Vocal Voices

Independent article says Queen Elizabeth to get £6m pay rise from public funds

But when you delve into the figures, the headline should read "Queen gives country £328.8m and the country gives her back £82.2m to run the monarchy". If you want to be even more brutal about it, she also pays tax on that £82.2m money which she _gave_ to the country and they kindly handed it back to her so she could spend it on the royal events and household.

Honestly the duplicity is maddening beyond belief.

Personally I think it's time for the Queen to dissolve the act which gives the crown estate revenues to the country in order for the Monarchy to be funded by the civil list. Then the Queen can take all the revenues, run the monarch, pay taxes on it, refurbish every home and pocket the substantial change left over.

Perhaps that would teach the republican press a hard lesson. After all she would, then, not be taking a penny and be paying taxes to boot.

Suff wrote:Personally I think it's time for the Queen to dissolve the act which gives the crown estate revenues to the country in order for the Monarchy to be funded by the civil list. Then the Queen can take all the revenues, run the monarch, pay taxes on it, refurbish every home and pocket the substantial change left over.
.

I think it's time we got rid of parliament, and let the Queen run the country.
I'm sure she would make a better job of it than these bigoted, stupid politicians.

The news is certainly slanted in this country.

I don't know about that Aggers but democracy is certainly struggling a bit. Some people in the UK now seem only to agree with democracy when it produces the results they want, and politics now is a pretty vicious affair.

I was certainly with you, Suff, until I saw the Beeb News this lunchtime in which it was stated that the Queen's cut of the Crown Estates revenue had been raised from 15% to 25% this year.

I appreciate the refurbishment costs for Buckingham Palace, and that the Queen only costs each and every one of us 13 bob a year or similar, but that 10% rise isn't exactly good PR ....

Oh no not the Queen and Crown Estate thing again.

The Queen, or any sovereign, only nominally *owns* the Crown Estate. S/he cannot sell it or interfere in its management and structure, they just get the profits, or a share of. The *ownership* can be removed at any time.

As for her marching up to the HoC and dissolving the various Acts relating to the Crown Estates I wish her good luck with that. It could end up with the dissolution of the Monarchy.

TheOstrich wrote:I was certainly with you, Suff, until I saw the Beeb News this lunchtime in which it was stated that the Queen's cut of the Crown Estates revenue had been raised from 15% to 25% this year.

I appreciate the refurbishment costs for Buckingham Palace, and that the Queen only costs each and every one of us 13 bob a year or similar, but that 10% rise isn't exactly good PR ....

It didn't cost us a penny. We made a profit. The entire estate made 8%, she gets around 25% of the whole. So we still made a profit..

The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government and thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury for the benefit of the British nation

Any more plain?

Who owns The Crown Estate?

The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

The Government also does not own The Crown Estate. It is managed by an independent organisation - established by statute - headed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners), and the surplus revenue from the estate is paid each year to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation's finances.

No, the above is much clearer.

It is only because of the quirky nature of our history and laws going back centuries that we get this "She owns. No, we own." spat.

However, what is absolutely clear, is that the Monarchy, and therefor the idea of a Sovereign, can be dissolved by an Act of Parliament at any given time and the Crown Estate be turned over to the State in its entirety.

Workingman wrote:However, what is absolutely clear, is that the Monarchy, and therefor the idea of a Sovereign, can be dissolved by an Act of Parliament at any given time and the Crown Estate be turned over to the State in its entirety.

An act that, given our quirky government, would have no legitimacy unless the monarch signed it.....

Suff wrote:An act that, given our quirky government, would have no legitimacy unless the monarch signed it.....

Except that Royal Assent is largely traditional and the sovereign has no powers to refuse assent against the advice of his or her ministers. If parliament passed an Act of dissolution of the Monarchy the advice of ministers would be to sign. Refusal would result, at some stage down the line, the law being passed anyway and it would also foment a constitutional crisis.

Such is the quirkiness of the UK's mainly ceremonial Constitutional Monarchy and its largely unwritten constitution.

Of course it will never happen, but please let us stop this nonsense that the revenues of the Crown Estate are the Queen's. They are not, as the Crown Estate itself points out.