https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...es-to-receive-huge-pay-rise-from-uk-taxpayers Just 39 million pounds so not much. Cost of living crisis even biting the monarchy hard. Be a food bank next for him.
The new Labour government will put that on hold and force the Royal Family to go on strike. That would be a sight wouldn’t it. Seeing the royals on the picket line outside the palace.
So, not to tread on old ground, but if George III hadn’t surrendered the crown estate to parliament in the 18th century, then the profits from the crown estate would all go to the monarch. The proviso of it being given to parliament was the sovereign grant. It’s worked out as a percentage of the profits of the crown estate. Not a particularly big percentage. I’m led to believe that should the grant be abolished (and presumably even more so if the monarchy was and we became a republic), it is enshrined in law that the assets of the crown estate are issued back to the sitting monarch. So the government either pay a small percentage of the hundreds of millions of profit the estate makes, or give it back. Not a tough call. I’m a socialist and certainly not against being a republic with an elected head of state. I’m not particularly a royalist whatsoever. But they don’t cost this country a penny. They really don’t. Yes if you abolished the monarchy the reduction in income from tourism etc wouldn’t be immediate - but it would come. The interest they generate globally isn’t to be underestimated; and even disregarding the fact they don’t actually cost anything due to the crown estate being gifted to assist the country nearly 300 years ago, they actually bring a lot more money into the economy than the 125million or whatever it is they get given. They more than pay for themselves so whilst I’m pretty against meritocracy based entirely on bloodline, so all royals and aristocracy in theory, I don’t actually think there is any financial benefit to getting rid of them.
All this assumes that the vast wealth of the “CrownEstate” was all acquired legitimately. This is, in my opinion, a very dubious assumption.
Doesn’t assume that at all. I doubt it was. I’m not sure anyone with any level of Aristocratic background can claim all their historic wealth was legitimately gained. But the fact remains it was theirs in the 1700’s and the law is written after it was gifted to parliament such that if we don’t give them a cut every year they get it back. The Guardian is a decent paper but it panders to the crowd with stuff like this as it knows full well all of this but tries to whip up the anti royal rhetoric to fit the socialist agenda. I agree with its politics but I don’t agree with propaganda and gaslighting. It’s no better than what the right wingers do with stuff like migrants in small boats or being put up in hotels. The actual facts are secondary.
If you go back far enough all the crown estate land was obtained by force of some kind. This is just like ,for example, 100%of the land in the United States that is owned by the descendents of European settlers. If we are to pamper a monarch, the least they can do is to only take what they "need". A monarchy in the 21st century is an anachronism.
The 'fact' of George III giving up responsibility for Crown estates to parliament is interesting but not at all relevant to today's situation. The argument that a diminished royal family would be detrimental to the economy is simply that - an argument. Whatever the historical context the royal family are an anachronism, they cost millions to support even though they are extremely wealthy and their positive influence on events is gradually diminishing as Britain's role in the world changes.
This. Change the law, take their land for a one off payment, let them keep a bit and a couple of castles and move on. They won't go poor.
Thomas Cromwell certainly stole enough land and riches on behalf of his boss, Henry VIII. He made a good job of boosting the royal coffers but it didn’t stop them sending him to the block eventually. Not many stayed in favour for long in those days.
