Royal dummy spit - does anyone really care?

[reprise]

PRINCE Harry has dramatically threatened to abandon his three-month stint in Australia amid claims of media harassment.

Harry might go home (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=256727)

Brits, we are no longer a penal colony to which you can banish your unwanted citizens. Please tell your royal family that the Raj is dead and Brittania no longer rules the waves. Please also advise them that far from regarding their "private" jaunts as some kind of privilege which has been bestowed upon our nation, we taxpayers greatly resent $600,000 of money being spent on providing security for your "spare to the throne's" visit here. We believe that his father is well able to afford the cost of holidays for his children and should the Exchequer be a little strapped for cash this year then perhaps Harry should have holidayed at home.

Bottom line. We don't understand why the British press would follow him across the world to take pictures of him in the first place, but we don't really care if their doing so results in his leaving. In fact, if he leaves right now the money we save on his security costs can be reallocated to something worthwhile.

[LucyR]

Originally posted by reprise


Harry might go home (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=256727)

Brits, we are no longer a penal colony to which you can banish your unwanted citizens...prolixity deleted.

Oh please! Who do you think you're fooling? It's well known that you cultureless riff-raff go weak at the knees at the mere thought of a royal visit!

[reprise]

Originally posted by LucyR


Oh please! Who do you think you're fooling? It's well known that you cultureless riff-raff go weak at the knees at the mere thought of a royal visit!

Only if it's from Prince Phillip. We like laughing at him when he makes a complete fool of himself and the monarchy. :D

Actually, the Princess Royal is due to visit here for some reason or another soon. My guess is that she won't be spitting any dummies during her visit.

[Zep]

The Princess Royal has got (most of) her act together and does real "good works" with her position. Good for her. Alas, her older brother doesn't much really (unless you agree trees benefit from being talked to). So Harry hasn't had the best of role models. Anyhoo...

I suspect young Harry has probably been misquoted, and I wonder how his words actually reached the outside world anyway, since he is supposed to be in a private and secure location...

It's worth noting for the record that NO Australian reporters think it worth while following young Harry about. Like the rest of Australia, they think he should be left alone to get his bumps and scrapes, and learn to pick himself up and dust himself off by himself for a change. It's just the great crowd of ENGLISH papparazzi following him about that is the problem. Obviously they haven't anything better to do with their time.

So, while I agree that it should be his father paying the "security" bill, I have nothing but sympathy for Harry with all those worthless, parasite scavangers hanging about behind every tree and under every bush trying to take his photo when he has specifically asked them NOT to. Have they ANY respect for their OWN monarch? Patently and obviously NOT.

Worthless creeps. Lucky Harry didn't bring his shotgun with him...

[a_unique_person]

You mean you actually bothere to start a thread on this topic?

[Jon_in_london]

It seems you care reprise.

[Mr Manifesto]

I'm all for the Royal Family's indignation, if only it would mean the bankruptcy of the parasitic paparazi magazines.

But it won't.

So they can go jump.

[Mendor]

Believe me Reprise, we don't like the little ginger-haired **** any more than you do, and we certainly don't like paying for him. It's a scandal that ANY taxpayers, British or Australian, should be paying for his gap year (and both sets of taxpayers are, I think)

As you say, his father's well able to pay.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by reprise


Harry might go home (http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=256727)

Bottom line. We don't understand why the British press would follow him across the world to take pictures of him in the first place, but we don't really care if their doing so results in his leaving. In fact, if he leaves right now the money we save on his security costs can be reallocated to something worthwhile.

Typical, bloody whingeing Ozzies.

We pay for the security of Australian celebrities like Dame Edna Everage when she graces us with her presence but you're too tight fisted to return the compliment.

Put another xxxx on the barbie and pipe down.

[ImpyTimpy]

Put a 4x on the barbie?? Won't the bottle just explode from the heat? That's what we call common sense over here.

Originally posted by Nikk


Typical, bloody whingeing Ozzies.

We pay for the security of Australian celebrities like Dame Edna Everage when she graces us with her presence but you're too tight fisted to return the compliment.

Put another xxxx on the barbie and pipe down.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by reprise
We believe that his father is well able to afford the cost of holidays for his children Holidays from what? You mean the royal family actually have real jobs?

I've never understood this, and I've never been able to get a coherent explanation. Maybe I have to stop asking Americans and start asking British subjects (which raises another question - are Australians and Canadians and such British "subjects"? What does the term actually mean?). My understanding of the word "holiday" (= U.S. "vacation") is a period of leisure time away from work, devoted to rest or pleasure.

