Queen Mum has made her move.... - Page 13

Venezia · ‎03-09-2010

@gertrudecloset - The Sovereign Grant is revenue accrued from the properties King George III voluntarily surrendered to the government.

The money paid out for upkeep of the properties comes from those hereditary revenues which the Royal Family would otherwise still retain, 100%.

As I said in the earliest post, the amount is calculated at 15% of total revenue, unless an additional amount is (temporarily) allowed during maintenance projects.

So...should the Royal Family have kept all of their sources of income or handed it over in exchange for 15% (essentially an annuity)?

That's my last word on the subject. If someone is really that interested, it's easy to research it, to get all the information. But blithely saying the taxpayer supports the British Royal Family, is wrong and biased.

Come the day the British public feels a change is needed, that will be up to them. And no one else.

Johnnyeager · ‎09-05-2014

That figure quoted (which I question) is "per tax payer", not "per person."

It's from a highly biased, pro-monarchy Vanity Fair article from a number of years past.

Sushismom · ‎03-09-2010

@Johnnyeager wrote:
That figure quoted (which I question) is "per tax payer", not "per person."

It's from a highly biased, pro-monarchy Vanity Fair article from a number of years past.

So how much do you think each tax payer pays? People who don't pay taxes really have nothing to say about it. Let's say the figure should be doubled. Or tripled. Or, even, quadrupled. Still not all that much, is it?

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@Sushismom wrote:
@Johnnyeager wrote:
That figure quoted (which I question) is "per tax payer", not "per person."

It's from a highly biased, pro-monarchy Vanity Fair article from a number of years past.
So how much do you think each tax payer pays? People who don't pay taxes really have nothing to say about it. Let's say the figure should be doubled. Or tripled. Or, even, quadrupled. Still not all that much, is it?

@Sushismom

And whether any taxpayer pays $6 or $60 or $600 ... if they don't think they are getting money's worth, do they get to pass on their contribution?

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

Something comes to mind after reading all the blurbs about Andrew all over the internet ....

Some are acting like this is a big action, taking away Andrews titles and HRH. So what? When both Diana and Fergie got divorced, they lost the HRH designations ... although they didn't do anything wrong. Just went through a divorce.

Harry and Meghan stepped back and moved to the U.S. Not exactly criminal IMO. Yet, they also lost the HRHs.

So how is this also being done for Andrew anything significant?

Yes, I know some will say "innocent until proven guilty", but since he couldn't wiggle out of this lawsuit, I say "where's there's smoke, there's fire".

DottieBlue · ‎03-11-2010

@LuvSoCal wrote:
@Cakers3Both you and Linmo are correct. My upbringing could not have been more different.

I was just expressing how hard it is for me to understand how anyone puts up with the abuse.

Often, girls and women put up with abuse because they have very low self esteem. They come from very dysfunctional families, have been abused most if not all of their life, and believe this is just the way life is for them.

Venezia · ‎03-09-2010

@Tinkrbl44 wrote:
And whether any taxpayer pays $6 or $60 or $600 ... if they don't think they are getting money's worth, do they get to pass on their contribution?

@Tinkrbl44 - Whatever any taxpayer pays here, if he doesn't think he's getting his money's worth, does he get to pass on his "contribution"?

Or if you don't like where your taxpayer dollars are being spent, do you get to pass? (I guess, if you don't mind risking jail, you could try.)

tansy · ‎01-02-2011

Maybe not so much now but the Royal family helps with bringing tourist money into Great Britain.

Highlands22 · ‎01-05-2022

@tansy wrote:
Maybe not so much now but the Royal family helps with bringing tourist money into Great Britain.

The Royal Family are very important to, and cherished by, many charities. When a celebrity sponsor shows up at a charity event, the contributions increase.

The serious money comes out to rub shoulders with whatever member of the royal family is in attendance to support or promote the charity.

Members of my family are involved in charities that have royal patronage, and are happy to have it. Were it not for royal support, some of these important charities would have to solicit more heavily from general public donations, and some would fail, leaving more people to rely on benefits.

Tinkrbl44 · ‎08-23-2010

@tansy wrote:
Maybe not so much now but the Royal family helps with bringing tourist money into Great Britain.

@tansy

It depends on the source ... some insist the royals make a difference with tourism, but since there's never NOT been royals, how do you calculate just how much, if any, they help with tourism?

Other sources say they don't help at all ... it's the palaces and other architecture that draw visitors. Which also means if the monarchy was abolished, the tourists would have more access to palaces ... now that is more likely to draw visitors.

I've been to England three times, and on none of those occasions did it ever cross my mind that I might see a royal. It really didn't matter at all, so I wonder if there's very much draw.