8% increase in Queen's allownace

Who owns the Crown Estate?

It is not owned by anyone. It is held in trust and administered by an independent organisation, with the profits dedicated to the funds of the nation.(I am not sure of the details, but it is all online somewhere)

There is a website here - www.thecrownestate.co.uk/

And I have just seen "£328.8m Net revenue profit up 8.1% compared to 2015/16 " so my guess that Crown Estate profits were up this year was right.

There is a link to the accounts, if you have time on your hands to read them.

"Historically, Crown Estate properties were administered by the reigning monarch to help fund the business of governing the country. However, in 1760, George III surrendered control over the Estate's revenues to the treasury,[4] thus relieving him of the responsibility of personally paying for the costs of the civil service, defence costs, the national debt, and his own personal debts. In return, he received an annual grant known as the Civil list. "
Not just in return for getting his own personal debts paid. Previously the Crown Estates had largely bankrolled the running of the whole country.

???.....disgusting!!! Nothing against the Queen but the 'hangers on' need to be self supporting...the Queens VAST wealth should be enough without receiving the BIGGEST 'benefit payment' in the world...

So the estates revenue belong to the country. In my book that amounts to saying the tax payer forked out the bill.

Smoke and mirrors.

Oh whitewave, you are determined to find fault even where there is none, aren't you? ?

A lot of it comes from high-class commercial and residential property - so it is largely income from the rich, those taxpayers who should be contributing more to the economy.

I think the number of royals that we pay for should be drastically pruned. I would also like to see more transparency about the palace expenditure. The sovereign grant is only a part, there is the security bill which is picked up by Met police, and I think local councils foot bill for Royal visits. Us loyal subjects are informed by government that there are no magic money trees but there is apparently a whole orchard of them for some of their "deserving causes".

If works need to be carried out then it has to be paid for.It's going to keep a few companies and people going isn't it? The Palace is open to the public as well as being the home of the Queen.If we need new boilers and pipework we get the work done don't we?
My only question is what another poster mentions, why has it been allowed to get so bad? The same could be said of Parliament in Westminster.

why has it been allowed to get so bad?

I don't know, but presumably no-one who works for Crown Estates has ever heard of 'Planned Maintenance' to allow it to get into that kind of state.

Pragmatically, I prefer a Monarchy above politics to an elected president. Yet another election - "You're joking! Not another one!" I do think that a presidential system would cost more in the long run too.

However, the timing is atrocious.

Talking about homes and the homeless - message to anniebach; you will be pleased to know that at long last I have managed to hand over the promised money for you - and in the Welsh capital too!

Diolch Jalima

Yes Rosesarered if we have work carried out it has to be paid for so let the Royals pay for their own repairs and the ' it keeps companies in work' doesn't wash with 600 blocks of flats to sort out I reckon they ll have plenty of jobs on their hands

I m neutral as regards royals, don't adore or hate but the example they are setting in these difficult times is atrocious and I totally agree get all of them out to work escept Queenie and DofE

The income comes from the Crown Estates. The Crown has handed over control of this income and receives only a percentage of it in return. This increase is a percentage increase on incomes received from the Crown Estates. It is not coming out of the public purse or general taxation.

The Crown Estates were handed over to independent management after the Royal Families particularly unpopular period which culminated in the Windsor fire.

The tax payers made it clear that they were fed up paying for a family, whose behaviour left a whole lot to be desired and who paid not a penny piece to the country over which they nominally ruled.

Prior to the establishment of this entity, the civil list was debated in parliament which focus on the payment to the royal household, and was highly controversial.

The sleight of hand has taken away this debate and the yearly argument allowing the Queen to receive an ever increasing level of funding without the glaring publicity of a parliamentary debate.

I'm completely OK with this. The money is an 8% rise, taking the profits the Crown Estates will retain to 25% - in other words, 75% of the profit going straight to the exchequer.
Buck Palace is starting to decay scarily; fixing it now will be cheaper than waiting until bits are falling off.
It's got nothing to do with the Queen's income.

Of course, it's not pocket money for HM and her family - wages for the household, expenditure as in any other business.

Each year the Royal Household publishes a summary of Head of State expenditure, together with a full report on Royal public finances. These reports can be downloaded from the Media Centre.

So open and above board.

The British tourism agency has reported that the royal family generates close to 500 million pounds, or about $767 million, every year in tourism revenue, drawing visitors to historic royal sites like the Tower of London, Windsor Castle, and Buckingham Palace.23 Jul 2013

They are an industry, generating jobs and income for others and probably better value for money than a President.

It really sticks two fingers up at nurses etc. doesn't it? By the look of it the magic money tree is in fine fettle! I'd like to see the back of the monarchy, its an archaic hangover from when we were a military society and is totally silly to spoil one family rotten whilst others suffer. It looked really odd a family with 7 or 8 houses between them going to see families who just had a bed in a leisure centre

No, it doesn't because this is not an increase in salary for HM, it is to cover the costs of repairs and renovations to a neglected building.

It's like saying that money spent on repairing a hospital building is wrong.

I would have said that managers in the NHS on huge, inflated salaries were the ones who were doing what you describe spabbygirl.

NHS hospital bosses given pay rises worth more than a nurse's annual salary
Some hospital chief executives have been given pay rises of up to £35,000

Because they're worth it? I think not.

Absolutely agree Farview have no problem with the Queen she has worked hard, but to think Charles will be next on the throne makes me seriously consider the concept of abolishing the monarchy and having a president, at least you can vote a president out !!!

I was astonished when people booed Teresa May when she visited the tower disaster and yet were all wreathed in smiles when the royals went, singing their praises, while just along the road from that terrible tragedy, millions was being spent upgrading Buck House and they have so many other homes.

If I could get a job, where just turning up netted me 84 million I would seriously consider it despite my mobility problems.

We can never have a fairer society while we put some on a pedestal and carry on living in the past with titles and honours. I think the queen has done as well as can be expected but when she dies we need to knock it all on the head. The buildings are of historical interest and need to be kept us such but the rest of them are well able to fend for themselves.

Buck House is really little more than a set of offices. not a home - sure, her maj does much of her entertaining of foreign HoS there, (convenient holding your dinner parties in the capital!), but imagine having to meet and greet all those strangers and be polite to them day in day out, when what you'd rather be doing is reading, listening to music, playing with the gc etc. And criticised the whole time for what you wear, what you say, how you choose to live your life etc. Wouldn't want to live in a goldfish bowl for all the money in the world!

Not the only family with four children to have seven homes, first homes = five houses add a couple of holiday homes owned by family members = 7 , add grandchildrens homes and far more than 7 homes

Corbyn has a 3/4 bedroom house, just himself and the 3rd Mrs Corbyn, he could have given shelter to a family