King Charles To Get A 45% Pay Rise

[BuxFizz]

“The review of the Royal funding settlement was heavily spun by the Treasury to give the impression that the King would be taking a pay cut so the Crown Estates funds could instead be spent on public services.

In fact, the report reveals the Monarchy is due to receive a huge pay increase.

In 2025, the King’s public funding will increase by a projected £38.5 million.

Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary and Whitehall’s most senior civil servant, who was involved in the official discussions accused the Treasury of seeking to obfuscate how the Monarchy was funded.

He said that linking the Royal finances to the profits of the Crown Estates was “silly” and motivated by a desire to promote the idea that the King was paying for himself and was reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

The complicated formula used to determine the Sovereign Grant was introduced in 2011 by then Prime Minister David Cameron, and his Chancellor George Osborne. Removing Parliament’s centuries old control over Royal funding. They created a new formula that tied the Monarch’s funding to a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estates.”

I’m surprised that this formula to calculate the Sovereign Grant was so recent, does anyone know how it was calculated before?

Also, the irony isn’t lost on me that this new formula was proposed by George Osborne, one the chief architects of Austerity.

King Charles Set To Receive A Huge Pay Rise From UK Taxpayers

Yes it is. You can see how confusing it is because @MillicentBystandr has written two different and conflicting things in her posts, one said he owns the assets, one copied and pasted from the website saying he doesn't.

It is deliberately ambiguous.

Nobody owns the crown estate in the way we all understand ownership to mean. Normally it would be a country that owns things like the foreshore and seabed but for some reason, this is 'crown estate' and not in public ownership. The monarch doesn't own it under the traditional sense and neither do we. It is managed and run by a separate independent group.

It should all belong to the country and protected from being sold. But if that were the case the royal family would have to make do with whatever we gave them. This way it looks like they are doing us a kindness.

Well, I didn’t make that statement so see no reason to prove it.

As for the statement I did make, it’s easy enough to look up the costs of various elected heads of state and make a comparison. The fact you’re asking me for “proof” of an established and commonly known fact simply tells me you are not well read on this subject and are perhaps repeating opinions said to you without actually researching the facts.

The monarch doesn't own it under the traditional sense and neither do we. It is managed and run by a separate independent group.

They’re not conflicting if you understand the difference between private property, public property and crown property. There’s more than two types of property ownership!

The monarch does own the crown estate, and the fact there is a corporation (that he owns) managing it doesn’t take away from this fact of legal ownership.

No, again, you do not understand it correctly at all. He does not own it, or the revenue.

The idea one family should 'own' the seabed is so outrageous I cannot believe people defend it.

Since 1964, the Crown Estate has laid claim to the UK’s entire continental shelf, reaching hundreds of kilometers into the sea, and with it the right to grant permissions to build offshore wind turbines, lay pipelines, and store carbon under the seabed.
For years, the seabed was a sideshow to the royal family’s sprawling terrestrial property empire. But over the past few years it’s leapt in value, as a result of the booming market for renewable energy.
The monarchy hasn’t always claimed ownership of the seabed. When oil and gas were discovered off Britain’s east coast, companies eager to start drilling demanded clarity on whose property, exactly, they were about to bore into.
To them, the assertion by then foreign secretary Herbert Morrison that it was res nullius—Latin for nobody’s property—sounded like a legal gray area. So in 1964 the government passed the Continental Shelf Act, effectively passing ownership of the UK seabed to the business managing the rest of the monarchy’s property portfolio from that point onward. “Everything in the marine environment, in the absence of anyone else owning it, belongs to the Crown Estate,” says Thomas Appleby, a lawyer and academic specializing in marine law at the University of the West of England in Bristol.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/britain-crown-estate-ocean-empire#:~:text=Since%201964%2C%20the%20Crown%20Estate,store%20carbon%20under%20the%20seabed.

Good, this shows the country can afford to pay doctors what they are worth.
Consultants pay has risen by 14% over the past 15 years in comparison to the rest of the population, on average 40%, other STEM professions over 80%.

Yes @Wishesa we have the assets and from them the revenue to easily pay doctors, nurses, teachers and other key workers what they are worth. But sadly, in 1964 it was simply passed to the crown estate so the royals could bag some of that cash and look generous when they refused some of the revenue of OUR resources that BELONG TO ALL OF US.

In the middle of a COL crisis.

What a absolute bunch of parasites.

Rude!
You can make as many sweeping statements as you like,not doesn't prove anything

He does. You are depending on sensational news articles to (mis)inform you.

And again, you are clearly misunderstanding the fact that the royal family doesn’t own the crown estate, only the monarch does and the monarch is King Charles III.

You can make up as many sweeping statements as you like and lie that I said them too. Doesn’t prove you’re any less rude than I.

You are being rude to continually say to people holding a different view they must be misinformed. You actually have contradicted yourself within a couple of posts, first claiming he owns the revenue when he doesn't and then copying from a website correctly stating he doesn't own the revenue.

The ownership issue is deliberately confusing, it isn't like private or corporate ownership or govt/public ownership because nobody can sell it and nobody owns the revenue. Its designed so he can take profits and look like it is profits from his own assets. As I said in my post, the fact governments simply pass ownership to the monarch shows how utterly wrong and immoral this is, especially when its of our entire seabed!

That should not happen and to me, its theft.

