New series on the royals with Dimbleby

[MeNotMyselfAndI]

Anyone watching? Just watched Ep 2 on royal finances - it’s unbelievable. Greedy greedy fuckers! 🤬

https://www.royal.uk/gifts-23

Are these the only gifts that were received in 2023?

Ah, I understand, thank you! :)

In that case, you won’t have had the dubious pleasure of watching Nicolas Witchell!

Obsequious doesn’t even begin to describe him properly!

Can you expand further on this interesting point please DuchessDandelion?

I agree that the Duchies should be returned to the state.

But I am still a bit bamboozled by how the Sovereign Grant works in sync with the Crown Estate etc and what is private and what is public! And what goes to whom!

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/royal-finances

is fairly readable.

Though
”Private wealth and investment income owned by family members personally: money or assets that members of the royal family inherited through historic family wealth rather than by virtue of their role, and the income received from investing that.“

What inherited historic family wealth is not directly attributable to their role?

I assume inherited from non-royal aristocratic branches of the family or other people.

Many of the gorgeous tiaras and jewels in the monarch’s personal collection were left to the Queen Mother by a friend of hers who had no children and wanted her jewelry to go to someone who wouldn’t split the collection up.

www.thecourtjeweller.com/2022/08/the-greville-bequest-meet-dame-margaret-greville.html

Yes that does seem like a bequest completely unrelated to the Queen Mother’s position in the Royal family.

I know what you mean, but I was just making the distinction that I think the text you quoted was 'by virtue of their role' meaning specifically in relation to the money connected to the official role.

I'm not sure Mrs Grenville would have admired plain old Elizabeth Bowes Lyon as much as Queen Elizabeth. It was definitely her own ego imagining her collection 'worn by Queens' that prompted the bequest.

Couldn’t agree more! She certainly had the public fooled!

There was a much admired statue of Hercules in Kew Gardens. A few months ago KC decided he would like it for his private gardens. That’s where it is now.
Does he not have enough stuff already???

Well it was theirs to start with and was on loan !

But why take it? They have lots already.

Part of the Royal Collection. They have so so much and a statue that is in Kew gardens surely could have been left there for the benefit of the British public to see. It has been in Kew gardens since 1963. They are greedy and never have enough
I despair of them and their way of thinking

www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/monarchy/71444/curious-case-of-king-charles-and-the-statue

It had been on loan for 60 years! Its not theirs. It belongs to the Crown, so not their personal property. They are meant to be custodians. This is why they get away with so much. They demonstrate their abject greed and selfishness and people say ' Its theirs why shouldnt they have it?' Its not theirs. They have taken it for themselves. Just as they have with thousands of other pieces of art they have hoarded. It all belongs to the State but they treat it like their personal possessions. They couldnt give a damn about anyone in this country. Everything they do is done to keep their family on The Throne.

This story absolutely gives them away doesn't it. Imagine taking a statue seen by millions of people a year, leaving a public garden with the headache of replacing it at a time of great financial strain just because you can.

It's hard to think of more selfish behaviour.

Yes and what struck home with me is this....

The King is spoiled for choice when it comes to art. The vast Royal Collection, which is notorious for its unwillingness to lend works, boasts 7,000 paintings, 500,000 prints and 30,000 drawings and water colours. The King has personal access to more than 1,800 sculptures by European artists, recently celebrated in a four-volume catalogue. They include works by Benvenuto Cellini, Antonio Canova and Barbara Hepworth.

They are just greedy. Unbelievably so. It wasn't 'theirs to start with'. It doesn't quite work like that. When you have access to all as above, wouldn't you just think... hmmm, this might not go down too well, me removing that Statue that has been there for 60 years. I want to leave it for the people to carry on admiring it.

I have to say, the statue is just beautiful. Irreplaceable, totally irreplaceable.

Here is the article archived in case anyone has a problem with a paywall.

