BHRemovals Posted March 5, 2017 Share Posted March 5, 2017 you get what you deserve the French have great public services because the stand up and fight for them, the English wont even stand up for there own kids IE **** health services and **** education. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 I'm neither pro or anti Royal, but seeing how Prince Charles pretty much owns most of Devon and their income from that estate (without any taxpayers money going to them) is over £16million then perhaps they can start looking after themselves without our funds? Why not change the funding model massively. Either the state takes all their duchy from them as an asset and then we give them an allowance out of that and take on all maintenance of the 'Royal' properties as they would become state owned assets. We could then use those properties too for revenue generation for the country (imagine how much a Chinese businessman would pay to hire Buckingham Palace for a party!). Or we go the other way and let them keep all their duchy money but they get no state support whatsoever. Currently they seem to get the best of all things, both private income, top ups from the state and maintenance to their houses. If they weren't a royal then they are effectively - having a full time job - receiving housing benefit - living in a council house - getting jobseekers allowance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 7, 2017 Share Posted March 7, 2017 I'm neither pro or anti Royal, but seeing how Prince Charles pretty much owns most of Devon ... No. As Duke of Cornwall, he doesn't even own most of Cornwall! What he is is a tenant for life of the Duchy, just as HM The Queen- as monarch- is a tenant for life of the Crown. Put briefly, a 'tenant for life' is entitled only to income from the Trust's assets and has little right to dispose of them. That's how any Trust's legal framework is based, unless the Trust Deed says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 8, 2017 Share Posted March 8, 2017 No. As Duke of Cornwall, he doesn't even own most of Cornwall! What he is is a tenant for life of the Duchy, just as HM The Queen- as monarch- is a tenant for life of the Crown. Put briefly, a 'tenant for life' is entitled only to income from the Trust's assets and has little right to dispose of them. That's how any Trust's legal framework is based, unless the Trust Deed says otherwise. Plus Charlie boy has a Mum who is reasonably well off. In fact the "Royal" family have a decent amount of brass between them. "The British monarchy has a total net worth of £58.4bn (€74.1bn; $83.8bn), according to a report. " It's quite difficult to obtain the "Royals worth" as it varies wildly depending on who is asked. Suffice to say they will not have to hide behind the curtains when the rent man comes a calling. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Plus Charlie boy has a Mum who is reasonably well off. In fact the "Royal" family have a decent amount of brass between them. "The British monarchy has a total net worth of £58.4bn (€74.1bn; $83.8bn), according to a report. " It's quite difficult to obtain the "Royals worth" as it varies wildly depending on who is asked. Suffice to say they will not have to hide behind the curtains when the rent man comes a calling. Again: you seem not to understand the distinction between income and capital. In both the case of the Monarch and the case of the Duchy, the current postholder does NOT own the capital assets. As a tenant for life, she/he has the income only. When you mention "worth", you are referring to the capital assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Again: you seem not to understand the distinction between income and capital. In both the case of the Monarch and the case of the Duchy, the current postholder does NOT own the capital assets. As a tenant for life, she/he has the income only. When you mention "worth", you are referring to the capital assets. So either give them the full ownership of the 'assets' and remove all tax payer funding, or remove any 'tenant' rights, take everything into public ownership and fund the royals completely through taxation. This half of this and half of that dabbling just seems to overcomplicate things, make it hard to get repairs done and ends up with everyone squabbling over whether they cost us money or bring us money so let's simplify it. Why do we have the current arrangement anyway? Historical or did it fix a problem I've missed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 It's not 'half and half' of anything. It's merely a function of how Trusts operate. Both the Monarchy and the Duchy work that way and always have done. The fact that you yourself cannot understand it is scarcely a reason to change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 It's not 'half and half' of anything. It's merely a function of how Trusts operate. Both the Monarchy and the Duchy work that way and always have done. The fact that you yourself cannot understand it is scarcely a reason to change it. The same to you about the EU Jeffrey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 Again: you seem not to understand the distinction between income and capital. In both the case of the Monarch and the case of the Duchy, the current postholder does NOT own the capital assets. As a tenant for life, she/he has the income only. When you mention "worth", you are referring to the capital assets. You don't appear to understand to be frank. I posted on the ammount of BRASS and property the "Royals" OWN. We all know that the monarchy have castles aplenty that they have the use of, foc. That is entirely different to what "they" own, what they own amounts to anywhere between 40/80 billion, as I say, it all depends who you ask. Suffice to say the whole lot of them have more brass/property than they will ever need in this life. Angel1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted March 10, 2017 Share Posted March 10, 2017 You don't appear to understand to be frank. I posted on the ammount of BRASS and property the "Royals" OWN. We all know that the monarchy have castles aplenty that they have the use of, foc. That is entirely different to what "they" own, what they own amounts to anywhere between 40/80 billion, as I say, it all depends who you ask. Suffice to say the whole lot of them have more brass/property than they will ever need in this life. Angel1. They don't really own it though it any real sense of the word. They couldn't sell it, and are not involved in the management or administration of the vast vast majority of it. The Royal Family are still a wealthy family in their own right, (the Queen is estimated to have £340million) but absolutely nowhere near the £40/80 billion figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now