Angela Gibbins

[Diablo]

Nonsense -you told us that you were a scientist and they have their ties all over the place . .

Nonsense -you told us that you were a scientist and they have their ties all over the palace...corrected for you

 

[kevo]

Simply amazed that people will take anything they read in The Sun without questioning it. Even more amazed that people are then idiotic enough to post about it on the internet as if it's 'fact'.

(Same sort of people who voted for Leave, I guess.- believe all the crap in the tabloid press and then wake up to the fact that, oh, there won't be an extra £350m a week for the NHS after all and we are economically screwed. How strange, the Daily Express didn't tell me that...)

 

[crasher]

Out of interest, what "public" land do you believe the Crown Estate own ?

Hundreds of thousands of acres of forestry woods and farmland, huge tracts of central London, the seabed (not insignifcant as windfarms start to generate profits), Windsor Park etc etc.

 

[crasher]

With respect, I have posted a link which is fact. You have your opinion, with which I disagree, but what I have posted is fact.

As for your other comments, it's best I don't put on record what I think of them and your opinions.

It's an article from the Telegraph. It is, in my view, uncritical Royal spin. I appreciate we have a different view on this issue but you can't just call this 'fact'. To give just one small example, the Sovereign Grant, which is the sum that 56p figure is based on doesn't include an annual £400k grant to Prince Philip. And there are numerous other costs to the public that aren't included.

As a counterweight to the Telegraph spin, I offer this http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/royalexpenses.pdf

 

[crasher]

With the greatest respect I think you are a

Touched a nerve there I think

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Hundreds of thousands of acres of forestry woods and farmland, huge tracts of central London, the seabed (not insignifcant as windfarms start to generate profits), Windsor Park etc etc.

So no PUBLIC land then.

 

[BadFish]

Political correctness trying to stifle peoples opinions and stifle debate again.

 

[Hastings gull]

Simply amazed that people will take anything they read in The Sun without questioning it. Even more amazed that people are then idiotic enough to post about it on the internet as if it's 'fact'.

(Same sort of people who voted for Leave, I guess.- believe all the crap in the tabloid press and then wake up to the fact that, oh, there won't be an extra £350m a week for the NHS after all and we are economically screwed. How strange, the Daily Express didn't tell me that...)

First you talk about those who read the current bun, then move on and try to link it with those who voted leave, and then say it must have been because they believed that figure . .. Before talking about those "sort of people" I do feel you should look at yourself and why you feel it necessary to come out with such sweeping statements, tied together purely to satisfy your own bias.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

It's an article from the Telegraph. It is, in my view, uncritical Royal spin. I appreciate we have a different view on this issue but you can't just call this 'fact'. To give just one small example, the Sovereign Grant, which is the sum that 56p figure is based on doesn't include an annual £400k grant to Prince Philip. And there are numerous other costs to the public that aren't included.

As a counterweight to the Telegraph spin, I offer this http://republic.org.uk/sites/default/files/royalexpenses.pdf

Here is the official Treasury report dated 28th June 2016. All 83 pages of it. No spin, just facts.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...serve-annual-report-and-accounts-2015-to-2016

 

[KingKev]

So no PUBLIC land then.

No by definition none of it's "public" because it "belongs" to the Crown Estate, not to the state or government. Not the whole of Regent Street, not 4,000,000 sq feet in St James', not the 3rd largest portfolio of shopping centres in the UK, not Windsor Great Park, not the the sea bed, not the royal residences, not thousands of private residences nor thousands of hectares of arable and forestry land right across the UK......whether all of it SHOULD belong to what is in effect a trust fund for the benefit of one family in perpetuity is much more to the point, surely?
How did the CE come by all this land and property in the first place? Force of arms and / or treachery originally would be my guess, followed by hundreds of years of politicking to maintain it, ie to protect it as "crown" property as opposed to "state" property that could have passed back to the state at some point following the establishment of the primacy of parliament.....