Which raises further questions:

1) How many vacation days does Harry get per year?
2) How does this compare with other government employees (I'm assuming the royals are government employees; please correct me if I'm wrong)?
3) How does a royal accumulate vacation time? Here is the U.S., U.S. government employees typically accrue vacation at the rate of x, y, or z hours per two-week pay period, depending on the number of years of government service.
4) When a royal is on holiday, does the work typically pile up on his desk in his absence? Or is it redistributed to others? Here in the U.S., we have "backups" for work while you're on vacation, but the amount of work a backup generally does can usually only be measured with powerful electron microscopes.
5) Who is Harry's backup? Who is in charge of making sure Harry's backup really does Harry's work while he's on holiday?
6) Does Harry have to get official approval before going on holiday? U.S. government employees who have to meet and deal with the public generally have difficulty getting time off around Christmas if they have little seniority, as someone is required to staff the office between December 25 and January 1. I assume Harry has little seniority where he works.
7) Does Harry's pay stub have a breakout of his hours worked? That is, if he takes three days off next week on holiday, does his pay stub show 16 hours worked and 24 on holiday?
8) Who hands out the pay stubs? Or are they mailed to him at home?
9) Does he have direct deposit of his paycheck? Or does he have to stand on line at the bank with the (ugh) commoners?
10) What kind of job security does he have? How are salaries, raises, bonuses, etc. determined?

Among other things.

[glee]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Holidays from what? You mean the royal family actually have real jobs?

Ah, now you raise an interesting question. This is going to be a bit like explaining cricket. There are answers - it's just a bit complicated.

The Queen has a (fantastically over-paid) job. It involves:

- mainly ceremonies, such as opening Parliament, supermarkets, launching ships and touristy stuff like the Trooping of the Colour

- hosting foreign dignitaries (she has lots of castles + suchlike, and can show off the Royal Yacht, the Royal train and the Royal jewels)

- being the Patron of many Charities (this may require the opening of a building, as per ceremony. However no intellectual work is involved, which is a relief, because the Royals are pretty stupid.)

- consulting the Prime Minister regularly (now I know you're thinking that this is evidence that she uses her great experience and 'brains' to advise the politicians what to do. No. All these discussions are confidential, and there is zero evidence that the Queen has a brain. The only public decision she has made is to announce, when one of her castles burnt down, that there would be a public fund to pay for its restoration. Apparently the richest woman in the World is out of touch with real people, who have real jobs. The Appeal Fund was quietly abandoned.)

- breeding (this is number one in the job description. What is the point of a hereditary Monarchy if you can't breed? I can't prove if there is a preliminary medical inspection, but I'm sure there is. It is interesting to note that previous Royal etiquette was to inbreed with various European Royal families. So we have a Greek-German monarchy. :rolleyes: )

The Duke of Edinburgh (Queen's husband) has a job too:

- breeding

- being the Patron of many Charities

- making stupid insulting remarks to foreigners (he's good at this. Any humour in the fact that he's a foreigner himself is muted by how much we have to pay him.)

We also pay for many relatives, which seems to involve them getting Royal Palaces (packed with staff) for free, or opening sports occasions like Wimbledon.

Originally posted by BPSCG (bold text is my answers)

Which raises further questions:

1) How many vacation days does Harry get per year?
He may have to get a job, e.g. in the army. But your typical Royal has an exhausting 'schedule' of work such as opening a supermarket. Then they get the rest of the day off.

2) How does this compare with other government employees (I'm assuming the royals are government employees; please correct me if I'm wrong)?
The Royals are in charge of the country. We all look up to them (yeah, right :rolleyes: ). The Monarch is automatically the Head of the Church of England, so that angle is covered too. The Monarch never carries any money - why would she need to?
I have worked for the Government and I expect it's similar to the US. I started with 4 weeks annual vacation, rising after 10 years to 5 weeks, and finally 6 weeks after 25 years.

3) How does a royal accumulate vacation time? Here is the U.S., U.S. government employees typically accrue vacation at the rate of x, y, or z hours per two-week pay period, depending on the number of years of government service.
The Royals do as much or as little as they want. Who's going to sack them?

4) When a royal is on holiday, does the work typically pile up on his desk in his absence? Or is it redistributed to others? Here in the U.S., we have "backups" for work while you're on vacation, but the amount of work a backup generally does can usually only be measured with powerful electron microscopes.
See last answer.

