Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 60   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Princess Eugenie News  (Read 144313 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
luvcharles

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1022

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2680





Ignore
« Reply #825 on: October 18, 2020, 05:29:58 AM »

I love the 'taxpayer' argument as there would be minimal savings. The Sovereign Grant is set as a percentage of the income of the Crown Estate by law and that isn't going to go down ... so whether there are 5, 10 or 20 royals that will be the same. The incomes from the Duchies is also governed by a number of royal charters etc and won't be going down due to a reduction in the number of working royals. The income will still go to the monarch and heir (in fact in the Sovereign Grant Act they ensure that the heir would get the income of the Duchy of Cornwall wither or not they were the heir apparent or son of the monarch rather than have it go to the Treasury as had been the case when there was no Duke of Cornwall in the past).

Security would be the only cost but who get full-time security now - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Catherine, George, Andrew and Edward. I am not sure whether Charlotte has her own security at school but I would assume so.

Sophie, Anne, Richard, Birgitte, Edward and Alexandra all only have security now, when doing official duties so none for their day to day lives unless they pay for it themselves from their private sources, on which they pay taxes like everyone else.

Of course legislation can change but ... the monarch and Duke of Cornwall have the right to veto, before legislation even gets to parliament any legislation that would affect their income. There are reports that The Queen has vetoed a number of pieces of legislation or had it modified throughout her reign in her position as Duke of Lancaster. As that was BEFORE the legislation made it to parliament and was in the draft stages it didn't make the news. Any attempt to remove that right would have to happen by legislation but that would be vetoed before it got to parliament.

Logged
Chandrasekhi

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 708

Offline Offline

Vanuatu Vanuatu

Posts: 2822


...


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #826 on: October 18, 2020, 10:35:29 AM »

luvcharles  Star . Brilliant as ever!
Logged

ďDo or do not. There is no try.Ē

Ė Yoda
kbart

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 101

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 202





Ignore
« Reply #827 on: October 18, 2020, 12:29:00 PM »

Lady G: I'll give you an unpopular opinion...less working royals will signal the end of the monarchy. Less patronages means less visits to the regions, less connection to ordinary people ("I must be seen to be believed") and a breaking of the unwritten social contract between the monarchy and the nation. Game over.


Lady G, I totally agree with you. UK is a huge place, four nations, much bigger than say a Denmark. Thousand of organisations, charities really want royal patronages. They do add value. I worked for an organisation that had the Duke of Kent as a patron. I also regular attend concerts at Wigmore Hall where he is also a patron and have seen him there. He is popular, his visits and support are/were welcomed at both these places... I think there is a role for junior royals to keep on slogging it there ding unpopular things in less glamorous locations - if they want to, of course! The cousins have done a great job doing just that.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1084

Offline Offline

Posts: 4126





Ignore
« Reply #828 on: October 18, 2020, 01:39:20 PM »

I could see a cost savings...well sort of.  With fewer working royals fewer residences would be needed.  KP could be handed over to HRP in whole which would eliminate the cost of security and upkeep.  That would leave BP for the Sovereign and CH for the heir with SJP for all the random offices it contains plus an apartment for the heirís heir.  With Windsor as a weekend home and Balomoral/Birkhall for vacations they could handover Sandringham to English Heritage eliminating the security cost for that one.

I canít remember if the minor working royals lost security (except for engagements) or if it was threatened.  But either way that pairs down security from 11 residences (the senior 6) or 15 residences (all working royals) to 5 residences (BP, CH/SJP, WC, BC, & BH)...a cut of anywhere from 50% to 66%.  If everyone has security (based on being a working royal alone) that would take security from upwards of 16 adults (at the peak) to 4-6 adults (with two to three adult generations)...another huge decrease.   To me that all seems like a big savings on security. 

