£360k to Phillip!

[BarbieBunches]

He got paid £360k for wandering around the world being a racist!!! Fuck me they truly do milk the cow don’t they 😳.

Camilla is not going to be paid - how will she get by? 🙄

It is well researched that people become more conservative as they age!

The international benefits are not really there.

That's funny, in that it is completely the opposite to me!

Only just seen this... that's interesting. So once it goes up to a certain amount it can't go back down? Or is it the percentage that can't go down without their agreement? Not a figure as such?

So once it goes up to a certain amount it can't go back down?

Apparently that's correct, Iwantcakeeveryday, though in theory the "temporary uplift" for the palace repairs could be removed when they're completed - supposedly around 2027 I believe

Whether it actually will be removed is anyone's guess, though from the way the Treasury have tried to spin this latest detail I'm expecting more smoke and mirrors which amount to them keeping the lot

And still some would insist it doesn't matter bcause they only cost x pence a day and bring in much more in tourism than they cost

It better be going down! I have the date in my diary and I will be taking to the streets if it doesn't! They have promised it will but what does that mean

I have the date in my diary ...

I know you do, Roussette but best not to get your hopes up

This is one of those topics where I genuinely want to be wrong, but time will tell

It is obviously only a general thing, there will always be outliers in any trend. I have observed it happening to me in some areas of policy, although I am still at the liberal end of the spectrum.

Will you join me on the March? I have thought of a poster to hold (one I saw when I did another March!)

"I really could be at home drinking tea, but I have to be here!"

@Iwantcakeeveryday just found an excellent article for you (below) which deals quite comprehensively with the Sovereign Grant issue ... if you click on the "Golden Ratchet" live link it even takes the reader to the gov.uk records which deal with this

@Roussette best not take posters, unless - or even if - they're blank pieces of paper; remember what happened at the coronation!!
I'd be no good at a march with a leg full of metal, but will certainly be writing letters if the reduction doesn't materialise ... not that it would make the least bloody difference

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/how-tory-royal-funding-deal-gave-rise-to-king-charless-potential-cash-windfall

@Puzzledandpissedoff thanks very much for the link and explanations. You would think that the temporary uplift would be removed but... I wouldn't;t put it past them to find another reason they 'need' it.

I wouldn't put it past them to find another reason they 'need' it

Exactly, and what's worse is that so many are prepared to swallow the spin unquestioningly

They could muliply the payouts by ten - at this rate they soon will be, compared to what it was only recently - and still we'd be told what wonderful value it all is

Though I know it probably sounds that way it isn't even the actual £££ I care most about ... what I really object to is the deceit

Ok so again thanks for that link, so I see now in black and white on gov.uk that it is not really tied to crown estate profits or reflecting how well the economy was performing, as Osborne actually said at the time, here:

Normally the size of Sovereign Grant for a given year is equal to a prescribed proportion (initially 15% and since 2017/18 25%) of The Crown Estate’s profit for the financial year two years prior to the year in question. This means that the Grant can be set firmly at the beginning of each financial year, Under the requirements of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, in the event of a reduction in The Crown Estate’s profits in the reference year as in 2020- 21, the Sovereign Grant is set at the same level as the previous year.

and from the article:

If the crown estate profits dipped, the Treasury was legally required to top up the shortfall to ensure that, at a minimum, the monarch would be paid the same as the preceding year. This clause has kicked in twice, ensuring that in the two most recent rounds of public funding, the Treasury has topped up the amount of money being given to the monarchy with an extra £27m over the two years.

If they do not spend it all, they can keep it tucked away.

A pp tried to claim they were being generous by reducing the percentage they're taking, but since it was originally 15% even that's not really accurate or the full picture at least.

Honestly this is all so so disgusting.

@Puzzledandpissedoff yes the deceit, lack of transparency, the lies about what they would get and why this was a better way... they even said at the time it was so there wasn't a debate every year about whether each member was giving value for money. Who the fuck else gets to take public money and never have to answer that question?

Honestly this is all so so disgusting

Yes, many of the aspects are indeed disgusting, and the further it's looked into the worse it becomes - which may well explain why some prefer not to look at all and instead trot out tired old tropes about tourist income and x pence a year

Interestingly the "keeping what they don't spend" is also nothing new
It's a whole different conversation of course and all history now, but even the late Victoria is widely said to have bought Balmoral and Osborne House out of her Civil List savings, which lends a whole other aspect to them being regarded as private properties

which may well explain why some prefer not to look at all and instead trot out tired old tropes about tourist income and x pence a year

Yep. And 'we don't want President Blair or Johnson'
Yawn.

When anyone starts to feel sorry for them in their gilded cage here's a handly little map of all the Palaces and Estates they own, they can have as much privacy as they want!

They don't own Holyrood House for a start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holyrood_Palace

Access to then?

King Charles III spends one week in residence at Holyroodhouse at the beginning of summer, where he carries out a range of official engagements and ceremonies. The 16th-century historic apartments of Mary, Queen of Scots, and the State Apartments, used for official and state entertaining, are open to the public throughout the year, except when members of the royal family are in residence. The Queen's Gallery was built at the western entrance to the Palace of Holyroodhouse and opened in 2002 to exhibit works of art from the Royal Collection. The gardens of the palace are set within Holyrood Park.

One week!!!! 😮😮😮

I don't know what you mean.

My god I had forgotten about Victoria and Balmoral. I am going to try and keep calm.

What do you propose the RF do with Balmoral. This is what happens at the moment
https://www.balmoralcastle.com/

Sorry I should've explained. He uses it for one week, but there will be a whole retinue of staff there to enable his one week. I know the public gets access but I wonder how much and how often.

They are a possession of the 'Royal Collection Trust' of who the Chairman is ... yes.. Charles.

"The palace and grounds are an ancient possession of the Crown but whilst 26 Crown properties – including Linlithgow Palace, Stirling Castle, Edinburgh Castle and Holyrood Park – were transferred to Scottish Ministers in 1999, no such transfer took place for the palace, even though the palace is public property that has been managed by Historic Scotland and its predecessors since 1851. But a stealthy power grab seems to have been underway over the past 30 years with the Royal Collection Trust – a charity formed in 1987, whose chairman is the Prince of Wales – now employing the palace staff."

It's open throughout the year
https://www.rct.uk/visit/palace-of-holyroodhouse

Only just seen this... that's interesting. So once it goes up to a certain amount it can't go back down?

Not only does it not go down the set amount is underwritten regardless of Crown Estate profits.

The CE profits took a massive hit in lockdown like so many other businesses. Unlike those businesses however the royals collected their dosh regardless leaving the taxpayer to bridge the gap.