royal wedding

[nate895]

Where does the Royal Family get their money?

Their massive estate.

 

[dannno]

Their massive estate.

What does their massive estate produce? How did they get their money?

 

[raiha]

Britain's so-called royal family are key players in the Illuminati power-house. They are a bunch of inbred heredity despots, pathetic wasters who can't even dress themselves or wipe their own butts without the help of their "aids" and butlers.

To be sure...weak chinned, knock-kneed, scrofulous, balding, time-warped aristocrats...but didn't Kate look lovely.

 

[specialK]

Their massive estate.

Not entirely. I pay 1.53 per year as a citizen of the commonwealth which helps support the monarchy. Normally, that wouldn't bug me, but I am just returning from looking at a waterfront property. The realtor said we couldnt build on a strip of land near the beach because it had "been returned to Crown". (

 

[goldencane]

One has to wonder why British Royalty or the domestic governing class royalty is celebrated by the American media.

The same reason they give so much attention to celebrities. Thats all the royal family is nowadays.

 

[eproxy100]

That's actually statistically proven. While these events might cost a lot of money, all profit goes to the government except enough to defray the costs to the Royal Family. The monarchy makes billions of dollars in a normal year for the British Treasury, and this event is going to make them billions off of a few tens of millions in investment. All fiscal arguments for the abolition of the monarchy are, well, to put it bluntly, ignorant.

I find that hard to believe. When I went to the UK I didn't give a shit about the royal family. They're probably counting it such that they assume all tourists are there because of the monarchy. Plus they're probably counting "tourist" income originating from locals too.

 

[devil21]

What does their massive estate produce? How did they get their money?

Raping and pillaging. Mostly.

 

[Humanae Libertas]

The "Royal" British family must be the biggest leeches in the world.

 

[nate895]

I find that hard to believe. When I went to the UK I didn't give a shit about the royal family. They're probably counting it such that they assume all tourists are there because of the monarchy. Plus they're probably counting "tourist" income originating from locals too.

So you're saying you never went to the gift shop at Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, to various castles throughout the country? There are so many Royal properties throughout the British Isles that unless you specifically avoided them you probably went to one if you're a tourist.

Also, I think a lot of people assume that the Royals got their property from the fact their powerful. Really, it's the other way around. They were the larger landholders, and so they became more powerful. I say that as a general statement about European monarchies, not the House of Windsor in particular.

Not entirely. I pay 1.53 per year as a citizen of the commonwealth which helps support the monarchy. Normally, that wouldn't bug me, but I am just returning from looking at a waterfront property. The realtor said we couldnt build on a strip of land near the beach because it had "been returned to Crown". (

That's part of the "civil list," which is going to be abolished in a couple of years. Also, while they do take money from the government, I'm talking about their overall effect for the treasury. Overall, they put more money in than they take out.

 

[goldencane]

I find that hard to believe. When I went to the UK I didn't give a shit about the royal family. They're probably counting it such that they assume all tourists are there because of the monarchy. Plus they're probably counting "tourist" income originating from locals too.

I would believe it. When I went there, I went to Windsor, Buckingham Palace, Hampton Court Palace, the Tower of London, Kensington Palace, and I'm sure even more. The monarchy brings a lot of tourism in, at least into London. Take those places I mentioned away and you've got just about any other city in Western Europe. Tourism in London alone brings in about 15 bn pounds.

Here is monarch financials if anyone is interested: http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Overview.aspx

The Queen gets about 40m pounds a year. The big number however is the 7.3bn in publicly owned estates that the Royal Family uses in trust.

All of that being said, I am still philosophically opposed to the idea of massive welfare, and to one family none the less. In addition, I'm not a fan of the idea of a monarchy, even if they have no real power. However, If the family stopped getting money from the government and paid rent or something on their estate, I wouldn't have much of a problem with the monarchy. (As if it really matters to me though, not being from the UK)

 

[eproxy100]

So you're saying you never went to the gift shop at Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, to various castles throughout the country? There are so many Royal properties throughout the British Isles that unless you specifically avoided them you probably went to one if you're a tourist.

Also, I think a lot of people assume that the Royals got their property from the fact their powerful. Really, it's the other way around. They were the larger landholders, and so they became more powerful. I say that as a general statement about European monarchies, not the House of Windsor in particular.



That's part of the "civil list," which is going to be abolished in a couple of years. Also, while they do take money from the government, I'm talking about their overall effect for the treasury. Overall, they put more money in than they take out.

I went to some of those, yes. But if those were preserved as historical sites it would still be the same and the income wouldn't be due to the royal family. In other words, the royal family of now has nothing to do with it and these tourist visits shouldn't be attributed to them. How about posting the statistics which shows how much tourism income is made due to the royal family that you claimed to be true?

 

[kah13176]

Royal wedding = bread and circuses. Just a distraction. Another hit of soma. I wish it would just be done with and the media stop focusing on it.

 

[nate895]

I went to some of those, yes. But if those were preserved as historical sites it would still be the same and the income wouldn't be due to the royal family. In other words, the royal family of now has nothing to do with it and these tourist visits shouldn't be attributed to them. How about posting the statistics which shows how much tourism income is made due to the royal family that you claimed to be true?

