Current Perception of the Windsors and the Future of the Monarchy

Thanks for the reply Robert.
I won'turn this into a mutual appreciation reply, I'll leave that to others,  but a new roof would be a great idea!(NOT SURE ABOUT THE CAMEL THOUGH)
However, seeing that these sites are supposedly public property, it is only just that the public maintain them. Granted they are working palaces, but they are working palaces on behalf of the citizens of the Nation!

And especially for you young Robert!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_yell

[Who owns The Crown Estate?]

Everytime a royal finance topic comes up, it reminds me of the extremely unique funding situation for the British monarchy - that is, the Crown Estate.  No other nation has such a convoluted - and misunderstood - arrangement to fund their head of state.  And so discussions about it are avoided by both the Royal Household and the Government at every turn.  First, quoting The Crown Estate website:

Who owns The Crown Estate?
The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch ‘in right of The Crown’, that is, it is inherent with the 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 sovereign.  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 all UK taxpayers.  To explain further, one analogy that could be used is that The Crown Estate is the property equivalent of the Crown jewels – part of the national heritage and held by Her Majesty The Queen as sovereign, but not available for her private use.

How did The Crown Estate come into being?
Although the ownership of some property can be traced back to Edward the Confessor, the estate as a whole essentially dates from the time of the Norman Conquest.  In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return the King would receive a fixed annual payment – what we call today the Civil List.

So neither the people (through their Government), nor the Queen as an individual owns the Crown Estate.  Instead, the Crown (a third separate entity) owns the Estate.  So as long as the Monarch holds the Crown, he or she holds all rights to it - except those rights handed over to the Government in exchance for a fixed annual income. 

Said another way, George III only gave up the revenue from the Estate - not the Crown's ownership rights to it.  So the bottom line is - it is the Government's part of the bargain to pay the Civil List and maintain the occupied royal palaces.   That's what they "owe" in exchange for the annual revenue they receive.

As I understand the Government got a good deal because the revenue from the Crown Eststes are HUGE!!

TampaBay

[2005 UK Budget Spending by Area]

Um, yes, but to be fair you have to consider the "full picture" of the situation.

In the past, the UK's Civil Government costs were paid for by the Sovereign under normal circumstances.  The money for this Public Purse was raised by income of the Crown Estate lands and holdings. In some circumstances, namely war or during budget shortfalls, Parliament raised additional money through taxes.  Given the Crown's large land holdings, this system was largely self-funding, and taxes were levied only when necessary.

But as the role of the government increased in the 18th century, the Public Purse was increasingly unable to raise enough to fund the development of the country.   That's why in 1760 when George III came to the throne, it was decided that the whole cost of civil government should be provided by Parliament, with the crown surrendering most of the hereditary revenues (principally the net surplus of the Crown Estate) by the king for the duration of the reign.

In this system Parliament was responsible for the finances of the UK, including paying the crown the Civil List allowance to meet the Sovereign's official expenses. (In 2006-07 the Crown Estate paid the Treasury over £200 miillion in return for an allowance of £7.9 million.)

In summary, while the Government IS getting a £192.1 miillion "surplus" out of the Crown Estate deal, it has to pay for the entire Civil Government.  In 2005, Government spending was £487.6 billion.  So, the Crown Estate surplus is barely a blip on that radar screen.

2005 UK Budget Spending by Area
£123 billion for social security benefits 
£23.9 billion for national debt interest 
£81 billion for health benefits 
£63.2 billion for education
£29.7 billion for defense
£105.3 billion for other departmental spending
£61.1 billion for other annually managed expenses (AME)

On the other hand, the total £35 million cost of the monarchy is only 0.0003% of "Other Departmental Spending".  So you'd think they could find a few million pounds to fix up Buckingham Palace when it needs it.

Considering that these sites are amongst the most important buildings of the realm!

Anyone know if Peter PHillips, or TRH Princes William or Henry visited osborne while on the island for the weekend?


off the wall question but if any member of the Royal Family chose to stay on the island is the pavillion Queen Victoria lived in available if advance notice is given?? 

