.
Tommy, that particular paragraph is a permanent fixture in all
Parliament Bill concerning apanages! I suppose it just means that
a recipient of civil list money is not allowed to receive payments from
other state establishments as it could provoke criticism! ! For the
sake of argument - let's suppose that the Foreign Ministry would
ask Alexandra to open a Danish Trade Fair in Hong Kong and pay a sum
for her services - that's out of the question!
I'm quite surprised the bill specifically
states that she will continue to receive the allowance if she
remarries (although she has to now pay VAT). Clearly when it
was written the bill set her up for life..
And that precisely is the core of the recent discussion! But again,
back in 2004 noone could tell how her situation would evolve! She
could have continued to live as a divorced single mother, in which
case she would need the money. And on the other hand, she could
have married a multimillionaire. If that were the case should she have maintained her allowance then?) I'm just asking
! That's why I think
that the Bill should have been open for a later revision in order to
deflate possible detractors!
As Duc-et-pair concluded: it was a poorly thought arrangement!
Viv