Subsidising the super rich Queen Elizabeth II

So I have been wanting to make a thread about this for some time to put the point across to ATS and our member here in the UK that our sovereign democracy is a sham and that our Royal family serve no purpose in a modern democracy.

The UK taxpayer currently subsidises the Royal Family to the tune of £76 million in 2017/18 up from £46 million she was expected to receive before the increase of 66%

how much does the UK taxpayer pay to the Royal Family

Now there is the arguement that the Royal Family provide loads of tourism income to the Uk etc , but why would we need to subsidise the royal family when the queen is the largest land owner on the planet with absolute ownership of all her land

Who owns the world

and going by similar land sales the total value of her astonishing 6600 million acres is worth around 33 trillion dollars

now tell me based on this alone , why the # are we paying anything to her and her family
when all she has to do is stick a few thousand solar panels down on any of her land and she will be making more back in the energy industry

there is no way on #ing earth we should pay a single penny to her ever again

now tell me that its still ok for us to throw our money away by supporting her

give me one reason why we should continue , when she owns 1/6th of the worlds most expensive and ultimately finite commodity LAND!

originally posted by: sapien82
Now there is the arguement that the Royal Family provide loads of tourism income to the Uk etc , but why would we need to subsidise the royal family when the queen is the largest land owner on the planet with absolute ownership of all her land

The amount the Queen is "paid" (the Sovereign Grant replaced the old Civil List a few years ago) is actually set as a percentage of income. All income from the Crown Estates (ie, all the land she owns) is paid to the Treasury, who then give her 15%.

So, two things. First, she creates a lot more income than just tourism. Second, she actually hands over 85% of the income from Crown Estates to the government.

Technically the land doesnt belong to her.. It belongs to the reigning monarch.

She cannot sell any land which falls under the crown estates or the duchy of lancaster although she does have her own private potfolio.
She also has no managerial control of entitled to any revenue from crown estates.

You should really do some research into the subject before expressing opinionated views with little substance.

The queen gets her allowance from the income derived from 'crown lands' which goes to the government, who then give her FIFTEEN PERCENT OF IT, the government keeps the rest.
Other payments are for state banquets and paying for staff to keep every thing running smoothly, the state banquets are usually
for visiting heads of state, who actually DO like the pomp and circumstance.= good relations=good trade=JOBS.
Jug ears (Charles) pays income tax on his income from the Duchy of Cornwall, most of which is in Devon ! his Duchy employs lots of people, wages paid by the Duchy's income. Google is your friend...

a reply to: sapien82

The figures in the article are nonsense.

They are assigning the entire of the UK and a good chunk of the commonwealth as owned by the queen

a reply to: Misterlondon

what about absolute land ownership ? technically it does belong to her

so the land is owned by the queen , the duchy of cornwall and duchy of lancaster
and the earl of sea forth in Scotland
parliamentary questions


I can express my opinions freely on here , sorry to disappoint you with my poorly researched thread, its obvious that its poorly researched I just wanted to have a discussion on it. You dont have to participate or even comment

@scepticScot , I didnt write the article

and it was more for just a discussion on the subject

those links were the the top google results , so I didnt pick them based on which newspaper or website
they were just plucked from the google results

a reply to: EvillerBob

and what is 15% income of all the land she owns , more than you or I can ever hope to earn in a lifetime
and probably more than what we pay her each year surely

Putting the money aside because people will argue the toss on that until the cows come home, and beyond!

The monarch does have a role in the UK government – in fact a critical role. Firstly, the monarch is Head of State but has no powers to make law as that is a function of Parliament. Some of the constitutional functions are important features in the running of an accountable democracy where a non-partisan and impartial function is necessary.

People who say the monarch is a poor choice need to consider the alternatives, which are often less than ideal.

Just to say that the view the monarch owns half the world is a fantasy. Any cursory understanding of law and life challenges these poorly developed arguments. The Queens owns Australia? I am sure the Australians would have something to say about that! If the OPs worldview is based around this, then think again.

a reply to: sapien82

It's not an easy question as to if the Queen actually owns all that crown land. She is but a figurehead in Canada, I don't think she derives any income from any of the land, it's just symbolic?

just to add that , I hastily put this thread together this morning over coffee and was rushed so I havent put the proper time and effort into it, I just wanted to have a discussion to find out more
from the more knowledgeable members on the subject

a reply to: paraphi

well this is one of the other points I like to discuss with the queen , why is a monarch involved in true democracy anyway
the last time this was a major issue in the UK we had to threaten the monarch with death to get the people some rights

why do we even involve the queen , tradition ?

as a person whose family ruled eternally over the isles , you think they are so reluctant to relinquish their control so easily
I think not.