As for the Sovereign Grant...thatís obviously harder.  But I would like to see a fake savings buy separating out the funds meant for upkeep of the Occupied Royal Palaces.  Obviously the current restoration is not the BRFís fault seeing that the Blair era screwed them over but they still blamed.  If the Sovereign only received 10% and an independent committee received the 5% meant for building up keep...optics wise it might work out better. 

Iíd also like to see the heir pay taxes first and then pay official expenses.  Charles could probably pull that off now and be ok especially if he didnít have as huge of an office (60 office staff for just 2 people is a bit excessive).  Minimal savings but the optics are much better.  If the heir could also pay for their own travel (I know thatís not the way the system is set up itís just a thought) it would further benefit the optics of fiscal responsibility compared to spending millions of the SG to fund travel when you receive a 20M+ plus allowance yourself.

Someone with proper knowledge would need to run real numbers but I do think thereís a way to get decent savings and greatly improve optics.

Interesting fact...at approximately 240,000 sq km of total area (rounded slightly) the UK is smaller than Denmark, Spain, Sweden, and Norway.
Logged
perdie

Big Member
*******

Reputation: 1015

Offline Offline

Posts: 1756





Ignore
« Reply #829 on: October 18, 2020, 02:04:50 PM »

I don't know that the comparison to other countries is entirely valid.  Each country has their own traditions and expectations, and certainly in the UK the model has been for a variety of lesser royals to be in the mix, often doing the lower profile events.  But those lesser-visited places, less prominent charities all deserve attention too. 

I hope I'm not getting off-topic here, the Cambridges have kept the number of their patronages very low.  They seem to be taking certain areas of interest and then trying to exploit them more fully - such as mental health.  They're looking at mental health in a variety of ages, in men etc.  It's more than a passing interest, and it should hopefully result in a better reach.  But while they are going more in depth into few areas, it does mean that there will be a huge number of charities losing royal patronage and thus attention in the next couple of decades.  That will hurt, especially with the projected recession looming.  I quite like what B&E have been doing in taking on some charities themselves.  They're nice women and as luvcharles says, more royals doesn't mean more taxpayers money.  It does mean more places visited, more charities supported. 
Logged
Queenís Tea

Small Member
****

Reputation: 216

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 553





Ignore
« Reply #830 on: October 18, 2020, 04:13:40 PM »

I’m in the US so my understanding of how they are “paid” is admittedly very limited.  But they are certainly scrutinized every time they take a private flight, etc. (which suggests to me that the public has a vested interest in what they’re doing, how they’re spending money).  Did they not give up the royal yacht due in part to that scrutiny?  That’s my vague recollection.  They aren’t just a private family doing whatever they want.  If they have to have the refurbishment of BP approved, which I believe they did, that also suggests to me oversight of some sort.  So slimming down the family makes sense to me from that standpoint.  I just regret it because I rather like other branches of the family being involved from a purely dishing standpoint.  I think I’ve gone far enough off topic though so will shut up now. 
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 04:22:13 PM by Queenís Tea » Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1084

Offline Offline

Posts: 4126





Ignore
« Reply #831 on: October 18, 2020, 04:17:20 PM »

I get it.  Though saying less royals means less charities supported may be an overly simplistic view.  Currently the BRF support around 2,800 various charities, clubs, military appointments, professional organizations, etc.  The Queen alone has nearly 600.  Considering she does 300 engagements a years she's clearly not having official contact with every patronage every year.  The Duke of Edinburgh still has around 750 and he's been retired for 3 years so it's doing anything official with any of them.   Then there's another 200 some odd organizations that still have the other retired royals as patron.  And The Duchess of Kent's nearly 70 patronages...and she's hasn't been a working royal for nearly 20 years.  Obviously I'm not accounting for organizations with more than one of the above royals associated with it so the numbers are slightly off but regardless that's a lot of patronages that aren't seeing regular contact from their royal patron.

