Denmark to limit paying Royals grandchildren etcetera

[tay]

Danish politicians will now limit the number of the Queen’s grandchildren who are entitled to a salary from the state: bad news for the eight grandchildren of Margrethe II, good news for anyone who believes in basic common sense.

How does this compare to the financial situation vis-a-vis royals in the UK? Well, the Sovereign Grant – taxpayer money given to Queen Elizabeth and her family to carry out their ‘official duties’ – was £40m in 2015, up from £35.7m in the previous financial year. This works out at around 60p from each of her subjects.

Four years ago, George Osborne worked it out nicely for Liz et al when he put a clause into a piece of legislation that shielded the Buckingham Palace residents from public funding cuts. It also made sure that the Queen would get a pay rise every year, and that the monarchy would receive 15 per cent of profits of the £9.9bn Crown Estate. And that’s not the only money the royals benefit from.

According to Republic, a charity that (as the name suggests) campaigns for the end of the monarchy, the true cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is more like £334m per annum, considering that the royal family’s security bill (£100m) is picked up directly by the Metropolitan Police, local councils pay when royals visit them (£21.5m), and the Royal Household Pension Scheme (yes really) costs around £2.2m alone.

more......

Now Denmark plans to stop paying its royals, let's discuss the £40m our own take from the taxpayer every year | Voices | The Independent

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

They should put support of the royals on a contribution basis and accept donations from outside the UK (or Denmark, or whatever). The UK royal family's budget would skyrocket.

 

[Blackleaf]

According to Republic, a charity that (as the name suggests) campaigns for the end of the monarchy, the true cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is more like £334m per annum, considering that the royal family’s security bill (£100m) is picked up directly by the Metropolitan Police, local councils pay when royals visit them (£21.5m), and the Royal Household Pension Scheme (yes really) costs around £2.2m alone.

A republic would be much more expensive.

 

[Ludlow]

Here's an idea. How bout those lazy bastids get off their arses and get to work ?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I really, REALLY hate to agree with Princess, but those folks work pretty hard. A whole bunch of your tax money goes to maintenance and upkeep of symbols, Lud. Just so happens in the UK, for historical reasons, some of those symbols are walking and talking.

 

[Blackleaf]

Here's an idea. How bout those lazy bastids get off their arses and get to work ?

Well, the Queen has a job - she's Queen. And she's aged 90, the age at which most have have long retired.

Her husband, Prince Philip, is 94, again way past retirement age. He's a WWII naval veteran, taking part in the Battle of Cape Matapan. He was on HMS Wallace when it took part in the Invasion of Siciliy. He served on HMS Whelp, where he saw service with the British Pacific Fleet in the 27th Destroyer Flotilla. He was present in Tokyo Bay when the instrument of Japanese surrender was signed.

Prince Charles's main job at the moment is preparing himself to be king, which he will be within the next few years or so.

Prince William is an RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot.

Prince Harry spent ten years in the army, during in which he served in Afghanistan. He has recently said that he is struggling to find a job suitable enough for him to be able to do whilst also carrying out his royal duties.

And, of course, all the main royals do all sorts of duties for the charities they support.

 

[taxslave]

Queenie best be living for a long time yet if chuck is the only one in line for here job. Besides that would make horseface queen. Maybe they could skip a generation and find some intelligence?

 

[Blackleaf]

Queenie best be living for a long time yet if chuck is the only one in line for here job. Besides that would make horseface queen. Maybe they could skip a generation and find some intelligence?

Camilla will only be queen consort, not an actual, proper queen regnant - a monarch - like Elizabeth II is.

And you can't just skip a generation. Charles is first in line to the throne and he will be king in the very near future.

The only way you can skip Charles is if he dies before his mother.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Well, the Queen has a job - she's Queen. And she's aged 90, the age at which most have have long retired.

Her husband, Prince Philip, is 94, again way past retirement age. He's a WWII naval veteran, taking part in the Battle of Cape Matapan. He was on HMS Wallace when it took part in the Invasion of Siciliy. He served on HMS Whelp, where he saw service with the British Pacific Fleet in the 27th Destroyer Flotilla. He was present in Tokyo Bay when the instrument of Japanese surrender was signed.