5) Who is Harry's backup? Who is in charge of making sure Harry's backup really does Harry's work while he's on holiday?
Um, one of Harry's jobs is to find a breeder. She will need to be a fertile, white, Protestant Christian, English, straight, stupid, female virgin.
I don't think anyone could 'fill in' for Harry in this task. In fact it used to be an executable offence to mess with the Queen in that way.

6) Does Harry have to get official approval before going on holiday? U.S. government employees who have to meet and deal with the public generally have difficulty getting time off around Christmas if they have little seniority, as someone is required to staff the office between December 25 and January 1. I assume Harry has little seniority where he works.
If he gets a real job, he would have to 'fit in' like the rest of us. Of course, if he's in the Army, I'm sure the fact that his mother is Commander-in-Chief of the Army will have zero effect on his getting time off.

7) Does Harry's pay stub have a breakout of his hours worked? That is, if he takes three days off next week on holiday, does his pay stub show 16 hours worked and 24 on holiday?
We taxpayers just hand over the money. They can do as much or as little as they like. (I think Queen Victoria spent years mourning her husband. Nobody said anything.)
Oh, and the Royals own extensive estates of land, which provides a healthy extra income. Only recently have they paid any tax. Cushy number? What do you mean?

8) Who hands out the pay stubs? Or are they mailed to him at home?
9) Does he have direct deposit of his paycheck? Or does he have to stand on line at the bank with the (ugh) commoners?
10) What kind of job security does he have? How are salaries, raises, bonuses, etc. determined?

Among other things.

See above.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by glee
The Queen has a (fantastically over-paid) job. It involves:

- mainly ceremonies, such as opening Parliament, supermarkets, launching ships and touristy stuff like the Trooping of the Colour

- hosting foreign dignitaries (she has lots of castles + suchlike, and can show off the Royal Yacht, the Royal train and the Royal jewels)

- being the Patron of many Charities (this may require the opening of a building, as per ceremony. However no intellectual work is involved, which is a relief, because the Royals are pretty stupid.)So her job amounts to reading ceremonial speeches someone else has written and showing visitor how she's decorated the house...


- breeding (this is number one in the job description. What is the point of a hereditary Monarchy if you can't breed? I can't prove if there is a preliminary medical inspection, but I'm sure there is. It is interesting to note that previous Royal etiquette was to inbreed with various European Royal families. So we have a Greek-German monarchy. :rolleyes: )
Well at least you don't have those #$%^ Frogs on the throne any more


The Duke of Edinburgh (Queen's husband) has a job too:

- breeding

- being the Patron of many Charities

- making stupid insulting remarks to foreigners (he's good at this. Any humour in the fact that he's a foreigner himself is muted by how much we have to pay him.)
This is a great job! I'd be really good at it. Well, except for some medical treatments I had some years ago one of whose unfortunate side effects was that my fish don't swim anymore if you get my drift. But I've been the president of my local Jaycees chapter (we do a lot of charity work) and I'm really good at making stupid insulting remarks about foreigners, especially my Froggish forebears. I really like the part about getting paid to breed. They have a name for that here, but since I'm not getting paid to make stupid insulting remarks about foreigners here, I'll refrain.


We also pay for many relatives, which seems to involve them getting Royal Palaces (packed with staff) for free, or opening sports occasions like Wimbledon.
Well, I remember seeing an interview with Andrew and Fergie just before they were married and they mentioned that he was going to get a raise after getting married. I thought that was an excellent deal, too.

So how do the common working class types in factories and shops and coal mines feel when they see news reports that "His Highness (insert title and optional name here) is on a holiday in Monaco"? I mean, in this country, there'd be riots in the streets.

Seriously, though, how DO the royalty get paid? Does the exchequer do an electronic funds transfer every week into Willie and Harry's and Charles's and Philip's and Elizabeth's bank accounts ? And since they never carry money around with them, how do they buy new skis when they're on a Swiss holiday? Do they have servants who carry around the money?

[glee]

Originally posted by BPSCG
So her job amounts to reading ceremonial speeches someone else has written and showing visitor how she's decorated the house...


Don't forget the breeding!
Also she has an extra duty (gasp!).
She has to stay on the throne until William is old enough to take over. This is to stop her son, Charles, inheriting. He is the one who committed adultery (with Camilla Parker-Bowles) before, during and after his marriage to Diana. As the heir is also the Head of the Church of England, many of us think Charles is unfit to reign (and apparently his mother agrees!)

