Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Queen's income frozen until 2015


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,992 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 04 December 2011 - 02:57 PM

www.telegraph.co.uk said:

The Queen is on course for six successive years of cuts for funding for the royal household, new figures show.

A tough financial deal is a result of replacing the civil list with the sovereign grant, under which her funding is linked to profits at the Crown Estate.The new formula, passed into law six weeks ago, also replaces taxpayer funding for royal travel and royal palaces.

Posted Image Read more...
  

I bet Her Majesty is not amused....

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#2    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,835 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 04 December 2011 - 09:27 PM

View Postquestionmark, on 04 December 2011 - 02:57 PM, said:

I bet Her Majesty is not amused....

i think she might well be, she owns a lot of coast line and generating a nice little income for the royal family from wind farms, so her private income inst doing to badly at 20 million per year. very nice.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#3    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,992 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 04 December 2011 - 10:16 PM

View Poststevewinn, on 04 December 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

i think she might well be, she owns a lot of coast line and generating a nice little income for the royal family from wind farms, so her private income inst doing to badly at 20 million per year. very nice.

Thats why Prince Phillip calls those wind farms useless?

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#4    Beckys_Mom

Beckys_Mom

    Sarcastic Muppet..!

  • Member
  • 51,196 posts
  • Joined:01 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Ireland

  • "I hate pretentious people. I mean, what is the point in applying exorbitantly extensive vocabulary, it is just straightforwardly unnecessary".

Posted 05 December 2011 - 11:03 AM

Poor woman, she may wind up in a council flat soon lol

Posted ImageRAW Berris... Dare you enter?

If there's a heaven...I hope to hell I get there !

#5    randym23

randym23

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 808 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2003

  • the question IS the answer

Posted 05 December 2011 - 12:15 PM

good. I have long considered the royal family to be superfluous. their only use is for the tourist trade. they are relics of a bygone time of kings and queens.
they should be weened of the state's tit and the money should be used for more crucial things.

and visit my site:
Posted Image

#6    WoIverine

WoIverine

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 6,721 posts
  • Joined:16 Sep 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 December 2011 - 02:17 PM

Good, the royal family has been useless for a very LONG time.


#7    skookum

skookum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,562 posts
  • Joined:28 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Sussex, UK

Posted 06 December 2011 - 07:39 AM

Actually contrary to a lot of tabloid and public belief the Queen is quite thrifty and has been for years.  I had a friend who worked in Buck Palace.  There was a rumour among staff that one of the Corgi's dog leads went missing.  She got wind of it as she often accompanied the staff on the walks.  Apparently her reply after being told was something on the lines of "well I suggest we all look for it, all these things cost money!"

Personally I like the idea of having a monarchy, it is nice for a country to keep it's history.  I rarely hear people asking for historic buildings to be torn down or have their state funding cut off.  I think Britain has given up or been forced to give to much of it's past already.  Quite a few Countries have ended up in rack and ruin since we were forced to dissolve the empire.

Posted Image

#8    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,835 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 06 December 2011 - 11:14 AM

View Postskookum, on 06 December 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

Actually contrary to a lot of tabloid and public belief the Queen is quite thrifty and has been for years.  I had a friend who worked in Buck Palace.  There was a rumour among staff that one of the Corgi's dog leads went missing.  She got wind of it as she often accompanied the staff on the walks.  Apparently her reply after being told was something on the lines of "well I suggest we all look for it, all these things cost money!"

Personally I like the idea of having a monarchy, it is nice for a country to keep it's history.  I rarely hear people asking for historic buildings to be torn down or have their state funding cut off.  I think Britain has given up or been forced to give to much of it's past already.  Quite a few Countries have ended up in rack and ruin since we were forced to dissolve the empire.

well said, there is nothing wrong with a bit of tradition. infact a love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril. and at £0.72p per year i think the royal family are well worth it. especially when it comes to trade. people forget the work done by the royal family towards trade. imagine you are the saudi king coming to sign oil deals who else is going to play the imperial march for the evil empire.



Edited by stevewinn, 06 December 2011 - 11:14 AM.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#9    TheLastLazyGun

TheLastLazyGun

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,144 posts
  • Joined:08 Apr 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The edge of the West Pennine Moors, Northern England

Posted 08 April 2012 - 05:39 PM

View Postskookum, on 06 December 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

Actually contrary to a lot of tabloid and public belief the Queen is quite thrifty and has been for years.  I had a friend who worked in Buck Palace.  There was a rumour among staff that one of the Corgi's dog leads went missing.  She got wind of it as she often accompanied the staff on the walks.  Apparently her reply after being told was something on the lines of "well I suggest we all look for it, all these things cost money!"

