British Monarchy-Royal Finances 2014-Present

Started by Orchid, May 09, 2014, 11:27:41 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

PrincessOfPeace

Quote from: Limabeany on June 27, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 01:11:18 PM
That's William and Catherine taken care for ow, the next big expenditure will be for Harry. Either an apartment at KP or maybe BP.
Wishful thinking and Harry has nothing to do with the matter at hand as it is quite doubtful he will receive 6M pounds to decorate and repair his future home, 4.5M from HM and 1.5M from Charles) William and Catherine were in no need to have the Queen spend 4.5M on a house they were not going to live in for the foreseeable future and for a future role they would not be assuming in the foreseeable future at this time on a whim of William, other truly urgent repairs could have been performed if they were not even planning to live there, that space was used as storage for an office and could have remained so until they finally decided they could lower themselves to the status of working royals...

If you have such an issue with how the Queen spends the Sovereign Grant than why not focus on her?

Limabeany

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 03:49:21 PM
If he did his homework he would show his work... but he can't because his numbers are pure flight of fantasy. Smith doesn't provide sources because he doesn't have any.
The Queen's people don't provide full details because they don't want people to know any if they had nothing to hide they would be more detailed...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

SophieChloe

Quote from: Limabeany on June 27, 2014, 04:11:01 PM
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 03:49:21 PM
If he did his homework he would show his work... but he can't because his numbers are pure flight of fantasy. Smith doesn't provide sources because he doesn't have any.
The Queen's people don't provide full details because they don't want people to know any if they had nothing to hide they would be more detailed...
Exactly!  Million here, million there....
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

PrincessOfPeace

The exact details were published two days ago. Have a look at the threads regarding Charles and the Queen.

SophieChloe

I have looked - the fine detail is not there. Exactly how they want it to be. 
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

PrincessOfPeace

The fine detail is there and it will get even more granular after the Queen's people give evidence before Parliament.

SophieChloe

No it won't.  Never does.  It will be smugded over as per. 

Where is the fine detail into monies spent on William's home?  That what I want to see.  I'd love to read how they managed to spend north of £4M. 
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Limabeany

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 04:19:17 PM
The exact details were published two days ago. Have a look at the threads regarding Charles and the Queen.
You know very well there are no exact details and if you don't, you should definitely read it before you continue to say there are...
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

SophieChloe

Spending money like there is no tomorrow :

QuoteRepublic @RepublicStaff  ·  Jun 26

Charles spent £16,000 on a train trip from London to Stoke. That's an annual salary for a lot of people in the real world #royalfinances

QuoteThe Telegraph

Prince of Wales's attendance at Nelson Mandela's funeral cost...

Prince of Wales's trip to South Africa for the state funeral of Nelson Mandela was taken on a private jet and cost £246,160, new figures show

Acceptable? 
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

georgiana996

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 01:11:18 PM
That's William and Catherine taken care for ow, the next big expenditure will be for Harry. Either an apartment at KP or maybe BP.
Oh yes lets talk about this ^  and that will be refurbished and renovated for him and his whole fam :P will he be given a free pass ?
Surround yourself with people who are going to lift you higher.

PrincessOfPeace

QuoteCharles's principal private secretary William Nye conceded that his boss would have to look carefully at how much he could continue to fund the activities of the three younger royals in addition to his and Camilla's duties if the balance of work changed.

That may come to a head if William decides in September to quit his job as an RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot and become a fulltime working royal. "Whatever the Duke of Cambridge's plans, the Prince of Wales would have to look carefully at how he continues to fund the official activities of the staff and support for the five senior members of the Royal Family whom he is paying for," said Mr Nye.

At the moment, Buckingham Palace receives the bulk of £36 million in taxpayer funding for the Royal Family but Charles pays for much of the work involving himself, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry, who are increasingly becoming the focus of the future of the monarchy.
Prince Charles paid £1m a year to support Prince William and Harry in official duties | Royal | News | Daily Express

Limabeany

Quote
Prince Charles paid £1m a year to support Prince William and Harry in official duties | Royal | News | Daily Express

The three younger royals' income for their official duties is supplemented by taxpayers' money in the Sovereign Grant used to fund their travel by train and air and the refurbishment of their new apartment and offices at Kensington Palace. The apartment refurbishment has cost £1.1 million after six months of a year-long project. Aides will not say how much the office refurbishment costs.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

cate1949

I am opposed to extravagance on the part of the monarchy - but there are legit expenses and since the Queen is HoS it is necessary for her to project the wealth and power of the UK - yup - I said it - wealth and power.    It is not just public perception - it is international - and it is a necessary feature of the life of the state (or crown in the UK).  That is the reason HM appears in all those jewels - she is demonstrating the wealth and power of the UK. 

