27 replies to this topic

[Hum]

FlintyV, on 30 July 2012 - 19:15, said:

I'd like to know how she's a waste of public money?

^ She collects money from the taxpayers, I believe.

Queen of England's income frozen until 2015

Queen Elizabeth II faces a freeze on her income through at least 2015 thanks to funding cuts for the royal household resulting from a recently passed law. Her income has already dropped in real terms since 2009 as she has joined the millions of others affected by the economic downturn.

The funding for the royal family has traditionally come from the civil list, a public fund controlled by the British Parliament. However, a law passed six weeks ago will replace the civil list with a single fund, the sovereign grant, in April 2013.

The sovereign grant will be 15 percent of the surplus money generated by the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is a “diverse property business valued at more than 7 billion,’’ according to its website. It owns properties that include Regent Street and Great Windsor Park as well as “almost all of the seabed around the UK.’’ The Queen’s income will depend on how well the Crown Estate portfolio performs in a given year.

http://today.msnbc.m...l/#.UBbp7KPNkYI

[Kami-]

Javik, on 30 July 2012 - 19:12, said:

I call her a waste of public money, and a relic of a bygone era that needs to go away.

If you're British, this statement could be interpreted incorrectly as treason (a crime which still holds the death penalty in the UK).

Also, I think you'll find your statement is bent on a misconception; the Queen isn't a waste of public funds, her presence alone helps facilitate an awful lot of income for the country.

[brianshapiro]

thekim, on 30 July 2012 - 18:41, said:

since the Olympic games opening "Ms. clinical". Absolute unemotional.

From the photos I've seen, she looked cranky rather than unemotional. I didn't like the games opening either, it was a silly and bizarre, even if well produced and well staged. So I can identify with the queen's reaction

[Calum]

Kami-, on 30 July 2012 - 20:09, said:

If you're British, this statement could be interpreted incorrectly as treason (a crime which still holds the death penalty in the UK).

A fact which reinforces the idea that the monarchy and some laws related to it are outdated.

Kami-, on 30 July 2012 - 20:09, said:

Also, I think you'll find your statement is bent on a misconception; the Queen isn't a waste of public funds, her presence alone helps facilitate an awful lot of income for the country.

I think you'll find your statement may be bent on a misconception The following video explains how abolishing the monarchy could lead to more income for the UK, through tourism:

Tom, on 30 July 2012 - 19:10, said:

[. . .] Oh and although I'm not a huge fan of the Queen, I cannot turn my head to the studies showing that she brings tons more money to Britain because of tourism compared to the amount of tax money that she actually uses.

The video I've embedded above explains how the UK could end up gaining more income, through tourism, if the monarchy was abolished. Perhaps the studies you've seen/read are incorrect? I don't know, but the video above sounds plausible.

[n_K]

In typical Scottish style, I have no respect for her nor do I see her as the queen and I do not have a name for her nor would I ever need one because I wouldn't talk about her anyway.

[brianshapiro]

Calum, on 30 July 2012 - 20:15, said:

I think you'll find your statement may be bent on misconception The following video explains how abolishing the monarchy could lead to more income for the UK, through tourism:

Which would all involve confiscating the property that is currently owned by the royal family. And it also doesn't even mention the fact they also invite huge tourism at events like coronations, weddings, etc. Btw, who pays for maintenance of the property?

Not that you shouldn't abolish the monarchy, I just find that the video is kind of skirting the real issues, not addressing the heart of the matter.

[Calum]

brianshapiro, on 30 July 2012 - 20:26, said:

Which would all involve confiscating the property that is currently owned by the royal family. And it also doesn't even mention the fact they also invite huge tourism at events like coronations, weddings, etc. Btw, who pays for maintenance of the property?

Not that you shouldn't abolish the monarchy, I just find that the video is kind of skirting the real issues, not addressing the heart of the matter.

Thanks for the points. I'll keep them in mind. It could well be that the video does that. I'm still not sure what to believe after seeing the video and after hearing about studies which have suggested otherwise.

I don't like the monarchy as an institution, but I'm not (yet) passionately for it being abolished. I'm always curious as to whether anyone can prove for sure that we will gain less income without it, though

I'm not sure who pays for the maintenance of the property. I'll have to find that out. It could well be us taxpayers, though.

[FlintyV]

Calum, on 30 July 2012 - 20:37, said:

Thanks for the points. I'll keep them in mind. It could well be that the video does that. I'm still not sure what to believe after seeing the video and after hearing about studies which have suggested otherwise.

I don't like the monarchy as an institution, but I'm not (yet) passionately for it being abolished. I'm always curious as to whether anyone can prove for sure that we will gain less income without it, though

I'm not sure who pays for the maintenance of the property. I'll have to find that out. It could well be us taxpayers, though.

They receive grants from the Gov. to pay for maintenance on various properties.

[Calum]

FlintyV, on 30 July 2012 - 20:43, said:

They receive grants from the Gov. to pay for maintenance on various properties.

Thanks for the information

[brianshapiro]

Calum, on 30 July 2012 - 20:37, said:

I don't like the monarchy as an institution, but I'm not (yet) passionately for it being abolished. I'm always curious as to whether anyone can prove for sure that we will gain less income without it, though

Well it just seems to me the real issue is not the money arguments -- since it shouldn't be decided on which way makes more profit -- but whether the property should be confiscated and made public, or the royal family kept as the conservators of the property, and as a part of Britains' historical institutions.

I'm an outsider so I can't argue that, of course. I have talked with some Swedish friends and they've basically given me the impression that in Sweden the monarchy isn't as controversial in Britain and they basically just see it as ceremonial and a somewhat of a celebration of Sweden's history.

[FlintyV]

Calum, on 30 July 2012 - 20:45, said:

Thanks for the information

No problem

Property Services aid for 2010 - 11.9 million and 2011 - 15.4 million which is granted after The Queen surrenders the income from the Crowns Estate to the Government which amounted to £210 million.

Document - http://www.royal.gov.../66252_Text.pdf

I'm not sure how much of an impact it would have if the property was confiscated considering the profit is given to the Government already?

[+exotoxic]

Kami-, on 30 July 2012 - 20:09, said:

If you're British, this statement could be interpreted incorrectly as treason (a crime which still holds the death penalty in the UK).

This is not true.

[z0phi3l]

Not having the Queen would seem to me to be a huge negative, tourists go to see all the pomp and ceremony that is involved with her, just wouldn't be the same if say The Changing of the Guard was done for tourists only, but as an event but also as security for the Queen it just adds to the value, at least to this Colonial