Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

The Queen's income frozen until 2015

13 posts in this topic

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.

arrow3.gifRead more...

I bet Her Majesty is not amused....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Loaj4bXLrD4

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

s9399.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.