Originally posted by BPSCG
Well at least you don't have those #$%^ Frogs on the throne any more


Quoi? What french people are you referring to?

Originally posted by BPSCG
So how do the common working class types in factories and shops and coal mines feel when they see news reports that "His Highness (insert title and optional name here) is on a holiday in Monaco"? I mean, in this country, there'd be riots in the streets.


There is a lot of tradition in this country, and the Monarchy is still popular. However, as more news leaks out about their dysfunctional behaviour, their popularity is dropping.
I don't want to seem rude, but your country's idea of a dynasty is a lot shorter than ours (plus you elected Bush + Reagan :eek )

Originally posted by BPSCG
Seriously, though, how DO the royalty get paid? Does the exchequer do an electronic funds transfer every week into Willie and Harry's and Charles's and Philip's and Elizabeth's bank accounts ? And since they never carry money around with them, how do they buy new skis when they're on a Swiss holiday? Do they have servants who carry around the money?

The Queen doesn't carry money - the rest of them do. The recently deceased Queen Mother had to - she was addicted to gambling and owed millions.
The money is voted through by Parliament (it's called the Civil List). I expect they get it all at the start of the year.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by glee
Also she has an extra duty (gasp!).
She has to stay on the throne until William is old enough to take over. This is to stop her son, Charles, inheriting.
What, you mean she can announce that she's skipping over Charles and naming Wiliam the heir to the throne? Wow, talk about throwing dung into the blender and setting it to "puree".

He is the one who committed adultery (with Camilla Parker-Bowles) before, during and after his marriage to Diana.
How did he commit adultry BEFORE his marriage?

Quoi? What french people are you referring to?
Um, 1066 and all that? William the Conquerer?

I don't want to seem rude, but your country's idea of a dynasty is a lot shorter than ours
(I'm originally from New York, where people don't consider you to be rude until you back over them with your car. Plus, I can't say that poking fun at the royals, while delicious fun, isn't rude. So flame away...) We have the Kennedys here, who many people seem to equate with royalty for some reason I can't fathom. Plus Elvis Presley, the worship of whom strikes me as nothing short of idolatry.

(plus you elected Bush + Reagan :eek )
You mean The Man Who Won the Cold War?

recently deceased Queen Mother had to - she was addicted to gambling and owed millions.
Can I assume her estate paid her gambling debts before her daughter inherited?

[Nikk]

Originally posted by BPSCG


Seriously, though, how DO the royalty get paid? Does the exchequer do an electronic funds transfer every week into Willie and Harry's and Charles's and Philip's and Elizabeth's bank accounts ? And since they never carry money around with them, how do they buy new skis when they're on a Swiss holiday? Do they have servants who carry around the money?

[/B]

On the subject of money the Royal Family does not strictly speaking cost anything. The wealth generating property which is the personal property of the monarch i.e. land, investments etc, etc, has ever since about 1760 been handed over to the Exchequer ( controlled by the elected political party of the day ) at the start of the reign of each monarch. There is no legal obligation to do this. Parliament then votes the monarchy whatever it needs to carry on in the style to which it is accustomed. Separate accounts are of course kept for this property and it currrently brings in an income of about £350million per year. The current running costs of the monarchy are about £35-£40million so there is a net transfer from the head of state to parliament of about £300million+ per year. Not a bad deal really.

[Zep]

...which raises another question - are Australians and Canadians and such British "subjects"? What does the term actually mean?Indeed we are! It means that the Queen is the official Head Of State of our countries. Just as the US President is your Head Of State.

But since the Queen is so busy with day-to-day stuff, she has to have a stand-in (a "back up" in your terms) for her in each country. This person is usually called the Governor General of that country (in India until 1948 he was called the Viceroy). These folk perform "vice regal" duties - the description should be obvious!

Here's the Australian GG (http://www.governorgeneral.gov.au/html/homepage.html), and the Canadian GG (http://www.gg.ca/).

[glee]

Originally posted by BPSCG
What, you mean she can announce that she's skipping over Charles and naming Wiliam the heir to the throne? Wow, talk about throwing dung into the blender and setting it to "puree".


Well there's no real precedent, but I think this is what's happening.
(I like your phrasing!)

Originally posted by BPSCG
How did he commit adultry BEFORE his marriage?


Because Camilla was married.
Is this the sort of chap who should be both King and Head of the Church?

Originally posted by BPSCG
Um, 1066 and all that? William the Conquerer?


*****!
C'est vrai - le roi Francaise...

Somehow we just feel he was 'British', I guess.

Originally posted by BPSCG
(I'm originally from New York, where people don't consider you to be rude until you back over them with your car. Plus, I can't say that poking fun at the royals, while delicious fun, isn't rude. So flame away...) We have the Kennedys here, who many people seem to equate with royalty for some reason I can't fathom. Plus Elvis Presley, the worship of whom strikes me as nothing short of idolatry.


Royalty is sort of fun unless you pay heavily for it (and they shame you by commiting adultery etc).

Originally posted by BPSCG
Can I assume her estate paid her gambling debts before her daughter inherited?

I think the money was owed to Coutts Bank in the form of an overdraft.
I don't know who paid it.

[headscratcher4]

As has been said by smarter people than I...

(paraphrasing): strange women lying in ponds handingout swords is no basis for a system of government....

[glee]

Originally posted by Nikk
On the subject of money the Royal Family does not strictly speaking cost anything. The wealth generating property which is the personal property of the monarch i.e. land, investments etc, etc, has ever since about 1760 been handed over to the Exchequer ( controlled by the elected political party of the day ) at the start of the reign of each monarch. There is no legal obligation to do this. Parliament then votes the monarchy whatever it needs to carry on in the style to which it is accustomed. Separate accounts are of course kept for this property and it currrently brings in an income of about £350million per year. The current running costs of the monarchy are about £35-£40million so there is a net transfer from the head of state to parliament of about £300million+ per year. Not a bad deal really.

1. The property is not 'handed over', just some of the income.
In 2001 the Queen handed over £133 million (not £350 million).
Of course the Crown has legal immunity from tax, which deprives the rest of us of considerable income.
It is true that the Royals have recently offered to pay 40% income tax, but I don't think they pay any other taxes.

"Since the 14th century the Duchy's main purpose has been to provide an income, independent of the Monarch, for the heir apparent. That income covers the cost of the public and private life of the current Duke, The Prince of Wales. Neither he nor his sons receive an allowance from the Civil List. When there is no male heir, the Duchy reverts to the Monarch, and its income to the Exchequer."

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/duchy/

2. Since the Prince is a male heir, he controls the land and the money. It's valued at about £357 million, and earns annually a profit of about £7.5 million.

"The Queen is to get a windfall of up to £100,000 from the first sale of land by a royal palace for 300 years.
A deal is being brokered between the government, on behalf of the royal household, and the owners of the Royal Garden hotel in London over the sale of a plot of land owned by Kensington Palace.

Hitherto it had been illegal for any of the grounds of the royal homes - Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, and Windsor Castle - to be sold. In 1702 parliament forbade William of Orange to sell any of the palace land, in order to stop him joining in the property speculation rife at the time."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,860766,00.html

3. This land is owned by the Queen. It has not been 'handed over to the Exchequer' as you claim.

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
As has been said by smarter people than I...
(paraphrasing): strange women lying in ponds handingout swords is no basis for a system of government.... It was Dennis, in the funniest movie of all time, Monty Python and the Holy Grail (Monti Python ik den Holie Gralen)

Arthur: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!

Woman: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.

Arthur: I am your king!

Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.

Arthur: You don't vote for kings.

Woman: Well, how did you become King, then?

Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,... [angels sing] ...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!

Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

Arthur: Be quiet!

Dennis: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!

Arthur: Shut up, will you? Shut up!

Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.

Arthur: Shut up!

Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Arthur: Bloody peasant!

Dennis: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by glee
Because Camilla was married.
Is this the sort of chap who should be both King and Head of the Church?I dunno... you mean he'd be the first adulterer to sit on the throne since before Henry VIII (first Head of the Church, or am I mistaken)?
Royalty is sort of fun unless you pay heavily for it (and they shame you by commiting adultery etc).Why should you be ashamed? It's not like you're related. He's not your Uncle Charles. You think he was ashamed when you flunked elementary algebra?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Zep
Indeed we are! It means that the Queen is the official Head Of State of our countries. Just as the US President is your Head Of State.

But since the Queen is so busy with day-to-day stuff, she has to have a stand-in (a "back up" in your terms) for her in each country. This person is usually called the Governor General of that country (in India until 1948 he was called the Viceroy). These folk perform "vice regal" duties - the description should be obvious!

