Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Stupid royal wedding

Page 6 of 6 [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

30 Apr 2011, 2:11 pm

Vigilans wrote:
It seems petty to me to suddenly start complaining about these things when I'm pretty certain LibertarianAS would be keeping his mouth shut if it was a Republican president doing similar acts in favor of what he supports.

I doubt you have any rational basis for your assumption.

Prior to Obama, I can't think of any case, Democrat or Republican, since Andrew Jackson of any president defying repeated court orders.



Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

30 Apr 2011, 3:47 pm

psychohist wrote:
I doubt you have any rational basis for your assumption.

Right back at you
Have you not noticed the content of most of this gentleman's posts? I honestly think he just comes here and says the most outlandish things possible for his own amusement


_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do


Severus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2010
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 719

30 Apr 2011, 3:52 pm

And I thought I was the only one who didn't waste a whole day by watching obsessively the stupid thing.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

30 Apr 2011, 4:21 pm

psychohist wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.

The queen paid for the afternoon reception, and Prince Charles paid for the evening reception, so those were not taxpayer funded.

Where does the queen get money from?


_________________
.


cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

30 Apr 2011, 4:40 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.

The queen paid for the afternoon reception, and Prince Charles paid for the evening reception, so those were not taxpayer funded.

Where does the queen get money from?


Its a bit complicated has most of her money is part of the Crown & the Duchy of Lancaster (In which I live in, we called her the Duke in Lancashire)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... yal_Family



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

01 May 2011, 12:53 am

Weren't the crown jewels and paitings actually paid by tax payers?

Then probably the land of the Duchys come from tax payer money from the past as well.

Hmnn the only finances that seem legit in there are those from donations. Why would any private person invest in keeping the Royal family royal really, really beats me.


_________________
.


cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

01 May 2011, 5:42 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
Weren't the crown jewels and paitings actually paid by tax payers?

Then probably the land of the Duchys come from tax payer money from the past as well.

Hmnn the only finances that seem legit in there are those from donations. Why would any private person invest in keeping the Royal family royal really, really beats me.


Historical yes as the tax system use to be a way of funding the monarchy. The history is pointed to by the names of both the government's finance department & tax agency: Her Majesty's Treasury and, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

01 May 2011, 7:41 am

now I disagree with the soviets on nearly everything but I think they handled their royal problem correctly.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

01 May 2011, 9:21 am

psychohist wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Err, wait, the royal family receive tax money? In the UK? That place that just recently had to endure terrible budget cuts? Hmmn.

The queen paid for the afternoon reception, and Prince Charles paid for the evening reception, so those were not taxpayer funded.

Security was taxpayer funded, but they were handling tens or hundreds of thousands of the public, presumably taxpaying, so that seems reasonable. There was a separate reception for foreign dignitaries that went to the wedding but were not invited to the Queen's or Charles' receptions, which is being paid for by the government - the wedding was almost 2000 people, the receptions covered about 600 - but the decision to hold that extra reception, for which no cognate existed in past royal weddings, appears to have been made by the foreign office, not the royal household.


Windsor_Inc.uk Topic

I had no idea of the extent of taxpayer funded monarchy.

Perhaps they should invest their wealth and generate more, thereby avoiding the wrath of ordinary citizens, perhaps even helping out the poorer populations of their island kingdom. I heard and have read on news reports that the queen is the third most wealthy woman in the world. :?


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

01 May 2011, 12:56 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
Weren't the crown jewels and paitings actually paid by tax payers?

Then probably the land of the Duchys come from tax payer money from the past as well.

The gold in St. Edward's crown dates back to Alfred the Great; his crown was taken by the Normans in their successful invasion, and was melted down by Cromwell and then remade afterwards. The land for the Duchy of Lancaster was taken by the king from Simon V. de Montfort after the latter's rebellion against the king. I don't think "tax payer money" accurately reflects those sources.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

01 May 2011, 1:18 pm

psychohist wrote:
Vexcalibur wrote:
Weren't the crown jewels and paitings actually paid by tax payers?

Then probably the land of the Duchys come from tax payer money from the past as well.

The gold in St. Edward's crown dates back to Alfred the Great; his crown was taken by the Normans in their successful invasion, and was melted down by Cromwell and then remade afterwards. The land for the Duchy of Lancaster was taken by the king from Simon V. de Montfort after the latter's rebellion against the king. I don't think "tax payer money" accurately reflects those sources.


Most probability from fines and Scutage of undertenants that Richard I set up & from the use subinfeudation in the feudal system.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

02 May 2011, 1:56 pm

There are four big pieces of funding:

1) The Crown Estate. This is far and away the largest piece, and every penny of it goes to the government. At one time, the monarchy funded itself on the land that it held directly, as well as the legal rights it held to certain kinds of property (such as salvage outside of the Duchy of Cornwall). In the 18th century, the income from the Crown Estate was becoming insufficient to the task, so the deal was struck that the monarchy would turn over the proceeds of the Crown Estate to the government and the government would fund the Civil List. The government has been getting the better end of that deal for a very, very long time.

The Crown Estate includes three of the five Royal residences that are not the private property of the Queen. The Royal Collection can be lumped in with this, as well. Although not technically part of the Crown estate, it is property that the Queen cannot dispose of privately.

2) The Government. The government provides the Crown with the Civil List which is the money that is spent to meet the constitutional responsibilities of the Queen, and the government supported activities of members of the Royal Family. All countries, whether monarchies or republics, support the activities of the Head of State to promote charities and worthy causes, after all. This also includes grants in aid to government departments related to the Crown.

3) The Duchy of Lancaster. These are, essentially, the private holdings of the Queen. When Queen Victoria came to the throne, the Royal Family was essentially bankrupt. Most of these holdings have been accumulated since her accession.

4) The Duchy of Cornwall. These are the private holdings of the Prince of Wales. He receives no funding from the Civil List, and his household (along with those of the Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry) are funded from the Duchy of Cornwall.

Some of the accumulation of the private holdings has been effected by the tax exemption that they previously held, but even taking this into account, the Crown Estate has far outstripped the private benefit to members of the Roy al Family.


_________________
--James