My world view isnt based around it but why do so many news articles point to the queen being absolute land owner of all the land she claims as part of her realm , is it just all bull# , surely there must be some substance to it !

she needs all that land for her lizard egg nests hahah (a conspiracy joke)

originally posted by: sapien82
just to add that , I hastily put this thread together this morning over coffee and was rushed so I havent put the proper time and effort into it, I just wanted to have a discussion to find out more
from the more knowledgeable members on the subject

Nothing wrong with that at all. It's a good topic, thanks for bringing it up.

a reply to: sapien82

The Queen is a check in the system. She could conceivably step in and stop something like Brexit. The Monarchy has not done that in a long time. I converse with someone from the UK and they have explained it to me and he was ok with keeping them around and what he said made sense. I can't explain it near as well as they did, perhaps someone will be able to that doesn't just get mad at you for making the post lol. We're hear to learn, not mock posters for asking questions imho.

a reply to: sapien82

Sure, Liz leads a comfortable life - possibly a bit of an understatement - and doesn't really have to want for anything.
I suppose it might have its drawbacks - she can't exactly nip down the local for a swift half - but on balance she can't really grumble, and that applies even more so for her family.

And to be fair, they don't really cost taxpayers money.

Bear in mind that any type of Head of State would include a cost.
Various types of Head of State - en.wikipedia.org...

Morally I abhor the whole concept of Monarchy etc but there are far greater problems in this country that need urgent and radical reform so, given the alternatives, as long as they keep the noses out of governing this country I'm pretty much apathetic to them.

Yes, I know its Wikipedia but it is a well referenced article and it gives a great breakdown of The Royal Family's finances etc.
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: D8Tee

Yeh thanks for that! appreciated

Aye another of my points was ,that monarchs are meant to be beacons of light for their subjects and be benevolent
so if the queen does wish to invoke her right to block any parliamentary vote she can right
otherwise why is it written she can ?

Legally she cannot be stopped doing so , but defers to the better judgement of parliament
so if she is that nice , then why didnt she block cuts to the benefits for disability and such
to stop her subjects falling into poverty or better yet dying from being forced to work.

Also if someone who clearly has so much more wealth than all of us combined, why are we still paying her
it makes no sense what so ever.

originally posted by: sapien82
well this is one of the other points I like to discuss with the queen , why is a monarch involved in true democracy anyway

Ah, that old nugget. It's called history.

For the last 1,000 years the role of the monarch has evolved and changed. Over the last few hundred years especially, the monarch has been forced to accept the pre-eminence of Parliament and the law. Apart from a short blip after the English Civil war England (and later the UK) has been remarkably stable. No bloody revolution, dictatorships, fascism, communism, just evolution.

a reply to: paraphi

Aye well that is one of the problems , what about absolute land ownership , we dont even own the land we have mortgaged and paid off from the bank
its still the governments or ultimately the queen , or duchy depending where you live.

So yes Australians would be pretty pissed to find out that the absolute land owner is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor
same with Canadians , New Zealanders and Papa New Guineans

Id like to know more and find out if this is actually true if she is legally the land owner
pretty interesting if its true

a reply to: paraphi

For the last 1,000 years the role of the monarch has evolved and changed. Over the last few hundred years especially, the monarch has been forced to accept the pre-eminence of Parliament and the law.

And quite rightly so....and as long as it remains that way their life of privilege might continue.
I have my doubts if Charlie will be able to do that.....I guess we'll see.

Apart from a short blip after the English Civil war.....

What a complete sell out that was by Cromwell, revered in many quarters and despised by some.
He had a golden opportunity and betrayed so many who fought against The Royalists and then entered in to a campaign of religious genocide against the Irish.

England (and later the UK) has been remarkably stable. No bloody revolution, dictatorships, fascism, communism, just evolution.

Some of us would say TOO stable - a good dose of radicalism is maybe just what this country needs at present in order to kick start us out of the general state of malaise, apathy and ignorance that seems to be engulfing us.

But I guess none of that has any relevance to the topic under discussion - apologies to the OP.

a reply to: sapien82

there is no way on #ing earth we should pay a single penny to her ever again

Thats a truly frightening prospect, put more fluoride in the water immediately !!!