Here's the Australian GG (http://www.governorgeneral.gov.au/html/homepage.html), and the Canadian GG (http://www.gg.ca/).

Um, we aren't British subjects these days. QEII is Queen of Australia and she's also Queen of Canada. Her constitutional relationship to our countries is as our sovereign, not as Britain's.

The G-G is not the representative of the Queen of England, he's the representative of the Queen of Australia.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by glee
If he gets a real job, he would have to 'fit in' like the rest of us. Of course, if he's in the Army, I'm sure the fact that his mother is Commander-in-Chief of the Army will have zero effect on his getting time off.

OK the Queen is Commander-in-Chief just as she's Head-of-State and Defender of the Faith.

In the USA, the President is Commander-in-Chief and Head-of-State, except that he really is those things. And we officially have no faith (but don't tell that to some Republicans).

The real Head of State of the UK is the Prime Minister and the real Defender of the Faith is the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Who is the real Commander-in-Chief of the British Armed Forces. The First Lord of the Admiralty or :confused:

[reprise]

I'm not sure about in Britain, but in Australia the G-G is the real Commander-in-Chief.

While the G-G's role as C-i-C is a hangover from colonial times and was a safeguard to ensure that the states and the federation did not use the armed forces against the interests of the Crown, in modern times it could be used to ensure that the government does not use the armed forces against the interests of the Australian people.

It's difficult to envisage a situation under which a G-G would not use their reserve powers to dismiss a government long before giving a direct order to our armed forces, but the armed forces cannot legally defy the G-G to follow an order from the PM.

While it's true that G-Gs follow the convention of not acting except on the advice of the PM and the Parliament, the powers that they do possess which allow them to act are very real and in the modern era are most likely to be used to protect the people from a government over-reaching its powers.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by glee


1. The property is not 'handed over', just some of the income.
In 2001 the Queen handed over £133 million (not £350 million).
Of course the Crown has legal immunity from tax, which deprives the rest of us of considerable income.
It is true that the Royals have recently offered to pay 40% income tax, but I don't think they pay any other taxes.

"Since the 14th century the Duchy's main purpose has been to provide an income, independent of the Monarch, for the heir apparent. That income covers the cost of the public and private life of the current Duke, The Prince of Wales. Neither he nor his sons receive an allowance from the Civil List. When there is no male heir, the Duchy reverts to the Monarch, and its income to the Exchequer."

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/about/duchy/

2. Since the Prince is a male heir, he controls the land and the money. It's valued at about £357 million, and earns annually a profit of about £7.5 million.

"The Queen is to get a windfall of up to £100,000 from the first sale of land by a royal palace for 300 years.
A deal is being brokered between the government, on behalf of the royal household, and the owners of the Royal Garden hotel in London over the sale of a plot of land owned by Kensington Palace.

Hitherto it had been illegal for any of the grounds of the royal homes - Kensington Palace, Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, and Windsor Castle - to be sold. In 1702 parliament forbade William of Orange to sell any of the palace land, in order to stop him joining in the property speculation rife at the time."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/monarchy/story/0,2763,860766,00.html

3. This land is owned by the Queen. It has not been 'handed over to the Exchequer' as you claim.

You are talking about two different things here. The Crown Estates and the Duchy of Lancaster.

As far as the Crown Estate are concerned, which is what I was talking about, the term handed over conveys the nature of the arrangement well enough. To be more precise since the 1956 and 1961 acts the Crown Lands, renamed the Crown Estate are managed by independent commissioners and all of the revenue is handed over to the Exchequer. In other words the monarch has handed over the right to manage or dispose of the property. In return the Monarch receives an agreed sum, the civil list, together with other payments, from the Exchequer. This arrangement has so far been repeated at the start of each reign.

I seem to have overstated the income as the current figure (2003) is actually £170.8million. But my point that the monarchy pays for itself is correct.

As regards taxes it would be utterly pointless to impose taxes on the Crown Estate as in effect the Exchequer would be taxing its own revenues.

It would however make sense if the private income of the "Royals", including the Duchy of Lancaster, were to be taxed in the same way as any other income. Needless to say the whole issue of what is genuinely private property and what is regarded as "in trust for the nation" would need to be sorted out.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by reprise
I'm not sure about in Britain, but in Australia the G-G is the real Commander-in-Chief.