'For the few, not the many' sums it up.

archive.ph/RANRg#selection-1081.0-1089.59

@Restlesslimbs54

Im not surprised that you are bamboozled. That’s the plan. There is next to no transparency re the Windsors take from the taxpayer

The Crown estate does not belong to the Windsors and neither do the duchies . You will even see journalists and supposed ‘experts’ repeating the misapprehension that the duchies ‘belong ‘ to William and Charles .
They don’t .
There was a royal decree in the 1300s ( btw - why are we bowing the head some 1000 year old nonsense in 2025?) stating that the Duchies would provide income for the king and heir and this was then repealed 40 years later. You don’t hear the second part much do you?
But even in the 1300s they acknowledged that the land did not belong to the king.
It is held in ‘right of the crown’ ie if there is no Windsor head of state , there is no land for them to pretend to own. It all reverts to the state .

The Windsors now take over 50 milllion a year from the Duchies . No capital gains tax , no corporation tax, no inheritance tax . No questions asked when William refused to declare even the small piece of financial information that Charles offered .

There is a campaign to have this greed stopped and theDuchies clearly removed from the Windsors’ greedy paws. Simply roll it into the crown estate . Rename the whole the National estate for clarity’s sake .

Over 50million a year and the sovereign grant on top plus all security paid . No inheritance tax . No wonder these rip off merchants are now billionaires. They weren’t billionaires even a 100 years ago - and this wealth did not come from their own effort or skill. It is stolen .

Thanks @Ukisgaslit

It is said that William will be a two times billionaire when he inherits the throne.

A billionaire AND a slumlord who charges state services rent !

I used to think ‘when will people wake up ?’ I don’t think that any more . I know the majority want rid of the Windsors but we aren’t being given our voice

I think waverers are hanging on until William steps up. Imagining he will make a lot of changes. Yes he will strip a few titles here and there, don't care if he does that, but I actually think he will be a lot worse than Charles. Less accountability, more money, less work.
Just my opinion before royalists drag my arse over hot coals!

I’ve been saying the same about William for a long time

Why would he change ? He has done nothing to help his own sick father - why would he ever lift a finger to help the people.

In sure he’ll go on a rage filled rampage re ‘titles’ . So what. That doesn’t cost him .

He will be worse than Charles in every way . Lazier, greedier , colder .

They are just greedy. Unbelievably so. It wasn't 'theirs to start with'. It doesn't quite work like that. When you have access to all as above, wouldn't you just think... hmmm, this might not go down too well, me removing that Statue that has been there for 60 years. I want to leave it for the people to carry on admiring it

I honestly don't know how the statue came to be sourced in the first place, @BustingBaoBun, though doubt very much they paid for it

But no, I definitely wouldn't expect Charles to think about the public's enjoyment of it when it came to something he fancied for himself ... isn't it obvious by now that they consider whatever they want to be there for the taking?

Interesting article here about the ambiguous status of artworks gifted to the royals starting with a valuable book given to Philip on an official trip which has subsequently been on display as part of his private collection:

https://guardian.pressreader.com/article/281479280708530

Seems there was no official policy on gifts before 1993 and some valuable pieces given before then were simply absorbed into the Windsors private
collection.

This thread has a remarkable lack of Royalists! I wonder if even they cannot justify this complete avarice without resorting to 'President Blair would probably take statues from Kew Gardens too!'

This is so tone deaf when you consider the timing re Andrew and Edwards 'peppercorn rent'. Do they have no advisers or do they just not listen to them if they don't want to?

I honestly think they will listen to advisers and then carry on doing what they were going to do before they listened!

As for Royalists on this thread, I honestly don't think there is a lot of justification for quite a few actions by them at the moment. Delving into the 150acre ring of steel surrounding the forever home cutting off locals in Windsor Great park is another nail in the coffin I read an article in one of the glossy mags who always support them, and it really was quite critical. What family needs 150acre back garden?!