When was the last time any memeber of the Royal Family was at Osborne to tour the Apts?? Anyone know

Okay, since no one else has brought this up I will:  Isn't it a bit immature (tacky?) for young adults to behave the way the Princes did at this stag event?  Falling down drunk, dropping your pants in public, etc.?  Bad enough for anyone, but I think as a royal you should have a certain amount of respect for your postion and family.  Along with the priviledges, there is a certain measure of responsibility.

I'm not sure whether it cost 21 000 pounds or dollars to give that joyride in a CH-47 Chinook, a rather large cargo helicopter. Its 21 000. As USA air travelers have learned after a period of poor government oversight of air carrier fleet maintenance, aircraft require constant maintenance. Designers try to achieve the lowest hours of maintenance per flight hour, but that figure is always high and its even higher for helicopters.

Here in the USA, we're having problems with the highest-placed people being beyond accountability. I hope the Queen or the Prince of Wales makes good on the loss and has a pointed discussion with the boys.

Are the members of the RF beyond accountability?

I'm quite sure that the Queen does not think so, but there are perhaps other members who do have this attitude.  The use of this helicopter for this purpose is not I am sure the only example of misuse..........

More bad news about William in the press this morning. Am I the only one who is beginning to think that if members of the Royal Family are seen to be no different from everyone else that we may as well not bother with them? My tendencies are increasingly republican. Once the Queen goes, perhaps it's time to consign the monarchy to the past.

One newspaper said that Prince William had been assigned to practice takeoff's and landing and they joked that if you had to do it might as well do it in the in-law's Garden. 

More bad news about William in the press this morning. Am I the only one who is beginning to think that if members of the Royal Family are seen to be no different from everyone else that we may as well not bother with them?

Quite agree, Richard.  Prince William seems to me to have made far more strenuous efforts to be seen as just like everyone else than he has being a royal, with all the privileges and restrictions that role brings.  Not that I'm saying he has an easy job, mind you...

Harry reunited with marine who lost arm in Afghanistan as he and William meet injured war heroes at rehab centre

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=561039&in_page_id=1770

RAF fury over Prince William's £30,000 helicopter stunt in Kate Middleton's backyard

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=560880&in_page_id=1770

More bad news about William in the press this morning. Am I the only one who is beginning to think that if members of the Royal Family are seen to be no different from everyone else that we may as well not bother with them? My tendencies are increasingly republican. Once the Queen goes, perhaps it's time to consign the monarchy to the past.

They ARE like anybody else.  Down the centuries, they have been able to "pull the wool" over people's eyes but not anymore with the media scrutiny as it is today.   After all wasn't it the "Dirty Digger's" avowed intention to bring down the House of Windsor.   I don't know whether he has completed that mission or whether it has imploided on itself.

We are all human beings and we all have our faults.
A young man enjoying one to many alcoholic drinks at his cousins stag night is the most common sight on any Saturday night in the Western world.
One must remember that these young men are commissioned officers in their nations military services who have undergone many trials to achieve this rank.They have proven themselves and they know what the boundaries of behaviour and etiquette are. Acting like a common yobo(drunken lout)is inexcusable, but I have not seen any evidence that either did, let alone harm the nation or the RF.
Those of us who think it demeaning of them should remember our own youth and its errors and thank providence that there were no cameras about, or that we seized the film.
Now, about this helicopter flight!
The Ministry of defence knows what it is doing, it was not a joy flight for a couple of lads out on a "drink a thon". A pilot needs to accumulate hours and gain experience and in this current tight fiscal world every shilling, cent, peso etc  saved is worthwhile. It is actually a compliment to the pair of them that they went to the island the way they did, a commercial flight is a lot more comfortable and less obvious.
It seems to me that there are those amongst us who for their own reasons are only interested in criticising the "boys" and other members of the RF. Is ther some sort of agenda lurking beneath these comments, or is it just out of blind jealousy and perhaps stupidity!