There is a dispute about whether the Royal Family or the government owns these properties. I'd have to fall on the side of the Royal Family because of what I said in the second paragraph of my last post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

The Royal Family gets around 10,000,000 pounds from the civil list, and they give back around 200,000,000 pounds.

 

[eproxy100]

According to your source: "Although still belonging to the monarch and inherent with the accession of the throne, it is no longer the private property of the reigning monarch and cannot be sold by him/her, nor do the revenues from it belong to the monarch personally."

So that would mean it doesn't belong to them. The line is blurred because of the form of government they have. As for whether these properties rightfully belong to them, that's another whole massive issue that I'm not knowledgeable about.

I don't know where you're getting your figures from.

There is a dispute about whether the Royal Family or the government owns these properties. I'd have to fall on the side of the Royal Family because of what I said in the second paragraph of my last post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

The Royal Family gets around 10,000,000 pounds from the civil list, and they give back around 200,000,000 pounds.

 

[devil21]

The Queen gets about 40m pounds a year. The big number however is the 7.3bn in publicly owned estates that the Royal Family uses in trust.

Let's not forget Australia and Canada, among other territories that are quietly ruled by the Queen. Under a monarchy, for all intents and purposes the Royal Family owns every last inch of it. They obfuscate with stuff like "estates" and whatnot while ignoring that nations are literally under her control.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I anyone else didn't notice it - the prince glanced down at her tits for an extended period of time during the wedding and she was staring at him in the carage(sp?) for an extended period of time while he was ignoring her - did glance her for a sec and a half - very briefly.

Some wedding....

 

[Vessol]

I anyone else didn't notice it - the prince glanced down at her tits for an extended period of time during the wedding and she was staring at him in the carage(sp?) for an extended period of time while he was ignoring her - did glance her for a sec and a half - very briefly.

Some wedding....

Don't tell me that you wouldn't stare at your wife's tits or that you wouldn't take your attention away from her for a moment during the wedding.

Not that I've been married or anything, heh. It just seems a silly thing to go on about.

I just think its generally retarded, getting that excited about two people getting married. Good for them, can we please stop making it more important than the deaths of 300 people in the Southeast US?

 

[NYgs23]

I'm not an expert, but I have heard that the royals are net moneymakers for the government, so it's a waste of breath complaining about their cost.

It's a waste of breath complaining about them at all; they are entirely powerless. They could divorce themselves from the rest of the state and be self-sufficient with the properties they already have, and people who wanted to could honor the Queen as a ceremonial representation of the British nation. No more problem with that then with people who bow to the "m'lady" at the Renaissance Fair.

It's Parliament the spends all the money and imposes its laws on the people, not the modern royals. So so-called "republicans" who spend their time worrying about the Queen are straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

I say they should keep the Queen around for decoration and abolish Parliament.

 

[goldencane]

I'm not an expert, but I have heard that the royals are net moneymakers for the government, so it's a waste of breath complaining about their cost.

It's a waste of breath complaining about them at all; they are entirely powerless. They could divorce themselves from the rest of the state and be self-sufficient with the properties they already have, and people who wanted to could honor the Queen as a ceremonial representation of the British nation. No more problem with that then with people who bow to the "m'lady" at the Renaissance Fair.

It's Parliament the spends all the money and imposes its laws on the people, not the modern royals. So so-called "republicans" who spend their time worrying about the Queen are straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

I say they should keep the Queen around for decoration and abolish Parliament.

I think most people know they are net money makers. The problem most people have is the whole welfare thing and "better by birth" thing. And they really could not be self sufficient (at least with the same standard of living) on the properties they own. They only own very few actually. All the money making estates are publicly owned and they occupy them in trust.

The parliament is what limits the crown's control. Without it, who is going to keep the Queen from becoming more than just decoration?

 

[NYgs23]

I think most people know they are net money makers. The problem most people have is the whole welfare thing and "better by birth" thing. And they really could not be self sufficient (at least with the same standard of living) on the properties they own. They only own very few actually. All the money making estates are publicly owned and they occupy them in trust.

If they're net money makers, how are they on welfare?

It's seems petty to get agitated over "the better by birth thing," which is meaningless and which isn't what it's about anyway. They don't think the Queen is better than them personally; it's the role she inhabits as a symbol of the British nation.

I'd much rather people satiate their natural urge to revere something by honoring a powerless symbol and figurehead than by worshiping the absolute "democratic state," which has been much more destructive of liberty even then the old kings who actually had power.

I don't accept the principle of "public property." If the British state was liquidated tomorrow, those properties would probably end up going to the Queen as the current possessor, unless you can find some other individual with a better claim. So she would probably be quite self-sufficient, and people who wanted to honor her as a British symbol could continue to do so, and it would be as innocent as people honoring a bald eagle.

The parliament is what limits the crown's control. Without it, who is going to keep the Queen from becoming more than just decoration?

What limits Parliament's control, is what I'd like to know! In a fully voluntary society, she'd be legally equal to everyone else. And special status accruing to her would be purely a matter social custom and people choosing to honor her, much as, say, a bishop in a secular state.