It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC Vs THE CROWN OF ENGLAND

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Lagrimas
 



I gotta say im not a fan of the bbc. Im also not a fan of the royals, They cost to much to keep. Wouldn't mind getting rid of both.


>Groan<

I seem to have to explain this every week...

The Royals cost nothing. Only the Queen and her consort get money from the Civil List, which historically, the Monarchy exchanged with the State for the entire Crown estate.

The Civil List costs around £40 a year and covers all expenses related to the Monarchy. The Crown Estate generate upwards of £400 million a year for the Treasury. Net result, the Royals don't cost a bean.



Hmmm? How much was that wedding again and who paid for it??




posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Some estimates place the cost of security at something between £10 and £20 million, but you have to remember that there were over 50 Heads of State present at the wedding, so the Government had a responsibility to ensure they were protected as well as the Royals.

The actual cost of the wedding itself was paid for by both families.

Not sure what you hoped to prove by bringing that up. It still dwarves in comparison to the revenue generated by the Crown Estate.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Mind you, the 'Crown Estate' is national property, not the Windsors own private cash cow.
You can't claim what was never yours to begin with.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by pazcat
 


You need to go and read about it then as you clearly do not know what it is. It is not "national property" and is most certainly the property of the Monarch.

The Crown Estate is made up of property owned by the Crown, but is managed by the Treasury through the Crown Estate Commissioners. The Monarch cannot sell the property without consent from the Government and nor do they receive the revenue. George III surendered the Crown Estate in return for the Civil list, which finances the Royals (only the Queen now, the rest of them have to fend for themselves)..

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 3/12/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
Nope, it still doesn't make it the Royals personal property to do with what they like, they own Crown estate in the same way Cameron owns 10 Downing street. There is a difference between property owned by the Windsors and Property owned by the Queen, once she steps down she forefeits the right to the Crown Estate.

Since 1689 parliament has had complete authority over who the Crown passes to and how its powers will be exercised. If the monarchy was to be abolished(Which it should) parliament would declare the land to the state.
Nothing would change except the state would concieveable earn more as they wouldn't have to prop up the Royals.

From next year %15 of profits made from the CE will be paid to the Royals. Civil List money is public money too.
www.bbc.co.uk...
edit on 4-12-2011 by pazcat because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Lagrimas
 



I gotta say im not a fan of the bbc. Im also not a fan of the royals, They cost to much to keep. Wouldn't mind getting rid of both.


>Groan<

I seem to have to explain this every week...

The Royals cost nothing. Only the Queen and her consort get money from the Civil List, which historically, the Monarchy exchanged with the State for the entire Crown estate.

The Civil List costs around £40 a year and covers all expenses related to the Monarchy. The Crown Estate generate upwards of £400 million a year for the Treasury. Net result, the Royals don't cost a bean.


What about all the property tax they don't pay?
If the land was owned by ordinary people, what would they pay in property taxes each year? Thats a lot of beans...



posted on Dec, 4 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Some estimates place the cost of security at something between £10 and £20 million, but you have to remember that there were over 50 Heads of State present at the wedding, so the Government had a responsibility to ensure they were protected as well as the Royals.

The actual cost of the wedding itself was paid for by both families.

Not sure what you hoped to prove by bringing that up. It still dwarves in comparison to the revenue generated by the Crown Estate.



What? They royals couldnt pay for security of there guests that they invited? hmm, guess taxpayer should foot the bill then.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join