It is deliberately ambiguous

And there we have four words which sum the whole thing up perfectly

Nobody pretends that finance/property ownership at this level lends itself to calculations on a fag packet, but I'm not convinced it needs to be so complicated either, and nor should it be necessary - as happens constantly - for the RF to keep changing definitions to suit

Even the much-vaunted "Charles refuses a pay rise" is shrouded in the usual obfuscation, as seen in the already linked article explaining that his actual communications on the subject have been withheld - facilitated of course by his exemption from the FoI Act

As ever individual details may be arguable, but the overall picture which emerges on even the slightest enquiry is that of a complete stitch up enabled behind closed doors - and that doesn't work for me at all, whether it concerns the RF or anyone else

Parasites, the lot of them.

So agree. Even Norman Baker (ex Privy Council and Minister) who wrote the book "And what do you do..." covered a whole paragraph on the opacity of the royal finances. He has spent his life looking into it and is far far more informed than some random person on the internet who thinks they have all the answers. I would tend to go with what he thinks, given his position and knowledge.

So yes to this It is deliberately ambiguous

Damn. Covered a whole chapter that should say! Not paragraph!

The only sense in which Charlie ‘owns’ the crown estate is in right of the crown ie the representation of the state.
Not as Charles Windsor esq.
No Windsor grifter ‘firm’ = no Charles dipping his sticky fingers in the revenue

The old civil list ( no mention of crown there was there? You’d think the money was going was going to the civil service ) was a bit more transparent
Surprise surprise it was the Tories who changed it to Sovereign grant

There is a clause contained in it which guarantees that he money the Windsors take can never go down. Nice .

The greed of the Windsors is outrageous and the media ( with a few honourable exceptions ) are complicit with keeping the population generally ignorant
I see it all the time here- royalists repeating what MSM has fed them

I think Windsors only laid claim to the seabed in the 60s. Wily old Lizzie never said much but she certainly dedicated herself to stuffing the Windsor coffers and ensuring as much as possible was kept secret

I would tend to go with what thinks, given his position and knowledge

That's the point isn't it Roussette? I doubt even Norman Baker himself would deny he's biased, but that bias comes from a place of deep knowledge of, and experience in, what he's talking about

Best of all, he's very open about the source of most of his accounts, which isn't always the case with many authors ... small wonder that less enquiring supporters of the monarchy resist reading his work

We know that whatever happens, they aren't going anywhere. Not in our lifetime or our childrens' life times probably.

I think there should be changes. Before a lot of the population gets even more disgruntled. It will only grow, this feeling of 'what are we paying for'.

Slimming down means tiddly squat. We need more transparency! Wills should be published, why not if there's nothing to hide?

Only King and Queen and direct heir should be supported through the SG. The rest can go off and earn money like Zara and Mike Tindall manage to do successfully. The list of sponsorship deals they've got is enormous. They trade off their names, fine, at least they are supporting themselves.

And in that I'm including Anne and co, Ed/Sophie etc. Why does Ed need to live in a 51 acre 120 room estate? It's obscene. If he just has to stay there let him make some money from it. They can only live in about 10 of the rooms, what about the other 110?!

Anne owns Gatcombe Park (given to her by the Queen), put it to good use, make it pay for itself and provide an income for her.

Just wheel out King and Queen and W&K when needed. I'm sure the UK would survive without these endless royal visits by the extended family.

Sorry, my last post was in answer to @Novella4

Totally agree. Norman Baker is well read and iknowledgeable, I doubt anything put in his book is false. (It should be required reading for all those who are pro Monarchy. I doubt they will change their minds, but it might make them a little bit less rose coloured specs)

Sorry, my last post was in answer to Novella4**

Nothing to apologise for, Roussette; I realised that

Also thoroughly agree with your post at 12.56, perhaps with a tiny exception for "It will only grow, this feeling of 'what are we paying for'"
With Charles's naked greed that may well be, but he can only last so long, and W&K's image has been so carefully managed that I honestly believe they might turn it around in a country that's never had much taste for republicanism anyway

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting they'd actually be any different - only that, given Charles's tarnished image, they have to appear to be different, and sadly the curated appearance is what all too often seems to matter

I agree. But I suppose it depends on when they come to the throne. At best they will be still in their 50s and push all the glam buttons!
And have a young family, possibly in their teens appealing to all the flag waving royalists!
Yes, they only have to appear different.

Interestingly I listened to Tom Bower (a huge royalist, he was talking about Commonwealth Games, and host town pulling out whilst getting in a couple of side swipes about Meghan, she's the one to blame apparently)...
Anyway, he said both Charles and Camilla are tired. They don't want to do much. Their heart isn't really in it. They are just doing the bare minimum. Camilla's health isn't that great.
This was interesting to hear from a pro Monarchist. I wonder if people will get fed up with Charles even more than they are now, and that will give W&K an easy ride in.

There is a lot to come out about William .
Im leaving it at that.

It is a complex issue and the media and the ‘royals ‘ hand in hand have created a false fairytale narrative .

I would be happy enough if the only reform was no more public funds full stop.
They can live off all they’ve stolen so far.

The problem would solve itself quick smart - you wouldn’t see the Windsors for dust

I seem to have missed that Tom Bower bit, Roussette; am off out now for a couple of hours, but must look it up later ...

To watch it, you also have to endure Dan Wootton. I took one for the team there

As ever individual details may be arguable, but the overall picture which emerges on even the slightest enquiry is that of a complete stitch up enabled behind closed doors - and that doesn't work for me at all, whether it concerns the RF or anyone else

Totally agree with this @Puzzledandpissedoff