British Monarchy-Royal Finances 2014-Present

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

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

snokitty

I don't know why people always compare the royals to the President, different jobs entirely. If anything the President should be compared to the Prime Minister.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


Limabeany

"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.

Curryong

Monarchs are Heads of State in constitutional monarchies. As are Presidents in republics. That's why they're compared!

snokitty

Presidents run a country and so do Prime Ministers and that is why they should not be compared to a Monarch.   :shrug:
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


Limabeany

I agree @snokitty comparing a constitutional monarch to a president is like comparing a painting to a house.
"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.

DaisyMeRollin

Have to agree with Snowkitty, there's a difference between an elected official in executive power and not an official appointed by hereditary means. It's the only reason I've never seen the the distinction of monarchy versus presidency, thought a PM has been set in place as the the executive power in other nations.
"No one is dumb who is curious. The people who don't ask questions remain clueless throughout their lives." - Neil DeGrasse Tyson

cate1949

Quote from: snokitty on November 08, 2014, 03:03:53 AM
I don't know why people always compare the royals to the President, different jobs entirely. If anything the President should be compared to the Prime Minister.


Actually - the pres should be compared to both the PM and the Queen cause the US pres combines both roles - he is Head of State like the Queen and Head of the Executive Branch sort of like the PM.  I wonder what the cost of both the RF and the PM is combined ?  Of course - the US is also bigger - more security issues etc so comparisons would never be exact.

I wonder if just the Monarch and their consort were the only ones financed by the Gov - what difference would that make?  It seems expense is also related to supporting in some ways an entire family.

Limabeany

It is an entire extended family, but it is also the absurd expense of ribbon cutting royal duties for the entire family... That makes no sense.
"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

#58
Totally agree @snokitty.  Elected representatives have been elected fair and square.  Unlike the unelected bunch we have to call the "royal family".... :hmm:

As for the Tourism agrument. Considering they all decamp to their palaces during the busy Summer months.... I'm of the opinion that any celebrity could and would draw the crowds.  For a heck of a lot less money. 

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

cate1949

732 billion is the UK's total budget - if we accept the republican figures for cost of the monarchy - it is 500 million.
The UK spends more on interest payments than the monarchy - LOL - tell Osborne to stop borrowing money that will create some savings.

And of course right they are not elected but the still serve at the consent of the people - and like any politician or form of government - if the people are displeased - they can be made gone.

I think it is absurd to use tourism income as a support for monarchy - it is a trivial reason - and it just seems akin to the actors who play Disney characters at the Disney parks - not a reason to have a monarchy. 

If one supports monarchy then a more persuasive argument needs to be made  - I think there are more persuasive arguments  and I think some of the republican arguments are unconvincing.  But ultimately - in a democratic society - the only legitimate power is the consent of the people governed so as long as a majority of the British people give their consent - the monarchy is legitimate.  Unless of course you do not accept democracy.

snokitty

Democracy doesn't work anymore. No the people can not get rid of them because of the rules made up for them. It is the same way with trying to get rid of certain politicians.

That 500 million that you seem to think is nothing could help schools, hospitals, food banks, housing etc.. You know those little things that are more important for the survival of the people than the Monarchy is.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


Limabeany

#61
The Monarchy has no relevance to the survival of the people, they are simply fun to watch.
"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.

snokitty

Exactly and when they are gone we will be watching a different Circus act.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


snokitty

Andrew Spooner ‏@andrewspoooner

QuoteAccording to Republic the UK monarchy costs £300million a yr. That equals 12,000 families on the £25,000 welfare cap. http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/wortheverypenny.pdf ...
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


snokitty

Just how is the Royal Family funded?

QuoteThe question of how to fund the British Royal Family is a perennial muse for both republicans and monarchists alike. Some advocate a larger proportion of state funding while others encourage the Monarchy to become self sufficient in its funding.

One things for certain though, regardless of how the Monarchy is funded, there will always be people who – for one reason or another – oppose the status quo. But what is the status quo? It's well known that the funding for the Monarchy has never been straight forward, so just where does the money come from and more importantly, where does it go?

If you listen to the Republic campaign, they'll suggest to you that The Queen is personally paid through vast state funding worth a third of a billion pounds. This is of course nonsense, though. Not only is The Queen not paid a salary, but the real figure (as in the one that actually exists) is ten times less at around £36m a year.

Before 2011, the Monarchy was funded through a complex system consisting of three main sources: the civil list (funding most of the Monarchy's work); grants-in-aid (funding mostly travel) and parliamentary annuities (which The Queen would receive from the Treasury for funding other royals).

In 2010, it was announced that funding for the Monarchy would be rolled into one easier, more accountable system called the Sovereign Grant, and in 2011 the Sovereign Grant Act was passed. For the first time, it pegged the amount of The Queen's funding to the Crown Estates, a property portfolio owned by the Sovereign which since George III has been surrendered to the Treasury in exchange for dependable funding each year in return.

The funding for the Monarchy now goes like this... Each year, The Queen receives an amount from the Treasury that's equivalent to 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate 'two financial years' before. The key there is equivalent. The money doesn't come directly from the Crown Estate as is widely believed, but rather from the Treasury. This distinction is important because even if the Crown Estates were to generate no profit, the Treasury still has an obligation to fund the Monarchy under the Sovereign Grant act.

For 2014-15, the Sovereign Grant worked out as £37.9 million.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty