Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

£102 million of taxpayers money

85 replies

Why2why · 30/06/2022 10:49

Spent on the Royals last year.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/record-100m-taxpayer-payout-royal-27360820.amp

OP posts:
Q2C4 · 02/07/2022 12:30

PaperDoves · 30/06/2022 15:40

I'm not a royalist by any stretch of the imagination, but the misinformation about "taxpayer money" really irks me. The royals are supported by the sovereign grant, which is generally 15% of the annual income from the Crown Estate. These are properties owned by the Crown that generate income. The remaining 85% of profits goes to the treasury. Currently the sovereign grant has been increased to 25% to cover the additional cost of restoring Buckingham Palace.

This is not taxpayer money. You did not pay into that pot. I did not pay into that pot. The Crown Estates pay more into the treasury than they take out.

Well said. You so rarely see this explained in the media, it's very frustrating.

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 12:35

ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/02/15/ronan-cormacain-queens-consent-and-the-crowns-exemption-from-lockdown-rules-are-we-all-in-this-together/amp/

This link may have been prompted by a response to the lockdown which applied to we mere subjects but it is much more wide ranging .

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 12:35

Really this is just another bash The Queen done by a newspaper to sell the papers, so they can sell advertising space for money. So will they stop? Will they stopping having a go at Harry , no because it is making the media money, there are whole pages of YouTube's who make money off the this subject. Gossip and lies just because the whole family ARE worth money as a brand.

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 12:37

@Q2C4
Unfortunately it has not been correctly explained to you .

The question of 'ownership ' of crown estates is not as straightforward as they would like you to think.
Unfortunately other costs have not been listed . Security and transport spring to mind. And these costs cover every hanger on too

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 12:38

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 12:35

Really this is just another bash The Queen done by a newspaper to sell the papers, so they can sell advertising space for money. So will they stop? Will they stopping having a go at Harry , no because it is making the media money, there are whole pages of YouTube's who make money off the this subject. Gossip and lies just because the whole family ARE worth money as a brand.

What are you in about Bollinger?

The link was NOT to a newspaper but to a constitutional law site

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 12:39

HMRC.....
Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs .
Used to support her subjects.
After all it does pay out to the unemployed and those in need.

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 12:42

The OP posted the link to the Mirror. A newspaper. Who make money from printing articles about people.

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 12:45

..is this a joke ??

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 12:47

Ignore the mirror if you want .
The guardian have been carefully uncovering royal efforts to influence elected politicians.

You need to read that law link .

If you think the queen is supporting the unemployed you are seriously deluded

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 12:48

The income tax we all pay amounts to 200 billion a year.

Q2C4 · 02/07/2022 12:52

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 12:37

@Q2C4
Unfortunately it has not been correctly explained to you .

The question of 'ownership ' of crown estates is not as straightforward as they would like you to think.
Unfortunately other costs have not been listed . Security and transport spring to mind. And these costs cover every hanger on too

This is my understanding - which part is not correct? "Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the Treasury,[5] thus relieving him of the responsibility of paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil List.
By tradition, each subsequent monarch agreed to this arrangement upon his or her accession. But since 1 April 2012, under the terms of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 (SSG), the Civil List was abolished and the monarch has been provided with a stable source of revenue indexed to a percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net income (currently set at 25%).[18] This was intended to provide a long-term solution and remove the politically sensitive issue of Parliament having to debate the Civil List allowance every ten years. Subsequently, the Sovereign Grant Act allows for all future monarchs to simply extend these provisions for their reigns by Order in Council.[3] The act does not imply any legal change in the nature of the estate's ownership, but is simply a benchmark by which the sovereign grant is set as a grant by Parliament."

MajorCarolDanvers · 02/07/2022 12:56

Most on renovating Buck Palace which would happen whether they were there or not. Historic building and all that.

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 12:57

The UK isn't the worse place to live, our Government who collect and pay out taxes in the name of the Queen, do support those in need, may people on Mumsnet receive payments from these funds, use the NHS services .
Look at what has happened in the lifetime of Our Queen our lives are better than our Grand parents.

bloodyunicorns · 02/07/2022 13:00

£1.29 per person. And the royals bring in billions. 🤷‍♂️

There are lots of reasons to get rid of them, but finance is not one, imo.

Novella4 · 02/07/2022 13:00

@Bollindger
I really don't think you are making a clear point here .

You are talking about the work of government .

Just because they slap 'HM' in front doesn't mean she has anything to do with this.
I can't believe I'm having to write that .

antelopevalley · 02/07/2022 13:02

MajorCarolDanvers · 02/07/2022 12:56

Most on renovating Buck Palace which would happen whether they were there or not. Historic building and all that.

Except the building itself could be used to bring in an income. The public only has access to a tiny part. And we would not have paid to put a swimming pool in. I am also pretty sure it would have had fire alarms and procedures so any fire could have been more quickly brought under control.

Serenster · 02/07/2022 13:12

Security and transport spring to mind. And these costs cover every hanger on too

Security and transport costs would apply to every head of state and their immediate family, no matter whether elected or in the form of a monarch. And each time you change the elected head of state you still have to protect the incumbent, generally until death. So they become your hangers-on. So those costs are neutral.

MaulPerton · 02/07/2022 13:12

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 12:57

The UK isn't the worse place to live, our Government who collect and pay out taxes in the name of the Queen, do support those in need, may people on Mumsnet receive payments from these funds, use the NHS services .
Look at what has happened in the lifetime of Our Queen our lives are better than our Grand parents.

Great comment that explains the main issue. A reasonable quality of life for as many people as possible should be the only metric. If royals help with that, isn't that all that matters?

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 13:19

The HMRC is working for the Queen.
She appoints the Person voted for by the common man, who becomes PM.
The Prime Minister . Meaning her 1st Minister, who appoints a Chancellor of the Exchequer who uses the monies collected in the name of the Crown, for the benefit of the country.
Take a look at some money in your pocket, it bears the Queen because the Crown used to guarantee it's value in person.

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 13:32

Also I think it is funny people are going on about our crown, when people who have held power like the Blair's , Kinnocks and Milibands and Thatchers have amassed Millions and Millions in their bank accounts, yet do they give anything back. NO. can't say I would have wanted 3 days off to celebrate Tony Blair....

MaulPerton · 02/07/2022 14:25

Bollindger · 02/07/2022 13:32

Also I think it is funny people are going on about our crown, when people who have held power like the Blair's , Kinnocks and Milibands and Thatchers have amassed Millions and Millions in their bank accounts, yet do they give anything back. NO. can't say I would have wanted 3 days off to celebrate Tony Blair....

Another good point, although I think that we view the people you mention as having amassed their money ‘meritocratically’, which makes it easier to stomach, perhaps actually, scrap that. This may be a false dichotomy, though, as this lot are equally adept at troughing from the taxpayer.

CathyorClaire · 02/07/2022 18:28

The Budget includes the profit from the Crown Estates. So yes they did pay for it.

Anything paid by them into the common pot will have been dwarfed by the many decade's worth of tax breaks they've benefited from and still do. That's before we get on to their not paying for the policing and security costs for their family party.

The DCMS estimated the full financial impact factoring in the additional bank holiday at -£2.39billion:

www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/platinum-jubilee-how-much-is-it-costing-us-all-324866/

CathyorClaire · 02/07/2022 18:35

And the royals bring in billions

Can you provide evidence for this?

Serenster · 02/07/2022 19:00

CathyorClaire · 02/07/2022 18:35

And the royals bring in billions

Can you provide evidence for this?

An obvious place to start would be the platinum jubilee - an event that obviously would not have taken place without a royal family.

There was much prediction across the board that it would bring a big boost to the economy - here’s the Guardian’s article estimating a £6th boost. You’ll have to wait to see how the GDP figures look for the period when they are released to see for sure. But the impact assessment the government undertook when it recommended the additional bank holiday this year looked at the net positive economic impacts of the past two jubilees, and determined a similar impact was likely here.

www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/02/queens-jubilee-expected-to-give-6bn-boost-to-uk-retail-and-hospitalit

Viviennemary · 02/07/2022 19:04

Its wrong. People should not be forced to contribute to the upkeep of this family of billionaires. We are supposed to be a democracy.

Swipe left for the next trending thread