howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
courtesy of the independent.
The Prince of Wales's funding from the taxpayer increased by 11 per cent during the last financial year, official accounts showed today
Charles's income from grants-in-aid and Government departments rose from £1,962,000 to £2,194,000, an increase of £232,000 during 2011/12.
He also saw his private funding from the Duchy of Cornwall - the landed estate given to the heir to the throne to provide him or her with an income - go up by 3 per cent to £18.3 million.
The Prince's tax bill rose marginally from £4,398,000 to £4,496,000, an increase of £98,000.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#2
So Howard - better not to jump to conclusions, please explain what the grants were for.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#3
not really the point barry, everyone else are having grants cut including voluntary organisations so why does the prince of wales accept his knowing how others are suffering?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
Howard - is the problem with giving the reasons for the grants because they would destroy the anti-royal argument that you are gunning for?
There are many grants available for land-owners and businesses and can be from improving the rural economy and preserving wildlife to providing much needed jobs. It is only right that all land-owners are able to take advantage of them and that includes the prince. Such grants can attack match funding and sponsorship for many good causes.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
Howard - is the problem with giving the reasons for the grants because they would destroy the anti-royal argument that you are gunning for?
There are many grants available for land-owners and businesses and can be from improving the rural economy and preserving wildlife to providing much needed jobs. It is only right that all land-owners are able to take advantage of them and that includes the prince. Such grants can attract match funding and sponsorship for many good causes providing a multiplier effect..
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#6
good defence of the royals baz;
costing us all a fortune right down to the 98th auntie
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
so why are grants available for land owners but not for something like home start?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#8
now theres a good question howard
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#9
The Royals certainly do not cost us a fortune, far from it, get some facts.
Howard - you are the one implying something wrong but seem very reluctant to say what the grants are for. As you have raised the subject then the onus is on you to substantiate and make your case, not to do so totally undermines the stirring that you are doing and any case you might have. Make your case.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
the royal family costs you and me £40million
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#11
If we are going to end up with Charles and Camila..............it`s a whole new ball game...............
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#12
a chastening thought reg, both are frankly laughable.
time for the younger and more tuned in royals to take the reins when her majesty chucks it in.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#13
so we might have charles and his bint on the side in the throne room.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#14
Keith - so what are the alternatives, allow the Royal Palaces to rot and decay? Elect some over-blown politician as a President who will cost a lot more? Oh, of course, hand back to HMQ her royal estates that are private property and provide an income to the Treasury many times the value of Civil List.
This cost argument is a non-starter.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#15
Exactly Barry.
The Royal family cost me under 70p a year, hardly a fortune and well under the cost of a pint of beer, a packet of cigarettes or even a litre of petrol.
http://cgpgrey.squarespace.com/blog/the-true-cost-of-the-royal-family-explained.html-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#16
The whole royals debate is an interesting one
im no more in favour of a president, as i am of keeping the royals
if im honest i don't know the answer
thats doesnt mean i have to agree with the present system
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#17
the royals a waste of space.so osts us 70p a year each to keep them in unpresidented luxury that we can only dream of.
make them work down the salt mines to make earn a living,[minimum wages of course].
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#18
im sure the royals (some)work hard
but it is privilidge
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
#19
I don't ever think the royal debate is one about how much they cost us, as their 'value' defined by Royalists is simply not equatable to money.
The same could be said for many other things that define being British, but their 'value' is often reduced to pounds and pence for the sake of political point scoring.
It depends on what you value.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#20
Surely the only real argument over whether to have a President or an hereditary Head of State is that the latter has no independent power, but the former would have.
The difference is about the same as a Football Team Mascot and a Football Team Manager.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.