Take away the revenue earned by the Royal Family and everyone would lose out. They earn more for the country than they cost the country. It’s simple maths.
1 Like
Hi all…
This thread seems to have gone off-course just a little…so I’ll add my two-penn’th:
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of how much money the British government has received from the Crown Estates since 1760… and what it has done with that money…
My initial question has almost been answered. It seems that it’s generally agreed that Philip is not a sympathetic character. I’m still curious about Edward, though. Otherwise, I enjoy reasonably polite discourse on just about any topic except my own faults, so I’m enjoying this.
I haven’t watched the TV programme but in real life Edward has all but disappeared from view.
I do not agree. You are not including trains planes extra luxuries and unearned income, especially from those other than the Queen. You are either purposefully fiddling your “simple maths” or you have not worked it out. The tax that they should pay on all of the properties that they use and all of their income, and all of the little luxuries that they take for granted is worth far more, especially to those who have nothing at all and cannot million pound handouts from the state.
Sorry David, I realise that you are a royalist and you have every right to be as you wish, but please do not try to suggest that they make us a lot of money. France has far more tourists (for example) and they guillotined the queen.
I’m certainly not a royalist but I have seen the figures.
The British Monarchy cost taxpayers £35.7 million. … The French President cost French taxpayers £91 million - not necessarily the cheaper option as far as I can see?
My use of the word ‘love’ was used as a term of ‘unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another’ to give a written definition. As that term seems to have to offended some people I can only apologise. I am not a staunch Royalist but I have an opinion on the subject and we are all entitled to an opinion. Sorry my comments took the topic off track.
With respect David, very few people have actually “seen” the figures that exist. Never mind the “unseeable” figures. Transport, holidays, hotels, all travel to anywhere, parties etc. The figures certainly do not include anything that they should be paying for and don’t, like their taxes for example, to include property taxes V.A.T. everything (and I do mean everything that someone on the highest tax band should be paying. Anyway, we’re going round in circles, let’s agree to disagree and let it drop. Have a great day!
On 13 Dec 2016, at 09:28, David Martin <survivefrance@discoursemail.com> wrote:December 13
I'm certainly not a royalist but I have seen the figures.
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
In Reply To
December 12I do not agree. You are not including trains planes extra luxuries and unearned income, especially from those other than the Queen. You are either purposefully fiddling your “simple maths” or you have not worked it out. The tax that they should pay on all of the properties that they use and all o…
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
From the figures I can find The Queen and Royal Family get £42million to cover their costs. If you think that’s a lot we could give them back the income from the Crown Estates-freely given in exchange for the Civil List-which last year put £285 million into the Treasury coffers. Should be eady to cover that with a small rise in income tax shouldn’t it??
2 Likes
Hi folks… I started off by enjoying this thread… but now it risks becoming a slanging match… all about figures…and each person’s perception…
and why say something is not in dispute, when it so obviously is in dispute… beats me 
Perhaps the chilly weather is affecting the little grey cells. 
let’s get some seasonal cheer on the go…
Thanks for that info Sue…1760 is a long time ago… and some folk have short memories… 
Elaine, I have no problem whatsoever for your love of the Royal family, no matter which way you mean it. My comparison with France was not about how much the leader/monarch costs, it was just to explain that the age old statement, which says that she brings us millions in tourism, is rubbish. Furthermore, whatever she brings in tourism is limited to London and, maybe, Balmoral. The British monarchy costs the taxpayer far more than the figure that you quote, which does not include all of the residences, which may belong to the state but are occupied by her and the other Royals. These buildings could be used to make money or, dare I write it, house the homeless. The cost of the staff is not included in the cost of the monarchy to us. Likewise the cost of the staff that would be doing other things were it not for the Royal family taking, otherwise empty, trains, planes etc. The cost of the transport, the cost of the fuel. etc. etc. Anyway, I have total respect for your love of anyone and anything that you love. Have a great day.
They are your figures Sue and everyone seems to have different ones. That should tell you something. I don’t think a rise in income tax is a bad thing, if it goes to the poor, the old , the infirm, education, the NHS, etc. However, I do think that the Royal family should not be allowed to avoid tax. How much have big companies been damned for doing just that? How much have the fat cats been damned? I think that not one penny should go to aid the Crown avoid paying it’s correct share.
Anyway, there are obviously a lot of people out there who vehemently disagree with me. May I respectfully remind you all that, as much as you have the right to have your opinions, I have the right to have mine. With that, I will not answer any more comments on this subject. Have a great day.
The Queen pays income tax the same as others.The figures came from The Crown Estates website and the Civil List website-so they’re not my figures.
1 Like
Oh dear! You really do need to look things up properly and not just grab at given figures. The queen does not pay tax “the same as everybody else” She does not pay tax relevant to her income, she does not pay tax on state owned property that she uses as her own etc. etc. etc. It goes on ad infinitum. Everyone (well, nearly everyone) knows this. Let’s drop it Sue. I’m not answering any more of this kind of message. I do not see why I should do the research for others.
It doesn’t really matter how much the monarchy costs, or how much more money they earn for the British treasury, they are here to stay and quite rightly so. My son, like thousands before him, has just pledged allegiance to Queen and country and it was a proud moment. It is part of the British way of life. However, Philip has always come across as an arrogant twat, as have some of the others at times.
I am not particularly a royalist, but am still (just) British. Heaven help us if we were like the Americans or some other republic 
but at least they appreciate our royalty .
I would vote for a change in the national anthem though
1 Like
Well for a kick off the Queen’s ancestry is German. Her ancestor Gourge III of Hanover was brought over the fill the void. Philip’s ancestry is Greek. So in reality they are a European hotpotch. They are extremely wealthy and live in absolute luxury. There are loads of hangers on who also beneift from their royal titles with grace and favour flats in London at ridiculous prices. Not much more to say really.
The first Hanoverian king was George III but he had part English royal ancestry. His mother was Sophia, Duchess of Hanover. Her mother was Elizabeth who was the daughter of James I and sister of Charles I. Sophia’s brother was Prince Rupert (of the Rhine) the royalist commander in the Civil War. See -we’ve already tried doing away with the Monarchy but went back to it-because with the corrct checks and balances it’s a system that works.
Those same people who go very pale and silent or explode when you tell them what the that there beloved Windsors were Saxe-Cobourg Gothas until 1917 when the name was changed for obvious reasons! 
I love it. All of that history. When we lived in the States, we could trace our property back about 250 years. That’s about as far as you can go. 250 years for you folks is the equivalent of last week…