this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023

69 points (96.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4077 readers

288 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

King Charles to receive huge pay rise from UK taxpayers (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by thehatfox@lemmy.world to c/unitedkingdom@feddit.uk

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Syldon@feddit.uk 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess the Bank of England doesn't think this will exacerbate inflation.

[–] thehatfox@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

Perhaps our train drivers and doctors should just retrain to be royalty instead.

The UK’s attitude to the monarchy is as tone deaf as ever.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 19 points 1 year ago

I think that high-pitched whistling noise might be a sign my piss is boiling.

Take it away Lord Turnbull:

Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary, Whitehall’s most senior civil servant, who was involved in official discussions over royal financing, accused the Treasury of seeking to obfuscate how the monarchy was funded.

He said that linking the royal finances to the profits of the crown estate was “silly” and was motivated by a desire to promote the idea that the king was paying for himself and was reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

“You get people writing in saying: ‘Isn’t it a good thing that the king is so sensitive to public opinion that he has waived some of the money he could have had?’ I think it’s bollocks. It is deliberate – that’s really what makes me so cross about it. It is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate how the thing works.”

[–] Melpomene@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doesn't a pay raise suggest that there's some sort of work involved? Call it what it is... royal welfare.

[–] damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

We'll be does do some stuff.

I don't necessarily think we need for your family but at the same time there's so many fuxked up things in this country to get worked up, about I just can't really bring myself to be all that bothered.

[–] anteaters@feddit.de 15 points 1 year ago

That's nice of them. They take good care of their aging king who is surely not fit for employment.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Is this what they meant when they said Brexit would increase wages?

[–] Facelikeapotato@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago

Oh, how nice for him. I switched from name brand olive oil spread to generic table spread in 1kg tubs.

[–] Electricorchestra@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Everything is sp bloody expensive now he probably needs it.

[–] youessbee@feddit.uk 6 points 1 year ago

His Tesco bills just keep soaring.

[–] nonearther@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

Leave the old chap alone.

He has been unemployed his whole life. He deserves some money, after living such deprived life.

[–] rayquetzalcoatl@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I support this fully, as long as he uses our money to go to Switzerland and do us all a favour. Get a job you fucking leech, the rest of us have to.

[–] FatLegTed@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

He'll be able to afford a new pen and some more socks now then.

Poor old sod.

[+] Baggers@feddit.uk -6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Evidently a lot of monarchy haters here and the downvotes suggest that facts won't change entrenched opinions.

That's a shame because facts are facts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw

[–] Skua@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ahh, the video that says the British castles are more attractive to American tourists than French ones literally as it shows a picture of a monastery in famously republican and world number one tourist destination France as the "awesome" UK one. While we're on the topic of facts being facts, the Crown Estate is not the private property of the monarch as claimed in the video and my source on that is the Crown Estate. The other argument is "oh the name of the country would be weird if we got rid of the monarchy and then also changed the country's name to something weird".

We could, if we wanted, literally just decide that the monarch is to be democratically elected and is otherwise still called king or queen and still gets the fancy outfits and a justification to keep the name the same. They're our laws.

[–] the_inebriati@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We could, if we wanted, literally just decide

This is basically what it comes down to.

Unless you're worried about Charlie sailing to France to raise a mercenary army, we can assume he'll do exactly what he's told.

Even if the Crown Estate was his personal property (which it isn't) - parliament is sovereign and there's more of us than him. We could just take it from him.

God, I hope long enough to see a Great British Republic.

[–] G4Z@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

We should just take it, it was taken in the first place by force.

[–] the_inebriati@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I swear every monarchy-loving flag-shagger bases their entire personality off the same 4 minute, 12-year-old poorly researched youtube video.

No, Charlie Boy would not get to keep the Crown Estate were we to evict him.

[–] rubberkeys@freeradical.zone 5 points 1 year ago

@Baggers @thehatfox

That video is utter rubbish. Here's every point refuted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiE2DLqJB8U

[–] damnYouSun@sh.itjust.works -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I miss r/casualUK where everyone nas more normal.

[–] G4Z@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

That sub is shite.

[–] Hogger85b@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

There is !ukcasual a pretty active c with same vibe

[–] HaunchesTV@feddit.uk 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The "no politics" rule on the sub really only stopped the crazies from piping up. They were there, I'm sure.

[+] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk -7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Just to be clear the royal grant is a portion of the profits from the crown estates. That the gov earns about 350m a year. So the taxpayers this comes from is technically themselves.

[–] G4Z@feddit.uk 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

No it's not though because they don't own the crown estates, the public own that and give them a portion of the earnings.

Everything they have comes from us, they didn't earn any of it, it's all just stolen wealth and unitaxed inheritance.

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No in the rather odd example you invent.mit would be paid for by the company owning the car. And if that money is given to you. It would be classed as your wages.

But the point is. It would not be considered to come from the tax payer.

Because any minimal research into the Crown estates makes it clear. They are not in any way shape or form. Owned by the tax payer. Nor have they ever been.

At all poi ts in history the Crown has kept its own income separate from national income. (Ie taxes).

When the us revolution happened the king funded it. And went bankrupt.

Because unlike now. The Crown funded war. Not parliment then. So the king made a deal. All income from the Crown estates. Was to go to parliment. In exchange for the royal grant.

Parliment knew at the time that long term this would be a huge benifit. Now it is.

It is freaking petty and wrong to claim it is tax payer money. It is basically they Crown paying less then 100% tax on there company earnings.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

I assume this was meant to be a reply to my comment. I'm not sure what's odd about the example, and it's hardly strange to "invent" an analogy. A party has control of an asset via the position they hold, they sell the rights to use and profit from that asset to a second party in exchange for financial compensation. That's the deal. The monarch doesn't have the rights to the profits of the Estate because the Treasury has the rights to it under the existing legislation.

The Estate was established 16 years before the American revolution with the Civil List Act 1760. That the monarch used to fund wars is entirely irrelevant to who has the rights now.

The Estate is also explicitly not the monarch's private property. It's a perk of the most overpaid and intentionally nepotistic civil service position in the country. Far from petty, I'd say it's only right to question that

[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The Crown owns the Crown estates. It was never tax payer funded. The Crown has kept its income separate from the national income all through history.

As for tax free. Since the US revolution. The Crown has given the income to the government. Somits pretty much a 75% tax rate for most of that time. Def higher then engine else was paying at the time.

Simple research into the history of the Crown estates makes it clear it dosenot in any way shape or form belong to the tax payer.

[–] G4Z@feddit.uk 3 points 1 year ago

The Crown owns the Crown estates. It was never tax payer funded

The state (aka us) owns the crown, the crown is not owned by the monarch.

As for tax free. Since the US revolution. The Crown has given the income to the government.

You mean our assets have paid money to the monarchy as part of a centuries old deal to pay for the last Charlie boys debts. Fuck that, I don't see we have to keep one family in a state of perpetual luxury because of that.

Simple research into the history of the Crown estates makes it clear it dosenot in any way shape or form belong to the tax payer.

No, simple research shows that it does in fact belong to us. I'd love to see your source mate.

Can Charlie sell any of it? Can he put it in his will? Can he even make renovations? No, well he doesn't own it does he.

[–] Skua@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

If I sign a contract with you to let you use my car as a taxi in exchange for a set amount of money, an increase in the amount of money I get from the deal is not being paid for by me. Especially not when the car is actually a company car.

[–] FatLegTed@feddit.uk 1 points 1 year ago

£350 million?

That would look good on the side of a bus 🤔

load more comments