Oh and then there's the Duchy of Cornwall that pays for Charles and his mob. A "private" estate created 600-plus years ago by some King to give his eldest son some income....? If some dictator in a 3rd world country did that today we'd all be screaming that it was corrupt and tantamount to stealing from the people...yet because our version is 6-700 years old we are supposed to celebrate that Liz and Chuck are willing to give some of the CE / Privy Purse "surplus" income back to the nation

There is a wholly separate Discussion here that both the CE and Duchy appear to have done a pretty decent job of maintaining their portfolios and enriched the nation in less tangible ways than cash in so doing (and kept some prime real estate out of the hand of foreign oligarchs and crooks)....but that's arguably and unintentional side benefit of them acting predominantly in the long term interests of our (German) royal family.

This is quite interesting on funding of the Queen, but is a bit kind re its analysis of tax payments and agreements I think:-
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00819/SN00819.pdf

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No by definition none of it's "public" because it "belongs" to the Crown Estate, not to the state or government. Not the whole of Regent Street, not 4,000,000 sq feet in St James', not the 3rd largest portfolio of shopping centres in the UK, not Windsor Great Park, not the the sea bed, not the royal residences, not thousands of private residences nor thousands of hectares of arable and forestry land right across the UK......whether all of it SHOULD belong to what is in effect a trust fund for the benefit of one family in perpetuity is much more to the point, surely?
How did the CE come by all this land and property in the first place? Force of arms and / or treachery originally would be my guess, followed by hundreds of years of politicking to maintain it, ie to protect it as "crown" property as opposed to "state" property that could have passed back to the state at some point following the establishment of the primacy of parliament.....

Oh and then there's the Duchy of Cornwall that pays for Charles and his mob. A "private" estate created 600-plus years ago by some King to give his eldest son some income....? If some dictator in a 3rd world country did that today we'd all be screaming that it was corrupt and tantamount to stealing from the people...yet because our version is 6-700 years old we are supposed to celebrate that Liz and Chuck are willing to give some of the CE / Privy Purse "surplus" income back to the nation

There is a wholly separate Discussion here that both the CE and Duchy appear to have done a pretty decent job of maintaining their portfolios and enriched the nation in less tangible ways than cash in so doing (and kept some prime real estate out of the hand of foreign oligarchs and crooks)....but that's arguably and unintentional side benefit of them acting predominantly in the long term interests of our (German) royal family.

This is quite interesting on funding of the Queen, but is a bit kind re its analysis of tax payments and agreements I think:-
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN00819/SN00819.pdf

Who was the last member of the Royal Family to be born in Germany? It always strikes me as a bizarre thing to throw as a sort of insult, that there has been German ancestry in their family. The Queen Mother, for example, was Scottish. Why not say our Jocko royal family?
'Being German' as an insult went out in 1945.

Btw lots of central London belong to the Duke of Westminster, not the royal family.

 

[beorhthelm]

Who was the last member of the Royal Family to be born in Germany?

that would be Albert. there's more Danish than German in the current royals.

 

[crasher]

Here is the official Treasury report dated 28th June 2016. All 83 pages of it. No spin, just facts.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...serve-annual-report-and-accounts-2015-to-2016

Yes, I get that that is the official accounts of the Sovereign Grant. The point is that the Sovereign Grant doesn't BEGIN to cover the true cost of the royal family.

Therefore the 56p figure is not a 'fact' it's a highly partial way of framing the cost of the Royals to make them seem more acceptable to the nation.

But even if the figure were right, it's irrelevant to me. I don't want to pay a single penny for the upkeep of these people.

 

[KingKev]

Who was the last member of the Royal Family to be born in Germany? It always strikes me as a bizarre thing to throw as a sort of insult, that there has been German ancestry in their family. The Queen Mother, for example, was Scottish. Why not say our Jocko royal family?
'Being German' as an insult went out in 1945.

Btw lots of central London belong to the Duke of Westminster, not the royal family.

Ok I'll give you the German crack, but just because the Duke of Westminster (nice bloke btw) owns more of central london than the CE it's not a mitigating factor....CE absolutely does own 100% of Regent Street and claims to own 50% of St James - check its website....