Personally I like the idea of having a monarchy, it is nice for a country to keep it's history.  I rarely hear people asking for historic buildings to be torn down or have their state funding cut off.  I think Britain has given up or been forced to give to much of it's past already.  Quite a few Countries have ended up in rack and ruin since we were forced to dissolve the empire.

I agree with you.  Elizabeth II isn't notorious for spending huge amounts of money, especially during bad economic times when she understands that some people in her country will be struggling to make ends meet. She hates to appear extravagant and to appear spending lavish amounts of money on luxury items during bad economic times.

The best example was her marriage to Prince Philip in 1947.  Despite then being a princess she still purchased the material for her wedding dress from ration coupons.

Edited by TheLastLazyGun, 08 April 2012 - 05:40 PM.


#10    and then

and then

    Abyssus Abyssum Invocat

  • Member
  • 14,163 posts
  • Joined:15 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Land's End

  • Because what came before never seems enough...

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:30 AM

View PostTheLastLazyGun, on 08 April 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

I agree with you.  Elizabeth II isn't notorious for spending huge amounts of money, especially during bad economic times when she understands that some people in her country will be struggling to make ends meet. She hates to appear extravagant and to appear spending lavish amounts of money on luxury items during bad economic times.

The best example was her marriage to Prince Philip in 1947. Despite then being a princess she still purchased the material for her wedding dress from ration coupons.


I didn't know that story.....that is leadership and character!

  We've cast the world, we've set the stage,
  for what could be, the darkest age...

#11    ealdwita

ealdwita

    Hwt oredmcg

  • Member
  • 4,964 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:astcentingas , England

  • Hige sceal e heardra, heorte e cenre, mod sceal e mare, e ure mgen lytla.

Posted 10 April 2012 - 02:46 PM

View PostSpid3rCyd3, on 05 December 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

Good, the royal family has been useless for a very LONG time.

Quite right! Now, who shall we choose as President to take her place....

Gaddafi? Mugabe? Pol Pot? Idi Amin? Tony, the(B)Liar? Saddam? Mao? There's oodles, past and present to choose from!

Posted Image

"Gæð a wyrd swa hio scel, ac gecnáwan þín gefá!": "Fate goes ever as she shall, but know thine enemy!".
I can teach you with a quip, if I've a mind; I can trick you into learning with a laugh; Oh, winnow all my folly and you'll find, A grain or two of truth among the chaff!
(The Yeoman of the Guard ~ Gilbert and Sullivan)

#12    Mr Right Wing

Mr Right Wing

    Poltergeist

  • Banned
  • 2,924 posts
  • Joined:16 Nov 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:01 PM

View Postrandym23, on 05 December 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

good. I have long considered the royal family to be superfluous. their only use is for the tourist trade. they are relics of a bygone time of kings and queens.
they should be weened of the state's tit and the money should be used for more crucial things.

The Queen holds executive power not Parliment.

Parliment needs to ask her permission for a general election, all new laws need signing off by her, she also signs off the budget, the armed forces take their orders from her not Parliment and she has retained the legal right to have people executed for treason.

In practice she just goes with the flow and has never used her executive powers as far as I'm aware. She holds more than a ceremonial-tourist role she is Britains checks and measures against dictatorship.

All systems of Government need a form of duality otherwise tyrants find it easy to come to power and the Queen is ours. She is far cheaper than having a President and Prime Minister so things should be left as there are.


#13    TSS

TSS

    Observer

  • Member
  • 5,703 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • The loud ones never last!

Posted 10 April 2012 - 03:57 PM

View PostMr Right Wing, on 10 April 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

The Queen holds executive power not Parliment.

Parliment needs to ask her permission for a general election, all new laws need signing off by her, she also signs off the budget, the armed forces take their orders from her not Parliment and she has retained the legal right to have people executed for treason.

In practice she just goes with the flow and has never used her executive powers as far as I'm aware. She holds more than a ceremonial-tourist role she is Britains checks and measures against dictatorship.

All systems of Government need a form of duality otherwise tyrants find it easy to come to power and the Queen is ours. She is far cheaper than having a President and Prime Minister so things should be left as there are.

What he said ^

"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science". ~ Edwin Powell Hubble




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users