As the number of working royals decreases than the various patronages will need to be evaluated.   Many of the honorary memberships won't continue, especially the random international ones like Philip's many yacht clubs, and the rest can (and should) be evaluated on a case by case basis.  One does have to wonder how many of the 2,800 want anything more than a name only patron.  There's nothing wrong with that but name only patrons are adding to visits around the UK.  The BRF could certainly reassign those name only patronages (subject to the organizations desire and request) but some may very well decide that there's no need to.  If they are reassigned then all the royals, the Cambridges (having the lowest number) especially, will need to realize that there nothing wrong with a large number of name only patronages if that's what the organizations want.

All that being said, of course non working royals can (and should) support any and all charities that they want to (and that want them too) but you don't need to be on the official roster to support charities...though it would be nice to see Beatrice and Eugenie's charity work on the CC.

I'm going to try to follow Queen's Tea and go back to my box.  Sorry all I just feel oddly strongly about this whole thing.

Forgot to add the link...https://www.royal.uk/char...field_world_region_value=
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 04:40:54 PM by Oh_Caroline » Logged
anastasia beaverhausen

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 1390

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 5303





Ignore
« Reply #832 on: October 18, 2020, 06:55:39 PM »

I get it.  Though saying less royals means less charities supported may be an overly simplistic view.  Currently the BRF support around 2,800 various charities, clubs, military appointments, professional organizations, etc.  The Queen alone has nearly 600.  Considering she does 300 engagements a years she's clearly not having official contact with every patronage every year.  The Duke of Edinburgh still has around 750 and he's been retired for 3 years so it's doing anything official with any of them.   Then there's another 200 some odd organizations that still have the other retired royals as patron.  And The Duchess of Kent's nearly 70 patronages...and she's hasn't been a working royal for nearly 20 years.  Obviously I'm not accounting for organizations with more than one of the above royals associated with it so the numbers are slightly off but regardless that's a lot of patronages that aren't seeing regular contact from their royal patron.

As the number of working royals decreases than the various patronages will need to be evaluated.   Many of the honorary memberships won't continue, especially the random international ones like Philip's many yacht clubs, and the rest can (and should) be evaluated on a case by case basis.  One does have to wonder how many of the 2,800 want anything more than a name only patron.  There's nothing wrong with that but name only patrons are adding to visits around the UK.  The BRF could certainly reassign those name only patronages (subject to the organizations desire and request) but some may very well decide that there's no need to.  If they are reassigned then all the royals, the Cambridges (having the lowest number) especially, will need to realize that there nothing wrong with a large number of name only patronages if that's what the organizations want.

All that being said, of course non working royals can (and should) support any and all charities that they want to (and that want them too) but you don't need to be on the official roster to support charities...though it would be nice to see Beatrice and Eugenie's charity work on the CC.

I'm going to try to follow Queen's Tea and go back to my box.  Sorry all I just feel oddly strongly about this whole thing.

Forgot to add the link...https://www.royal.uk/char...field_world_region_value=

Well, youíve given me some stuff to chew on, OC. I was always of the opinion that more visibility equals more support, especially if itís the right visibility (charitable works and pictures of adorable tots, for example). But yeah, I donít know how future generations will view royals or if some of them will tumble from lack of public support. Chicken and egg thing here?
Logged
Duchess of Verona

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 917

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2968





Ignore
« Reply #833 on: October 18, 2020, 06:57:06 PM »

Duck for cover, SvenskaSarah, LL: blingies incoming!  Yikes   Star Star

ITA jerry4.  Star Star although Bea and Eug could have done more to aid their own cause. Throwing York women to the wolves, while burnishing the image of their royal relatives, goes back a generation. SWWNBN did it to their mother.

I am pretty fucking tired of this SWWNBN business  Snare

Just stop it. Do yíall think weíre stupid Snare Also Diana is O/T. As is William and Harry.