That gives benefits that are not always so easy to measure - but there are benefits.  This is why I very much doubt that elimination of the monarchy would result in any great savings - and if it did result in any great savings - I would not count on that being dedicated towards the poor the homeless schools etc.  All of the paraphernalia surrounding the monarchy would still be on display - to demonstrate wealth and power.  Why do you think Cameron brings heads of state of small commonwealth countries to trooping the color - to impress.  Of course - all of that paraphernalia will have little meaning without the monarch - but it would still go on. 

I do not have a problem with preserving historic buildings - they are part of a nation's heritage and it is important to preserve that.  Of course - one should not place buildings above people.  But a nation as rich as the UK should be able to do both - value her heritage and value her people.  My concern is about transparency and competence - tell us the whole story - what needed repairing and why.  Don't have that info dribble out with explanations coming not from the palace officials but from the tabloids.

I just discovered that our Governor's mansion has two kitchens also - one is a catering kitchen for large receptions etc the other is the family kitchen.  That makes sense to me now - and I am guessing that is the situation in Apt 1A - but it would have helped if they had explained that from the very beginning.

I also do not need so much detail - how much they spend on stamps or office supplies is not our concern - we need not micromanage their budget.  But certain amounts should be broken down - if travel is a high number - explain that.

It seems to me that PC's use of elaborate and expensive transportation while Harry travels on cheap flights is a function of generational attitudes.  PC is used to the old ways - Harry is not from a generation that had the privileges and luxuries that the RF had in the past.  PC needs to get with the times!

I have seen pics of the offices at BP - nothing very fancy IMHO. 




Graceanne

Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:35:01 PM
The royal household is openly abusing public money | Left Foot Forward

Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:39:16 PM
http://t.co/4qYbaX6KqU

How much is the Queen costing us? Don't be fooled by the headline figures - Fleet Street Fox - Mirror Online

These are excellent articles for this thread. It has always been a pet peeve of mine that people use the 'it only costs each person a mere 56p per year' as a justification for the cost of the monarchy. In 2012, a report came out in the US that stated the cost of President Obama and his family was 1.4 billion. Many in the UK point to that and talk about having a monarch being a bargain over having a president. But if we follow the UK rule of dividing the cost over every citizen(currently 317,000,000 in the US), then the actual cost of President Obama and his family is $4.42 per person/per year. Looking at it that way, it is 20 times cheaper to have an elected president than a hereditary head of state. Before anyone gets upset, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to break down government costs per the number of citizens rather than focusing on the actual cost itself. I don't find 1.4 billion an acceptable amount for any president, no matter what the amount breaks down too. And I feel the same way about the monarchy. The article that estimates the cost to be closer to 300 million is far more accurate, in my opinion, than the official claim of less than 40 million plus security.



Limabeany

Quote from: cinrit on June 28, 2014, 12:09:51 PM
QuoteWhen Home Secretary Theresa May ordered a review into the Royal Family's security two years ago, no one had any idea just how far reaching it would be.  Now, however, it has emerged that the Metropolitan Police has refused to continue footing all of the £128 million bill.

Buried away in the Monarch's annual report is the disclosure that the Queen has agreed to pay for some of her own protection costs.

Four police officers guarding Kensington Palace, home to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, and St James's Palace, made way for lower-paid security guards last year, it can be revealed. 

Officers protecting the Royal Mews, where the Royal Family's travel arrangements are made, will soon be replaced, too.

More: SEBASTIAN SHAKESPEARE: Queen must pay her own security bill | Mail Online

Cindy
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

SophieChloe

Quote from: Graceanne on June 28, 2014, 11:04:03 AM
Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:35:01 PM
The royal household is openly abusing public money | Left Foot Forward

Quote from: SophieChloe on June 27, 2014, 03:39:16 PM
http://t.co/4qYbaX6KqU

How much is the Queen costing us? Don't be fooled by the headline figures - Fleet Street Fox - Mirror Online

These are excellent articles for this thread. It has always been a pet peeve of mine that people use the 'it only costs each person a mere 56p per year' as a justification for the cost of the monarchy. In 2012, a report came out in the US that stated the cost of President Obama and his family was 1.4 billion. Many in the UK point to that and talk about having a monarch being a bargain over having a president. But if we follow the UK rule of dividing the cost over every citizen(currently 317,000,000 in the US), then the actual cost of President Obama and his family is $4.42 per person/per year. Looking at it that way, it is 20 times cheaper to have an elected president than a hereditary head of state. Before anyone gets upset, I'm just pointing out how ridiculous it is to break down government costs per the number of citizens rather than focusing on the actual cost itself. I don't find 1.4 billion an acceptable amount for any president, no matter what the amount breaks down too. And I feel the same way about the monarchy. The article that estimates the cost to be closer to 300 million is far more accurate, in my opinion, than the official claim of less than 40 million plus security.