Prince Charles's main job at the moment is preparing himself to be king, which he will be within the next few years or so.

Prince William is an RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot.

Prince Harry spent ten years in the army, during in which he served in Afghanistan. He has recently said that he is struggling to find a job suitable enough for him to be able to do whilst also carrying out his royal duties.

And, of course, all the main royals do all sorts of duties for the charities they support.

You and me don't get to agree on much, Blackleaf, but here's one of our few opportunities.

First, it's your country, and how y'all choose to organize it ain't none of my affair.

Second, I think your current crop of royals, all three generations (fourth's still getting their growth) are a pretty good bunch. Do you proud.

So, even though Americans got no business commenting, if an illegitimate criticism deserves an answer at all, here's some illegitimate support.

God save the Queen.

 

[Blackleaf]

You and me don't get to agree on much, Blackleaf, but here's one of our few opportunities.

First, it's your country, and how y'all choose to organize it ain't none of my affair.

Second, I think your current crop of royals, all three generations (fourth's still getting their growth) are a pretty good bunch. Do you proud.

So, even though Americans got no business commenting, if an illegitimate criticism deserves an answer at all, here's some illegitimate support.

God save the Queen.

Yep. The Queen's certainly leaving her throne in good hands. It's no wonder she likes having her photo taken of her with Charles, William and George. It's like she's showing her 143 million people that she will leave the House of Windsor in good hands; that the succession for at least the next 100 years is safe (it'll be a long time until we have a queen again once the Queen dies).

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

You don't mind my saying, I'm of the opinion that the three greatest British monarchs were all queens regnant. Elizabeth, Victoria, and Elizabeth II.

Elizabeth secured England's unity and safety, and by picking James VI of Scotland as her successor, paved the way to the UK.

Victoria was in many ways a figurehead, but wielded considerable influence and a fair measure of power over some of the most powerful and smart politicians of all time. She built the Empire.

Elizabeth II, born to the world of bowing and forelock-tugging, saw through Britain's darkest hour, and then intelligently and sensibly managed the shift in the monarchy to something more representative and people-centered. Not without mistakes, of course, but overall with great skill and incredibly sound instincts for the real feelings of the people.

That ain't meant to take anything away from Henry II, V, and VIII, or some of your other great monarchs, but it seems to me that each of these three queens took hold at a critical time, and did a fine job of seeing England and the UK through to peace, power, prosperity, and security.

I got my own problems with Britain historically, but I recognize great leaders when I see 'em.

 

[Blackleaf]

You don't mind my saying, I'm of the opinion that the three greatest British monarchs were all queens regnant. Elizabeth, Victoria, and Elizabeth II.

Elizabeth secured England's unity and safety, and by picking James VI of Scotland as her successor, paved the way to the UK.

Victoria was in many ways a figurehead, but wielded considerable influence and a fair measure of power over some of the most powerful and smart politicians of all time. She built the Empire.

Elizabeth II, born to the world of bowing and forelock-tugging, saw through Britain's darkest hour, and then intelligently and sensibly managed the shift in the monarchy to something more representative and people-centered. Not without mistakes, of course, but overall with great skill and incredibly sound instincts for the real feelings of the people.

That ain't meant to take anything away from Henry II, V, and VIII, or some of your other great monarchs, but it seems to me that each of these three queens took hold at a critical time, and did a fine job of seeing England and the UK through to peace, power, prosperity, and security.

I got my own problems with Britain historically, but I recognize great leaders when I see 'em.

They're probably most people's picks for the three greatest English/British monarchs.

Elizabeth I helped lay the foundations for the English, then British, Empire; Victoria was the monarch, and the Empress of India, who ruled Britain and the British Empire when they were at the peak of their powers, the largest empire the world has ever known; and Elizabeth II is the monarch who oversaw the decline of the Empire but the creation of her beloved Commonwealth and, last year, became the longest-ever ruling English/British monarch.

One laid the foundations; the other ruled it through its peak; the other saw it through its decline and transformation into the Commonwealth.