I qualify as stupid- I still donít know who is being spoken of. And now I will never know! 😬 (Fine with that though)
Paris tunnel.
Logged
periwinkle

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 926

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2911





Ignore
« Reply #834 on: October 18, 2020, 07:40:10 PM »

I hope I'm not getting off-topic here, the Cambridges have kept the number of their patronages very low.  They seem to be taking certain areas of interest and then trying to exploit them more fully - such as mental health.  They're looking at mental health in a variety of ages, in men etc.  It's more than a passing interest, and it should hopefully result in a better reach.  But while they are going more in depth into few areas, it does mean that there will be a huge number of charities losing royal patronage and thus attention in the next couple of decades.  That will hurt, especially with the projected recession looming.  I quite like what B&E have been doing in taking on some charities themselves.  They're nice women and as luvcharles says, more royals doesn't mean more taxpayers money.  It does mean more places visited, more charities supported. 

I think we know enough facts about how the royal money flows but actually refuse to really apply that to our preferences on who gets what and why. I think we outsiders apply too many of our middle class thoughts about rich people and "deserving" things and our own thoughts about taxes to the royals. I mean you cannot compare a high property tax rate in a suburban neighborhood in the US with how the system in the UK "pays" for the monarchy. These are apples and oranges. This is why we have total confusion all the time in these conversations. Thank goodness for our luvcharles who patiently helps us along with the facts. If my bias is against my personal tax bracket I will apply higher criteria to the royals it's not fair.

I like the Cambridge approach of going deeper into some key issues with partner organizations it's very smart and have more potential for impact. But that should be supplemented with the "lesser" royals doing the more superficial visits and patronages so that the royal charm can still elevate which is the whole point. Sending Edward of Kent or Eugenie to a hospital twice a year should not mean free housing of course but the travel should be reimbursed if it falls into a frugal category like you can't take a private helicopter unless the location demands it. You just drive and schedule it so that you aren't staying in a hotel for overnight with dinner I mean treat it like most other businesses would. If the royals are going to survive they will need to deploy cousins to the little things it shows the value of the royals when you get rid of the royals out of fear of the tax money it takes to pay them you are forgetting the value add of the visit. Free housing should be at the discretion of the monarch I mean those houses and buildings exist and who else is going to live there? There is a legit security concern for even the lesser royals so why not be in a compound like Kensington palace.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1084

Offline Offline

Posts: 4126





Ignore
« Reply #835 on: October 18, 2020, 07:57:41 PM »

I’m going to disagree about the security concern aspect.  Beatrice and Eugenie list their security after university as the Met could not justify two (essentially private citizens) having taxpayer funded security...basically there as the any concerns.  The discussion about removing 24/7 security from minor royals (Anne, Edward, Sophie, Andrew, and the cousins) when not on engagements would only have occurred had the Met felt that there was insufficient concern to justify a 24/7 expense.  Following his retirement Andrew was to lose his security entirely due to insufficient concern had The Queen not stepped in.

With a good security system in a safe neighborhood...any minor Royal would be perfectly fine.  The Met takes these sort of things very seriously so if they want to pull someone’s security it’s because of lack of need first and foremost...cost savings is just icing on the cake.

After all the cousins were given grace and favor accommodations in the 70s as either wedding presents (Gloucester and Prince Michael) or due to financial concerns (Duke of Kent sold Coppins and moved in the York House, SJP before moving to KP in the 90s).  Beatrice moved into SJP first, in 2008, because she was attending university in London...that made sense during university....then Eugenie moved in (since it has either a 3 or 4 bedrooms when all Beatrice would have needed in college was 1 bedroom) once she was done at university.  Instead of giving Eugenie and Jack (and later Beatrice and Edo) a gift towards a down payment on their own place a second 3 bedroom place was found for them to move into pre-wedding.  I don't think the BRF thought process went much beyond...hey their HRHs and this is what's been done in the past so why not.  Public sentiment is why not.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 08:47:55 PM by Oh_Caroline » Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1022

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2680





Ignore
« Reply #836 on: October 19, 2020, 02:31:23 AM »

I could see a cost savings...well sort of.  With fewer working royals fewer residences would be needed.  KP could be handed over to HRP in whole which would eliminate the cost of security and upkeep.  That would leave BP for the Sovereign and CH for the heir with SJP for all the random offices it contains plus an apartment for the heirís heir.  With Windsor as a weekend home and Balomoral/Birkhall for vacations they could handover Sandringham to English Heritage eliminating the security cost for that one.