While the G-G's role as C-i-C is a hangover from colonial times and was a safeguard to ensure that the states and the federation did not use the armed forces against the interests of the Crown, in modern times it could be used to ensure that the government does not use the armed forces against the interests of the Australian people.


Is the G-G of Australian an Australian or someone sent from the UK? Appointed really by whom (not the Queen)?

If an Australian, is that legally required or just the UK being nice these days?

Similar answers about Canada from whoever out there knows?

Thanks!

[reprise]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred


Is the G-G of Australian an Australian or someone sent from the UK? Appointed really by whom (not the Queen)?

If an Australian, is that legally required or just the UK being nice these days?

Similar answers about Canada from whoever out there knows?

Thanks!

The Prime Minister makes a recommendation to the Queen on who should be Australia's G-G. The PRM can also petition the Queen to withdraw the G-G's commission. In recent times, our G-Gs have been Australian. Originally, though, the G-G (and the state governors) were generally British and appointed by the monarch to keep an eye on the Crown's interest in the colonies. The G-G still retains the power to dismiss the government of the day, although doing so would not really serve the interest of the Crown these days as dismissing the government automatically triggers a new election of both houses of Parliament.

There is not requirement that the G-G be Australian, and I'm pretty sure that instituting such a requirement would require a constitutional amendment.

Australia observes many of the same conventions as Britain in relation to powers vested in the Crown (or the Crown's representative), however, we do have a written Constitution as well and it is that document which determines the legality or otherwise of actions taken on behalf of the Crown.

Although a staunch republican, I like the checks and balances which our current system of government entrenches and wouldn't like to see much change made to how the balance of power is distributed when we ultimately replace the monarch with a president.

Edited to add that the states have their own quite separate legal arrangements with the Crown which would not be affected by the Commonwealth becoming a republic.

[Zep]

All this is so, reprise, but it all still means that the Queen (of Australia or of England - she is both) is our Head of State. A non-Australian.

Here's the wording from my passport, which is my identity outside of Australia. It says NOTHING about her being the Queen of Australia or the Queen of NSW or whatever.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zep
All this is so, reprise, but it all still means that the Queen (of Australia or of England - she is both) is our Head of State. A non-Australian.

Here's the wording from my passport, which is my identity outside of Australia. It says NOTHING about her being the Queen of Australia or the Queen of NSW or whatever.

If the monarch changes, do you have to get a new passport?

[Zep]

Technically, yes. But it happens when it gets re-issued. The wording will change.

A bigger logistical problem will be all those items that have the "EIIR" symbol emblazoned on them (it stands for "Elizabeth II Regina"). Assuming William becomes King William 6th (for example), it will become "WVIR" (William VI Rex). If it is Charles, it will be "CIIIR" (Charles III Rex).

Silly, isn't it!

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Zep
Technically, yes. But it happens when it gets re-issued. The wording will change.

A bigger logistical problem will be all those items that have the "EIIR" symbol emblazoned on them (it stands for "Elizabeth II Regina"). Assuming William becomes King William 6th (for example), it will become "WVIR" (William VI Rex). If it is Charles, it will be "CIIIR" (Charles III Rex).

Silly, isn't it!

Very.

Do Australian taxes go to the Queen as well?

[tonygraham]

Remind you of anyone?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Grammatron
Do Australian taxes go to the Queen as well? Not as far as I'm aware. Except in the form of paying for this Harry dude's security while he is here, and running up the tea-and-scones for his mum when she comes, etc, etc.

[Zep]

Originally posted by tonygraham
Remind you of anyone? Stop it! I'll laugh so hard I'll burst my stitches... :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Zep
Technically, yes. But it happens when it gets re-issued. The wording will change.

A bigger logistical problem will be all those items that have the "EIIR" symbol emblazoned on them (it stands for "Elizabeth II Regina"). Assuming William becomes King William 6th (for example), it will become "WVIR" (William VI Rex). If it is Charles, it will be "CIIIR" (Charles III Rex).

Silly, isn't it!

So if he had a king called trevor, would our passports say T-Rex?

<marquee> <marquee direction=up behavior=alternate>:wink8: </marquee> </marquee>

[Zep]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
So if he had a king called trevor, would our passports say T-Rex?

<marquee> <marquee direction=up behavior=alternate>:wink8: </marquee> </marquee> *snort* :D

If that happened I would wonder how many people in England had to be killed to make him next in line for the throne!

Did you ever see Spike Milligan's film, The Bedsitting Room?