Thanks, Graceanne.  However, I've notice the lack of explanation for the ridiculous amounts being spent.  :

Challenging Royal Finances: A Place To Discuss The Costs of Monarchy

Challenging Royal Finances: A Place To Discuss The Costs of Monarchy

:shrug:
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Orchid

#41
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 04:00:05 PM
-Graham Smith on the other hand just pulls numbers out of thin air to feed his own ideology.

Can you substantiate that claim, PrincessofPeace?

Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on June 27, 2014, 04:00:05 PMThe royal family's accounts are open to public scrutiny.

Are they?  I pose this question based on the fact that the royals' accounts are internally generated rather than by an independent/external body and what's more the accounts are not inclusive of all costs associated with their duties.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

cate1949

security costs are another reason why a slimmed down royal family is necessary.  Providing security for all of them simply costs too much. 

I think though that 128 mil for all the royal places and the RF is lower than I expected and lower than some estimates.  Reality is though - they must be given security - if something happened - the costs would be far greater both financially and in a psychological way.

Orchid

Pressure group, Republic, have published their review of the costs of a monarchy - available in this pdf: http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/wortheverypenny.pdf

£299.4 million is their calculated/estimated costs.  The very fact that an organisation needs to *estimate* costs of a public body due to lack of total transparency is in itself an interesting and vital point for debate.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

cate1949

well - things are truly getting interesting and the republicans may find an opening for their agenda - Ed M wants a written constitution now - in the wake of all the changes that it seems will be forthcoming after the Scots vote.

This means major debate - likely to end the established Church and certainly promote at least a discussion about monarchy.

Curryong

I don't think that Ed Miliband is exactly flavour of the month in Britain, considering the Scottish referendum and how his own position was called into question when panic arose in Westminster in the wake of that rogue YouGov poll. I really don't think Ed is in a position to be demanding anything, quite frankly.

Also, at the moment people have had enough of argument, conflict, turmoil, projected change. Let things settle for a bit. I certainly don't see any fervent yearning for republicanism coming out of the wash-up to all this.

cate1949

I see that but it cannot be avoided - the scots want the promises made to them kept - Cameron is already facing a revolt - some of his ministers have already come out and said they won't support it without other concessions - and Labor is saying their support requires some commitment to a written constitution -

I think despite egg throwing and other isolated incidents - this was conducted well - it brought a lot of issues out into public discussion and that is good - so hopefully any further discussions will be positive and good for a democratic society.


Orchid

I very much agree with your sentiment regarding the benefit of open discussion, cate1949.  Whether a referendum on a given issue is won or not (as the case has been with Scotland), the process invited people to think about the manifold socio-political make-up of their country which can only ever be positive for the growth and development of a society.

Quote from: Curryong on September 20, 2014, 03:31:16 AM
Also, at the moment people have had enough of argument, conflict, turmoil, projected change. Let things settle for a bit. I certainly don't see any fervent yearning for republicanism coming out of the wash-up to all this.

There has always been debate, conflict and projected change in all aspects of politics and culture, so I'm not convinced that the Scottish referendum has given people a general distaste or need to rest from debate and projected change.

I do however agree that the Scottish referendum and Westminsters' emerging demands haven't given rise to any "fervent yearning for republicansim". I think that would have been a most unexpected symptom of the fight for independence.
"Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things."
-Winston Churchil

SophieChloe

QuoteThe estimated annual cost of the monarchy is £299.4m, around nine times the official figure
published by the royal household

http://t.co/yQEK43l1t4
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

cate1949

of course that is a lot - but try having a US president - that amount looks like chicken feed compared to the billions spent on  presidential and family and they do not have all kinds of fancy palaces - just the White House and Camp David.  We need to audit those pres costs - LOL

Obviously - it is the security which costs the US so much - they take their own cars everywhere they go using military transports - I do not think the Queen does that.

This is why the RF/Government  should be honest about these expenses - if you keep it secret - that makes people even more suspicious and resentful - be up front about it - explain what it is spent on - not every stamp of course - but broad categories - how much is security? how much is local constabularies?  what is the rest spent on?