Queen to spend millions funding Prince Andrew's defence

[adrianmolesmole]

I seriously think this will damage her reputation.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-prince-andrew-epstein-millions-legal-case-b1931084.html

Whole family is a joke.

Yes Phillip Green is reviled. He's the equivalent of Robert Maxwell. Disgusting.

Nice tie in with the RFamily Andrew and Ghislaine there!

The story goes that David Beckham is desperate for a knighthood but he's been blocked because of the tax avoidance stuff.

I agree that it is not public knowledge how much money Prince Andrew has. It's just guesswork and my guess is that he isn't that well off.

Ha! Hope so on Beckham, serves him right.

As if Beckham and his ghastly wife weren't irritating enough already without being titled. And didn't he write a furious e-mail about it once that was leaked.

And the continued secrecy, again spuriously justified by royal "status" means it has taken us decades to join all the dots.

I disagree on the secrecy. As head of state, Queen should be under more scrutiny than a random rich or richer person. But fact is, more is published about her finances and wealth than anyone as rich or richer than her in the U.K. We know what her annual income is, where she owns property, that she had a £100m stamp collection, that she has a net zero 2030 goal for all her holdings. But what do we know about the richest man in U.K.? Would you even know his name if I hadn’t posted it earlier in this thread?

Weren't there some Beckham emails leaked where he called whoever decides these things 'cunts' for not yet bestowing a knighthood on him. Don't think that will have helped his chances a whole lot! Desperate idiot

ah, as mentioned by @Viviennemary

Did the Queen inherit the stamp collection from her grandfather?

Plan... we don't pay for the UK richest man! We are not spoonfed an endless diet in the MSM of the richest man's wife, children, family, clothes, glossy nonsense day in day out
V different

Haha on Beckham. Sweet justice

@ChurchofLatterDayPaints

Ok PdR but again, Beckham is not being funded by the taxpayer and we aren't told to call him HRH.

Not defending him in the slightest. They're all despicable imho.

Ok PdR but again, Beckham is not being funded by the taxpayer and we aren't told to call him HRH.

Beckham isn’t head of state. The only tax payer funding would be towards head of state, official government duties that U.K. would pay anyway whether an elected head of state or not.

Aristocratic titles and form of address are another thing entirely. Not defending them. They are like living history. Interesting but outdated.

[quote Roussette]@Shehasadiamondinthesky

So if you were the mother of the nameless man who has shocked the nation this week, you would have done anything to protect him?[/quote]
I don't think that's a fair comparison.
There is a difference between protecting a criminal and helping to pay for that person's defence.

I don't know if Wayne Couzens has a mother alive but if so then I feel very sorry for her.

@upinaballoon

No idea given the RF have the facility to seal their Wills. Unlike the general public
If we were able to see their Wills it would reveal a lot about their wealth

@StrychnineInTheSandwiches

Weren't there some Beckham emails leaked where he called whoever decides these things 'cunts' for not yet bestowing a knighthood on him. Don't think that will have helped his chances a whole lot! Desperate idiot

He was annoyed because Katherine Jenkins got a better gong than him so I read.

Fair enough. I misunderstood your 'would do anything to protect'

@Roussette
Plan... we don't pay for the UK richest man!

Well, personally I think we all end up paying for rich people to get or maintain their wealth. Because they all avoid taxes legally and illegally. They all engage in ethically questionable schemes and investments. They all perpetuate the status quo, or widen the inequality divide.

The Queen is no exception, mind you. I suppose I am cynical and think why target the Queen? When there are more than 250 richer living in U.K. ahead of her on the list that deserve as much, if not more scrutiny and ire. I think I feel because she is a public figure, she gets more than she objectively deserves.

Disagree all you like, on the secrecy, but the fact remains the RF earns millions while also raking them in from the SG and discloses.... Exactly what it feels like disclosing. And how to justify the absence of independent auditing?

I also CGAF who the richest man in the UK is: whoever he is, is another part of a far wider problem. I thought the problem on this thread was about the special rules that apply to the RF whether that's dodging legal service or dodging taxes, but nobody can explain those rules it seems, probably because the RF like them to be inexplicable.

I think this is always the problem with the Royal Family. They are public individuals, but they are also private individuals. There is the actual Royal Family, but there is also the institution of the Royal Family which has thousands of employees. They are living in the past but also living in the present. I genuinely don't know how they manage the balance.

I can understand how the Queen as a mother wants to support her son especially as he has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong, but as the Queen it's all incredibly difficult and embarrassing.

Plan!

Because we pay for her!
I cannot liken it to me buying goods from the richest man's shop.
I got something for the money I spent didn't I?!

It's beyond me to explain 'why target the Queen'

If my paragraph about the real cost of the royals is nearer the truth, obviously I will. They are funded by us.

I thought the problem on this thread was about the special rules that apply to the RF whether that's dodging legal service or dodging taxes

To be fair, we have derailed the thread. It’s really meant to be about the Queen paying for Prince Andrews defence solicitor and where she is getting the money from. She has enough of her own money to pay for it and the vast majority of the news media is saying she is “privately” paying so not using taxpayer funds.

No, again, we wouldn't need 345 million to pay for any old HoS and 6 other members of their family.

We pay that amount because Q has wangled it and Tories kissed her arse.

Q isn't being targeted anything like enough by the media, who instead fill our heads with Sparkly Dress woman to detract from the financial engineering going on behind palace doors. Privy Council. Why is it still "privy" in 2021? Do the RF secretly lust after a North Korean model of government, or are they just plain greedy?

Sorry for derailing but the royal carpet has a mountain in the middle, from the amount of stuff brushed under it.

Basically Q needs to give the nation proper answers, about her finances.

[quote PlanDeRaccordement]@Roussette
Sorry, the whining remark was uncalled for. I respect you have a different opinion. But here, in France we have elected head of state and its not any better than what you have, and in some ways it is much worse. I don’t see Macron committing to net zero carbon for his millions in assets like the Queen is. No, instead he is President of the Rich cutting taxes left and right for rich people, privatising anything he can, it’s a mess.[/quote]
And Nicolas Sarcozy and Jaques Chirac
www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/30/nicolas-sarkozy-guilty-illegally-financing-2012-election-campaign

No, the funds in question would never have been spent on public projects because of the laws regarding the sovereign grant and how it cannot be reduced. Laws that are hundreds of years old

The SG dates from 2012 so the laws surrounding it aren't 'hundreds of years old' .The revenue from the CE has fallen due to Covid and yes, the funds are legally hers but then again there's nothing to stop her voluntarily making up the shortfall from her own gargantuan wealth (greatly boosted with decade's worth of lavish tax breaks) and thus making them available for public spending.

Unfortunately the royals have form for being dragged kicking and screaming into making any sort of gesture that impacts their own wealth.

The Panama papers made that blindingly obvious

Ah yes. The papers that revealed the British monarch was salting away millions in offshore accounts and investing in the shining example of philanthropy that was Brighthouse.

The SG dates from 2012 so the laws surrounding it aren't 'hundreds of years old' .The revenue from the CE has fallen due to Covid and yes, the funds are legally hers but then again there's nothing to stop her voluntarily making up the shortfall from her own gargantuan wealth (greatly boosted with decade's worth of lavish tax breaks) and thus making them available for public spending

^^ This this this.

I said this here or on another thread and was shouted down about this.

What a heartwarming gesture it would be.