Not everyone who lives in KP is a working royal so it would still be used as a home for royals. Security wouldn't be that much less due to the heritage nature of the palace.

Why would they have to give up their private home of Sandringham? It isn't an occupied palace, anymore than Balmoral is. Sandringham is already open to the public for all bar December-early February and one weekend when Charles and Camilla visit for the Sandringham Garden show and the grounds are open 365 days a year.

English Heritage properties have a great deal of security e.g. The Tower of London probably costs more in security than almost anywhere else. If the income from visitors doesn't cover the security then the taxpayers have to make up the difference or people have to be sacked, as has happened with many such places this year.

Quote
I canít remember if the minor working royals lost security (except for engagements) or if it was threatened.  But either way that pairs down security from 11 residences (the senior 6) or 15 residences (all working royals) to 5 residences (BP, CH/SJP, WC, BC, & BH)...a cut of anywhere from 50% to 66%.  If everyone has security (based on being a working royal alone) that would take security from upwards of 16 adults (at the peak) to 4-6 adults (with two to three adult generations)...another huge decrease.   To me that all seems like a big savings on security. 


They lost security in 2012 - as part of the reorganisation of the finances tied up with the passing of the Sovereign Grant Act.

Balmoral and Sandringham (along with Birkhall and Sandringham) are PRIVATE properties. They have security paid by the taxpayer only when the monarch is in residence. The rest of the time the security of those homes is paid for privately.

Quote
As for the Sovereign Grant...thatís obviously harder.  But I would like to see a fake savings buy separating out the funds meant for upkeep of the Occupied Royal Palaces.  Obviously the current restoration is not the BRFís fault seeing that the Blair era screwed them over but they still blamed.  If the Sovereign only received 10% and an independent committee received the 5% meant for building up keep...optics wise it might work out better. 

They actually had that system BEFORE the Sovereign Grant Act. One of the reasons for putting all of the money in one pot was to ensure that the maintenance was being done by those actually living and working in the palaces as needed rather than by some pen pusher in an office who had no real idea of the state of the palaces. It was largely a result of the separation of the finances that saw the palaces get into the state they are in. The Queen would suggest xxxx needed to be repaired but the decision maker would look at their pieces of paper and say 'that isn't scheduled for this year' and so would put it off. Now the Queen says 'xxxx needs to be repaired' and xxxxx is repaired.

Quote
Iíd also like to see the heir pay taxes first and then pay official expenses.  Charles could probably pull that off now and be ok especially if he didnít have as huge of an office (60 office staff for just 2 people is a bit excessive).  Minimal savings but the optics are much better.  If the heir could also pay for their own travel (I know thatís not the way the system is set up itís just a thought) it would further benefit the optics of fiscal responsibility compared to spending millions of the SG to fund travel when you receive a 20M+ plus allowance yourself.

Charles started paying taxes (50% of the income from the duchy of Cornwall) when he took over the Duchy. He reduced it to 25% when he married so he had enough money to support Diana. He has been paying taxes for a lot longer than the Queen, who only started doing so in 1992 while Charles was doing so from 1969. I remember when it was announced that he was going to pay the taxes voluntarily at that time as I remember by grandmother talking about the deal George VI made with the government to not pay tax due to having to buy Edward's private properties.

Quote
Someone with proper knowledge would need to run real numbers but I do think thereís a way to get decent savings and greatly improve optics.
Possibly but I suspect that those who don't want to believe the true situation still wouldn't do so. The figures are published annually and presented to parliament but still this argument comes up every year.

Quote
Interesting fact...at approximately 240,000 sq km of total area (rounded slightly) the UK is smaller than Denmark, Spain, Sweden, and Norway.

