Queen Elizabeth murder plot foiled

NexusK said:
Yes they do. They get tens of millions per year from the sovereign support grant, we pay for the upkeep of palaces, the police foot the bill for their security etc etc. They're estimated to cost us about 300 million per year.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing mind you as i don't know how much money they bring to the country to balance that.
Click to expand...

It's not quite as simple as that. The sovereign owns the Crown Estate which is worth around £8.1bn. Each sovereign since the 1600s has an agreement with parliament whereby they give the revenues of the Crown Estate to the treasury in return for a small percentage back (around 15%) and not having to pay some costs of civil government.

The money returned is called the sovereign grant. It's important to realise that the fact the Crown Estate revenues go to the treasury isn't a permanent thing and needs to be renewed with each succession monarch. The Queen is essentially getting her own money back, not any tax money.
 
The Geezer said:
From Wiki:

The Queen received an annual £7.9 million a year from the Civil List between 2001 and 2012. The total income of the Royal Household from the Treasury was always significantly larger than the Civil List because it included additional income such as Grants-in-Aid from the Treasury and revenues from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster.[5] The total Royal Household income for the financial years 2011-12 and 2012-13 was £30m per annum, followed by a 14% cut in the following year.[6] However, the Treasury provided an additional £1m to pay for Diamond Jubilee celebrations in 2012.[7]
Click to expand...

The civil list no longer exists and has been replaced by the sovereign grant.

Oh and this:

 
Last edited:
this_is_gav said:
So what about the areas where there are no royal residences? There's only one within a 200 mile radius from me, and that's 100 miles away. How do they benefit me?
Click to expand...
Because they generate tax revenues that pay for everything in the same way the London financial sector and the Scottish oil industry do.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
The monarchy receives no tax payers money, in fact the Queen gives revenues from the crown estate to the treasury, so it's very much the opposite.
Click to expand...
It depends on if you personally think historic pre-democratic land grabs should be recognised or not as to if you believe she 'gives' anything.
 
this_is_gav said:
So what about the areas where there are no royal residences? There's only one within a 200 mile radius from me, and that's 100 miles away. How do they benefit me?
Click to expand...

In the same way that the taxes you pay are not just used locally for your benefit.
 
elmarko said:
It depends on if you personally think historic pre-democratic land grabs should be recognised or not as to if you believe she 'gives' anything.
Click to expand...

Property rights (And ownership rights) are universal rights, if you concede the crown (or monarchy) has no rights then neither does anyone else...anarchic statehood isn't my idea of stability.
 
And lets not forget the ambassador role they play fir the UK, which is worth mire than anything else. a given regardless who is in power. well respected through out the world and something that an elected person can not do anywhere near as well.

It is a great thing that they are trained from birth and last decades throughout many governments.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
The monarchy receives no tax payers money, in fact the Queen gives revenues from the crown estate to the treasury, so it's very much the opposite.
Click to expand...

Except of course it's not actually her money to give...

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our-business/faqs/#whoownsthecrownestate

It's quite sad that in this day where information is freely available to everyone that people don't actually research anything and just blindly repeat what they've been told and think it's true. :(

Same with the old 'Tourism' chestnut, do some actual research and you'll see the Royals unless it's a very specific occasion (Wedding, Jubilee) don't come anywhere near other tourist attractions, the Tower of London is the biggest 'Royal' attraction but rather ironically that was a Royal prison.. :cool: British Museum is the biggest tourist draw, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle which are effectively State Owned VIP Council Houses anyway (Not the Personal Property of the Queen) are pretty low on the lists.

And the actual Security Costs for the Royals are a closely guarded secret which are not disclosed, you can take an educated guess at the figure by comparing other Heads of State Security Costs, but without knowing the actual figures no-one can say with any conviction whether the Royals are 'value for money' or not.

Still wouldn't want to see any harm coming to them, they do have their own amusement factor. :D
 
doofer said:
Except of course it's not actually her money to give...

http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/our-business/faqs/#whoownsthecrownestate
Click to expand...

Your link quite clearly says the Crown is owned by the monarch. She ultimately has control on where the revenues go.

doofer said:
It's quite sad that in this day where information is freely available to everyone that people don't actually research anything and just blindly repeat what they've been told and think it's true. :(

Same with the old 'Tourism' chestnut, do some actual research and you'll see the Royals unless it's a very specific occasion (Wedding, Jubilee) don't come anywhere near other tourist attractions, the Tower of London is the biggest 'Royal' attraction but rather ironically that was a Royal prison.. :cool: British Museum is the biggest tourist draw, Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle which are effectively State Owned VIP Council Houses anyway (Not the Personal Property of the Queen) are pretty low on the lists.

And the actual Security Costs for the Royals are a closely guarded secret which are not disclosed, you can take an educated guess at the figure by comparing other Heads of State Security Costs, but without knowing the actual figures no-one can say with any conviction whether the Royals are 'value for money' or not.

Still wouldn't want to see any harm coming to them, they do have their own amusement factor. :D
Click to expand...

I would ask for a source, but I'm not sure you can quantify the value of the tourism. People come to the UK because they see the monarchy as a novelty. Would they visit the British Museum without the draw of the Queen? I don't think anyone knows that, but it's certainly a big part of brand UK. You don't need to go to a Royal Palace to see the Queen's insignia from Royal Mail post boxes, to telephone boxes to other bits of street furniture. That is a big draw for foreign tourists.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Your link quite clearly says the Crown is owned by the monarch. She ultimately has control on where the revenues go.
Click to expand...

It's ironic that he accused everyone of not researching but is guilty of this himself. The mechanism that gives the revenues of the crown to the State is part of an agreement In which the Monarchy receives a fixed sum in lieu of the revenues and the Government then assumes some of the Crown's responsibility. If that agreement is broken (it's restated by each new Monarch and Government) then the crown estates would essentially revert to their original state of being owned wholly by the Monarchy. Constitutional Monarchies such as ours rely significantly in the good will of the two state apparatus toward each other, the Monarchy and the Parliament .
 
Castiel said:
Property rights (And ownership rights) are universal rights, if you concede the crown (or monarchy) has no rights then neither does anyone else...anarchic statehood isn't my idea of stability.
Click to expand...
Not at all, just that property/land ownership before our democratic system was implemented should not be recognised.

To imply that we have to abandon all modern ownership rights because we reexamine historic claims is simply false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom