Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

Queen to get bailout


Recommended Posts

My first reaction was that this is just so wrong. Then, on reflection, what difference is a few more million going to make in the scheme of the big giveaway

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8766073/The-Queen-bailout-taxpayer-land-property-investments-plummeted.html

The Queen will receive a bailout from the taxpayer after her land and property investments plummeted in value due to the coronavirus crisis.

The Treasury said last night that it will top up the Sovereign Grant to help maintain her income, which is severely threatened by the pandemic.

The monarch's income is based on a 25 per cent share of the profits of the Crown Estate, which owns valuable land in London and elsewhere. Last week, the estate announced its profits would fall 'significantly' this year as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Someone who owns 6.6bn acres of land and is a billionaire through birth should never get a bailout. People got up in arms about Branson but this is beyond outrageous. That said, it's yet another n

Any head of state who oversees the transformation of the country that we have seen and continue to see is illegitimate.  

My main problem with the Queen now is that she has overseen the replacement of her people, and done nothing to stop it. When she took the crown, the UK was a 95%+ white British country (albeit wi

Posted Images

Problem is, we would end up with someone like Steptoe or Macaroon as El Presidente or Trump.

Either way half the country would not be happy, in that respect the Royal circus is neutral as there is no political squabbling over or voting involved plus it keeps the press and tourists entertained.

President = Republic = Bananas

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

Problem is, we would end up with someone like Steptoe or Macaroon as El Presidente or Trump.

Either way half the country would not be happy, in that respect the Royal circus is neutral as there is no political squabbling over or voting involved plus it keeps the press and tourists entertained.

President = Republic = Bananas

Indeed. I am a republican, always have been since I was old enough to think. BUT.....

As I always say, principles are one thing, President For Life Call Me Tony is another.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Melchett said:

Indeed. I am a republican, always have been since I was old enough to think. BUT.....

As I always say, principles are one thing, President For Life Call Me Tony is another.

Yes, depending upon your politics the best argument for a constitutional monarchy is either going to be:

President Blair,

or

President Thatcher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Melchett said:

Indeed. I am a republican, always have been since I was old enough to think. BUT.....

As I always say, principles are one thing, President For Life Call Me Tony is another.

This x 1000. 

Happy to get rid of the Royals but getting rid of the current political system is many times more important.

Humans are weak, corrupt and self-interested. If the system isn't designed deliberately to prevent them being cunts, then they will be. The current political system in the UK welcomes and encourages the worst people possible.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Yes, depending upon your politics the best argument for a constitutional monarchy is either going to be:

President Blair,

or

President Thatcher.

Or perhaps just adopt anarchy. We are all responsible for the well-being and growth of society.  Mind, the actions of the majority through the Covid debarcle suggests that there are not many who could actually look after themselves whilst doing others no harm.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, spunko said:

Someone who owns 6.6bn acres of land and is a billionaire through birth should never get a bailout. People got up in arms about Branson but this is beyond outrageous.

That said, it's yet another nail in the monarchy coffin so I am not too outraged. Prince Harry has helped a lot too for us Republicans.

I hope everyone remembers this generosity when 'average pensioners' find out that their lifetime investments aren't paying out enough to cover their costs any more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I found interesting about the article was less the bailout to the Queen and more what it flagged up about property values and rental income particularly in London.

For example 

But the report also pointed out that the profit level was due to fall. Crown Estate chief executive Dan Labbad wrote: 'Many of our real estate markets were already facing long-term structural challenges, which have now been accelerated as a result of Covid-19... We do expect our net revenue profit and property valuations to be significantly down.'

The Sovereign Grant is really about the running costs of the monarchy as an institution not the Queen’s private wealth. You don’t really need to get rid of the monarchy to reduce those costs just cut its overheads. If you replace the monarch with a President but keep a lot of the Ruritanian trimmings like the French then I expect it can wind up just as expensive.

Edited by Virgil Caine
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an increase in the Sovereign Grant, which put another way, basically means Her Majesty is being allowed to keep a little bit more of her own money, which since the reign of George III, has been confiscated from her family by Parliament.

It's a bit like the council taking your house from your ancestors, renting it out and then giving you back a bit of the money. Only times have been hard so they're giving you back a little bit more, but they still own the house that they took from your x8 great grandpa in the 18th century.

Edited by Austin Allegro
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Austin Allegro said:

It is an increase in the Sovereign Grant, which put another way, basically means Her Majesty is being allowed to keep a little bit more of her own money, which since the reign of George III, has been confiscated from her family by Parliament.

It's a bit like the council taking your house from you, renting it out and then giving you back a bit of the money. Only times have been hard so they're giving you back a little bit more, but they still own the house that they took from your ancestor in the 18th century.

What was interesting about the 18th century is a lot of the Whig aristocracy was better off than the monarch and often lived in grander houses. Buckingham Palace was originally built as Buckingham House in 1701 for a Duke not the Crown.

Edited by Virgil Caine
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems wrong on most any measure.

Benefiting from all the increases in asset values through all the money printing and national debt etc over the years and now some more debt and money printing to protect the income.

It seems to be win win win win win win ......

Presumably there is evidence that the income has actually gone down because of Covid - rather than just being "threatened" with going down.

Are houses any cheaper for young people wanting to buy or rent them.

 

Edited by twocents
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, onlyme said:

Biggest financial blowup in living history, not a peep, just the usual weekly meetings with Mervyn, no doubt their finances were looked after as a result.

Inflation robs the poor, the rich like the Royals own real things - land, businesses, gold, foreign currencies that hold value. When they started printing from 2008, it was really a robbery dressed up as a way of keeping people in their jobs. 

They're about to up the ante and ream everybody even more, Covid is the excuse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, onlyme said:

Biggest financial blowup in living history, not a peep, just the usual weekly meetings with Mervyn, no doubt their finances were looked after as a result.

I don't really give a shit about that, there are things infinitely more important than money and economics

This English Martyrs Catholic Primary School class has 31 different languages spoken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Boglet said:

I don't really give a shit about that, there are things infinitely more important than money and economics

 

That as well, but if you head state in a country where the native population have got to below replacement rate largely thanks not being able to afford settle down and have kids then you are a rank failure in not noticing it / mentioning it / questioning the incumbent parliamentarians about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, onlyme said:

That as well, but if you head state in a country where the native population have got to below replacement rate largely thanks not being able to afford settle down and have kids then you are a rank failure in not noticing it / mentioning it / questioning the incumbent parliamentarians about it.

Fair point, but that's a 'temporary' problem, if you make certain changes you can recover.

There's no coming back as an ethnic group from losing your land.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, swiss_democracy_for_all said:

Inflation robs the poor, the rich like the Royals own real things - land, businesses, gold, foreign currencies that hold value.

Quite the opposite,  inflation does nothing to those without assets.   Those with assets get taxed 20% (28% for property) on the amount the currency is devalued by.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with the monarchy is they essentially serve in a public role..  most of the wealth isn’t really theirs,  it just pays their salaries.  Look what happened to Harry when he walked away..  where are his billions and billions?  
 

This is presumably just about maintaining the expenses of the royal household..  paying wages of people who work in the palace,  security,  spending money,  travel plus feck knows what else.

Really can’t get that worked up about it.  No point being jealous of what you think other people have.  If it is all so cushy,  again,  why did Harry walk away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...