The UK may be smaller but the monarch of the UK is also the Head of the Commonwealth - an organisation that covers about 25% of the world's population and so there are more calls on that family than others. The monarch of the UK is also the monarch of 15 other realms some of which are a lot larger than the area of the countries you listed.
Logged
Oh_Caroline

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1084

Offline Offline

Posts: 4126





Ignore
« Reply #837 on: October 19, 2020, 02:40:23 AM »

Fair enough.  Full disclaimer...I have planted my feet with regards to most of this.  I'm a stubborn girl that way and will probably never be dissuaded from my beliefs but I can respect that we all have different thoughts on these topics.  As always luvcharles, your knowledge is incredible.

Update...I was saying all the KP stuff as part of a longer transition plan not just kicking everyone to the curb tomorrow.  And the Sandringham bit was a random thought given that it's barely used now and that I can't see Charles using it all that much given how he prefers Scotland for the holiday season.  I think I was also remembering old articles about either Balmoral or Sandringham's tourist numbers not covering the expenses...so basically running at a lose.  Sure that's not the taxpayer's issue but it's also not sustainable.  That was more a random thought.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 03:24:43 AM by Oh_Caroline » Logged
Royal Di

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 208

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 276





Ignore
« Reply #838 on: October 19, 2020, 07:54:32 AM »

The baby will have paternal relations as well, right? Perhaps there is a special name in the groom's family they would like to consider.
Though to be fair, I loath the name Jacqueline...

Hi, Fairy. Who is Jacqueline? Do you mean a baby girl named after Jack? haha!

Jack's mother is named Nicola (née Newton), daughter of Michael Anthony Fendall Newton and Joanna K. H. Holland.
His father's name is George Edward Hugh. He is the son of Stamp Godfrey Brooksbank and Celia Dorothy Coke.

Jack's full name is Jack Christopher Stamp Brooksbank.  Christopher is for his mother's brother and Stamp after his paternal grandfather.
I doubt that "Christopher" will be used since Edo's son's full name is Christopher Woolf Mozzi, nicknamed "Wolfie."

Interestingly enough, Beatrice's husband, Edo's mother also is named Nicola Diana (née Burrows). She goes by Nikki.
So, I am fully expecting a girl named "Sarah Elizabeth Nicola" from one of the York princesses.

« Last Edit: October 19, 2020, 08:01:30 AM by Royal Di » Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1022

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2680





Ignore
« Reply #839 on: October 19, 2020, 08:32:08 AM »

Fair enough.  Full disclaimer...I have planted my feet with regards to most of this.  I'm a stubborn girl that way and will probably never be dissuaded from my beliefs but I can respect that we all have different thoughts on these topics.  As always luvcharles, your knowledge is incredible.

Update...I was saying all the KP stuff as part of a longer transition plan not just kicking everyone to the curb tomorrow.  And the Sandringham bit was a random thought given that it's barely used now and that I can't see Charles using it all that much given how he prefers Scotland for the holiday season.  I think I was also remembering old articles about either Balmoral or Sandringham's tourist numbers not covering the expenses...so basically running at a lose.  Sure that's not the taxpayer's issue but it's also not sustainable.  That was more a random thought.

Sandringham is now permanently used by Prince Philip (Wood Farm) and the Cambridge's (Anmer Hall). Like many 'estates' in the UK they aren't simply one house but can include many houses and even villages as Sandringham has. I think there are three or four full villages as part of the estate. There are public roads that go through the estate as well as private roads.

Philip has worked hard to make the estates - Sandringham, Balmoral and Windsor - all pay their way. This year none of the royal estates have made a profit (but that is the same for pretty much every heritage site in the UK).

One of the issues with the minor royals is that they don't have a salary so having a 'rent free home' is really their salary for working for the Queen, who also pays their official expenses from the income of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 54 55 [56] 57 58 ... 60   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: