info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Duke's Will
52 views
Skip to first unread message
The Todal
Sep 17, 2021, 5:15:22 AM9/17/21
to
Prince Philip's Will must remain secret for 90 years. If you're
wondering why, here's a court judgment explaining that the sealing of a
royal Will is normal practice but now for the first time the judge
explains the historical and legal reasons.
But it seems that the Attorney General, who represents the public
interest, did not argue against the Will being sealed - so you could say
it was a bit of a stitch-up.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-Will-of-His-late-Royal-Highness-The-Prince-Philip-Duke-of-Edinburgh.pdf
quote
As President of the Family Division I am now custodian of a safe in
which there are over thirty envelopes, each of which purports to contain
the sealed will of a deceased member of the Royal Family. I can confirm
that the earliest such envelope is labelled as containing the will of
Prince Francis of Teck. The most recent additions were made in 2002 and
are, respectively, the wills of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The
Queen Mother and Her late Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess
of Snowdon.
As a matter of public law, the Attorney General is uniquely entitled to
represent the public interest. The Attorney General’s statement that the
public interest strongly favours not permitting publication of the will
and details of the estate should, therefore, be regarded as evidence of
great weight on the question.
The Attorney General submits that a period of 125 years would be the
most appropriate before the question of unsealing a will should be
considered.... I consider that a period as long as 125 years is not
justified. Equally, a period much less than 80 years would seem to be
too short; 80 years looks back to 1941 and the early years of the Second
World War.
wondering why, here's a court judgment explaining that the sealing of a
royal Will is normal practice but now for the first time the judge
explains the historical and legal reasons.
But it seems that the Attorney General, who represents the public
interest, did not argue against the Will being sealed - so you could say
it was a bit of a stitch-up.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/The-Will-of-His-late-Royal-Highness-The-Prince-Philip-Duke-of-Edinburgh.pdf
quote
As President of the Family Division I am now custodian of a safe in
which there are over thirty envelopes, each of which purports to contain
the sealed will of a deceased member of the Royal Family. I can confirm
that the earliest such envelope is labelled as containing the will of
Prince Francis of Teck. The most recent additions were made in 2002 and
are, respectively, the wills of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, The
Queen Mother and Her late Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess
of Snowdon.
As a matter of public law, the Attorney General is uniquely entitled to
represent the public interest. The Attorney General’s statement that the
public interest strongly favours not permitting publication of the will
and details of the estate should, therefore, be regarded as evidence of
great weight on the question.
The Attorney General submits that a period of 125 years would be the
most appropriate before the question of unsealing a will should be
considered.... I consider that a period as long as 125 years is not
justified. Equally, a period much less than 80 years would seem to be
too short; 80 years looks back to 1941 and the early years of the Second
World War.
TTman
Sep 17, 2021, 8:23:20 AM9/17/21
to
SNIP
safe? I'm guessing that's the case as otherwise beneficiaries get
nothing for 100 years...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> As a matter of public law, the Attorney General is uniquely entitled to
> represent the public interest. The Attorney General’s statement that the
> public interest strongly favours not permitting publication of the will
> and details of the estate should, therefore, be regarded as evidence of
> great weight on the question.
>
> The Attorney General submits that a period of 125 years would be the
> most appropriate before the question of unsealing a will should be
> considered.... I consider that a period as long as 125 years is not
> justified. Equally, a period much less than 80 years would seem to be
> too short; 80 years looks back to 1941 and the early years of the Second
> World War.
Can someone clarify... has his will been 'executed', then sealed in a
> As a matter of public law, the Attorney General is uniquely entitled to
> represent the public interest. The Attorney General’s statement that the
> public interest strongly favours not permitting publication of the will
> and details of the estate should, therefore, be regarded as evidence of
> great weight on the question.
>
> The Attorney General submits that a period of 125 years would be the
> most appropriate before the question of unsealing a will should be
> considered.... I consider that a period as long as 125 years is not
> justified. Equally, a period much less than 80 years would seem to be
> too short; 80 years looks back to 1941 and the early years of the Second
> World War.
safe? I'm guessing that's the case as otherwise beneficiaries get
nothing for 100 years...
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Mark Goodge
Sep 17, 2021, 8:43:31 AM9/17/21
to
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 13:23:15 +0100, TTman <kraken...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>SNIP
>>
>> As a matter of public law, the Attorney General is uniquely entitled to
>> represent the public interest. The Attorney General’s statement that the
>> public interest strongly favours not permitting publication of the will
>> and details of the estate should, therefore, be regarded as evidence of
>> great weight on the question.
>>
>> The Attorney General submits that a period of 125 years would be the
>> most appropriate before the question of unsealing a will should be
>> considered.... I consider that a period as long as 125 years is not
>> justified. Equally, a period much less than 80 years would seem to be
>> too short; 80 years looks back to 1941 and the early years of the Second
>> World War.
>
>Can someone clarify... has his will been 'executed', then sealed in a
>safe? I'm guessing that's the case as otherwise beneficiaries get
>nothing for 100 years...
Yes, that's the case.
Normally, all wills are open to public inspection after probate has been
granted. That's at least partly so that anyone who has any reason to
make a claim under a will, or to dispute it, has the opportunity to do
so. It is, however, possible to make an application to a court to have a
will kept confidential. Provided that the will is non-contentious, this
can be be granted. It is uncommon, but not vanishingly so.
It is, apparently, normal practice for the wills of members of the Royal
Family to be subject to such an application for confidentiality, and it
has never previously been refused. So this application was mostly just a
formality. The only real matter to be decided was the length of time for
which it would remain confidential.
Mark
wrote:
>SNIP
>>
>> As a matter of public law, the Attorney General is uniquely entitled to
>> represent the public interest. The Attorney General’s statement that the
>> public interest strongly favours not permitting publication of the will
>> and details of the estate should, therefore, be regarded as evidence of
>> great weight on the question.
>>
>> The Attorney General submits that a period of 125 years would be the
>> most appropriate before the question of unsealing a will should be
>> considered.... I consider that a period as long as 125 years is not
>> justified. Equally, a period much less than 80 years would seem to be
>> too short; 80 years looks back to 1941 and the early years of the Second
>> World War.
>
>Can someone clarify... has his will been 'executed', then sealed in a
>safe? I'm guessing that's the case as otherwise beneficiaries get
>nothing for 100 years...
Normally, all wills are open to public inspection after probate has been
granted. That's at least partly so that anyone who has any reason to
make a claim under a will, or to dispute it, has the opportunity to do
so. It is, however, possible to make an application to a court to have a
will kept confidential. Provided that the will is non-contentious, this
can be be granted. It is uncommon, but not vanishingly so.
It is, apparently, normal practice for the wills of members of the Royal
Family to be subject to such an application for confidentiality, and it
has never previously been refused. So this application was mostly just a
formality. The only real matter to be decided was the length of time for
which it would remain confidential.
Mark
Alan
Sep 17, 2021, 12:46:43 PM9/17/21
to
On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 13:43:26 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
> It is, apparently, normal practice for the wills of members of the Royal
> Family to be subject to such an application for confidentiality, and it
> has never previously been refused. So this application was mostly just a
> formality. The only real matter to be decided was the length of time for
> which it would remain confidential.
I'd read it as super rich people don't want the people they rule over
> It is, apparently, normal practice for the wills of members of the Royal
> Family to be subject to such an application for confidentiality, and it
> has never previously been refused. So this application was mostly just a
> formality. The only real matter to be decided was the length of time for
> which it would remain confidential.
knowing how much wealth they have.
In my mind, it stinks, and is a scandal, considering the public monies
they receive each year.
If their income was totally independent of Government sources, I could
see they may have a case to keep their affairs private, even though I
would disagree with that, but, they are receiving Government money, so
should be totally open about their financial affairs.
It's another thing that rich people can do, but 'normal' people just
would not be able to afford. yes, anyone can apply for a 'will hiding'
order, but few would be able to afford such action.
I think it is time for a very large reform in the way we allow Receivers
of public money to hide their tax affairs and now, their Wills.
Graham Truesdale
Sep 17, 2021, 2:13:22 PM9/17/21
to
Graham Truesdale
Sep 17, 2021, 4:09:01 PM9/17/21
to
The annex to https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2015/393.html is a document about the sealing of royal wills.
The judge said that "76. It follows that I will direct that the orders that have previously been made for the sealing
of Royal wills are to be taken to be varied by the order of this court so that on the
expiration of the period of 90 years following the date upon which probate for any such
will was granted, the will is to be opened in private
...
89. It may be that one or both of the parties will wish to seek permission to appeal against
the orders that will follow from this judgment with respect to the time period and/or the
publication of the list of sealed wills. The annex containing the list of wills will not
therefore be published at this stage to allow for any potential appeal process to run its
course."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JqsZDgAAQBAJ&dq=%22will+of+Edward+VII%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s Nash "Royal Wills in Britain from 1509 to 2008" would be interesting reading.
The world and his wife (possibly especially the latter) has been able to obtain copies of the will of Princess Diana. https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Wills?Surname=Wales&SurnameGrants=Wales&YearOfDeath=1997&YearOfDeathGrants=1997&MonthOfDeath=8&MonthOfDeathGrants=8&DayOfDeath=31&DayOfDeathGrants=31&AdvancedSearch=True&IsGrantSearch=True&IsCalendarSearch=False#wills
Anyone who is interested can have a look at the will of Queen Victoria's great-grand-daughter and Queen Mary's niece Lady May Abel Smith by starting at https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=Smith&yearOfDeath=1994&page=36#calendar
The practice of sealing wills started with that of the Queen's great-uncle Prince Francis of Teck (died 1910). Query whether it applied to that of her great-grandfather King Edward VII who died earlier that year.
90 years ago was 17th September 1931. So we *may* soon see wills like those of
1. The above Prince Francis (died childless)
2. Queen Victoria's daughter Princess Helena (died 1923)
We will not see the will of Queen Alexandra (died 1925) because Nash says at page 7 that she did not make one.
nightjar
Sep 17, 2021, 4:14:14 PM9/17/21
to
On 17/09/2021 17:46, Alan wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 13:43:26 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> It is, apparently, normal practice for the wills of members of the Royal
>> Family to be subject to such an application for confidentiality, and it
>> has never previously been refused. So this application was mostly just a
>> formality. The only real matter to be decided was the length of time for
>> which it would remain confidential.
>
> I'd read it as super rich people don't want the people they rule over
> knowing how much wealth they have.
> In my mind, it stinks, and is a scandal, considering the public monies
> they receive each year...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2021 13:43:26 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> It is, apparently, normal practice for the wills of members of the Royal
>> Family to be subject to such an application for confidentiality, and it
>> has never previously been refused. So this application was mostly just a
>> formality. The only real matter to be decided was the length of time for
>> which it would remain confidential.
>
> I'd read it as super rich people don't want the people they rule over
> knowing how much wealth they have.
> In my mind, it stinks, and is a scandal, considering the public monies
The Sovereign Grant is 15% of the income to the UK from the Crown
Estates. That means the UK gets more than six times as much in from the
monarchy as it pays out to it.
--
Colin Bignell
JNugent
Sep 17, 2021, 7:31:22 PM9/17/21
to
But that isn't what the usual suspects wish to hear.
They've heard it before, but prefer to ignore it.
Roland Perry
Sep 18, 2021, 2:00:26 AM9/18/21
to
In message <iqkmq4...@mid.individual.net>, at 00:31:16 on Sat, 18
Sep 2021, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
And the UK's Sovereign Grant is a fraction of what most large developed
countries pay to maintain a President as Head of State.
--
Roland Perry
Sep 2021, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> remarked:
countries pay to maintain a President as Head of State.
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
Sep 18, 2021, 3:29:00 AM9/18/21
to
"he Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the
territories of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland within the
United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole,
making it "the sovereign's public estate", which is neither government
property nor part of the monarch's private estate."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
If it's *not* the monarch's private estate, then the calculation is
utterly false.
Norman Wells
Sep 18, 2021, 5:22:42 AM9/18/21
to
On 18/09/2021 06:59, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <iqkmq4...@mid.individual.net>, at 00:31:16 on Sat, 18
> In message <iqkmq4...@mid.individual.net>, at 00:31:16 on Sat, 18
> And the UK's Sovereign Grant is a fraction of what most large developed
> countries pay to maintain a President as Head of State.
The finances of the monarchy are shrouded in impenetrable fog. No-one
> countries pay to maintain a President as Head of State.
knows who owns what. Some bits are maintained at public expense but are
claimed as private property, income is claimed as private but is derived
from publicly-owned assets etc etc ad infinitum. The figures can be
endlessly manipulated by anyone involved, and they are. There is no
clarity. It is impossible to say what they cost.
About the only thing that is quantified and discoverable is the
Sovereign Grant, but that's only a fraction of the whole, the rest of
which is kept well hidden and obscure.
Any argument based just on the Sovereign Grant is bogus.
RJH
Sep 18, 2021, 5:29:24 AM9/18/21
to
rights the land and property should be handed back to the people.
IMHO of course.
--
Cheers, Rob
The Todal
Sep 18, 2021, 5:46:41 AM9/18/21
to
On 18/09/2021 00:31, JNugent wrote:
When you are told that our EU membership results in a net financial
benefit to the UK far exceeding the sums we have to pay to the EU, your
response is that money isn't everything and we want control over our own
laws.
Well, it's the same with the Royal Family. We ought now to take back
control. Our head of state is the monarch, who inherits that power from
the previous monarch. Her existence is an affront to a modern democracy.
Heads of state should be elected and should fully account for any
profits or gifts they receive as a result of their position. You may say
that the Queen has very little power. I would prefer us to have a head
of state with much more power and the ability and willingness to
overrule, at times, the Prime Minister.
Roger Hayter
Sep 18, 2021, 6:29:48 AM9/18/21
to
from the vast proportion of very valuable land that is still privately owned
and controlled by aristocratic families. They collected this by various forms
of preferment and corruption over the last thousand years and have never had
to give it up. This is much more relevant to wealth distribution and
democracy than the Crown lands. Allons enfants ...
--
Roger Hayter
Max Demian
Sep 18, 2021, 8:54:18 AM9/18/21
to
and cost as much.
(He already costs us a fortune to protect him from all the people who
object to his policies, and you want him (or an equivalent) to be able
to overrule the PM?)
--
Max Demian
JNugent
Sep 18, 2021, 11:20:03 AM9/18/21
to
Would anyone expect anything different?
JNugent
Sep 18, 2021, 11:23:33 AM9/18/21
to
elected representatives who decide our laws.
> We ought now to take back
> control. Our head of state is the monarch, who inherits that power from
> the previous monarch. Her existence is an affront to a modern democracy.
> Heads of state should be elected and should fully account for any
> profits or gifts they receive as a result of their position.
Certainly not a majority of the electorate.
> You may say
> that the Queen has very little power. I would prefer us to have a head
> of state with much more power and the ability and willingness to
> overrule, at times, the Prime Minister.
You certainly aren't alone in preferring it (RJH is right with you for a
start, and I'd be wiling to bet that Jo'B is as well).
But you are not in a majority.
nightjar
Sep 18, 2021, 5:20:49 PM9/18/21
to
On 18/09/2021 06:59, Roland Perry wrote:
also a fraction of what the Royal Family contributes to the UK. In 2017,
they estimate tangible benefits of £25.5bn, of which £13.1bn were from
the Crown Estate, and intangible benefits of a further £42bn, a total of
£67.5bn. They really are very good value for money.
https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf
--
Colin Bignell
Norman Wells
Sep 18, 2021, 6:05:11 PM9/18/21
to
pay to maintain it. To all intents and purposes, it's owned by the
State, as it should be, so it's wholly disingenuous to call it income
the family contributes.
Take that out and you're left with just the other tangible benefits,
whatever they are, and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of
course be whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how
you like and including whatever you like.
They're the ultimate fudge factor.
On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
nightjar
Sep 18, 2021, 8:38:55 PM9/18/21
to
On 18/09/2021 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 18/09/2021 22:20, nightjar wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 06:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> And the UK's Sovereign Grant is a fraction of what most large
>>> developed countries pay to maintain a President as Head of State.
>>
>> According to experts at estimating brand value, the Crown Estates are
>> also a fraction of what the Royal Family contributes to the UK. In
>> 2017, they estimate tangible benefits of £25.5bn, of which £13.1bn
>> were from the Crown Estate, and intangible benefits of a further
>> £42bn, a total of £67.5bn. They really are very good value for money.
>>
>> https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf
>
> The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the family, nor does it
> pay to maintain it. To all intents and purposes, it's owned by the
> State, as it should be, so it's wholly disingenuous to call it income
> the family contributes.
The Crown Estate is owned by the monarch as a corporate body and
> On 18/09/2021 22:20, nightjar wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 06:59, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>> And the UK's Sovereign Grant is a fraction of what most large
>>> developed countries pay to maintain a President as Head of State.
>>
>> According to experts at estimating brand value, the Crown Estates are
>> also a fraction of what the Royal Family contributes to the UK. In
>> 2017, they estimate tangible benefits of £25.5bn, of which £13.1bn
>> were from the Crown Estate, and intangible benefits of a further
>> £42bn, a total of £67.5bn. They really are very good value for money.
>>
>> https://brandirectory.com/download-report/bf_monarchy_report_2017.pdf
>
> The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the family, nor does it
> pay to maintain it. To all intents and purposes, it's owned by the
> State, as it should be, so it's wholly disingenuous to call it income
> the family contributes.
administered by a branch of government, so it is neither fish nor fowl.
However, the income from it goes to the state as the result of an
agreement with the monarch.
> Take that out and you're left with just the other tangible benefits,
> whatever they are,
> and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of
> course be whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how
> you like and including whatever you like.
> They're the ultimate fudge factor.
>
> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might be
estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to say
that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of billions of
pounds.
--
Colin Bignell
Alan
Sep 19, 2021, 3:40:59 AM9/19/21
to
On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 00:06:23 +0100, nightjar wrote:
>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>
> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand, the
> Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might be
> estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to say
> that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of billions of
> pounds.
That still doesn't justify keeping their finances secret. The 'Head' of
>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>
> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand, the
> Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might be
> estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to say
> that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of billions of
> pounds.
the UK should be open, not hiding their finances behind expensive Court
Actions, just so 'we' cannot see what they have.
They should be making an example to all of us about openness, making the
point that it is wrong to try to 'scrounge' or evade taxes.
Roland Perry
Sep 19, 2021, 5:45:04 AM9/19/21
to
In message <bfednYCph6lRTNv8...@brightview.co.uk>, at
00:59:40 on Sun, 19 Sep 2021, Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> remarked:
Hey, you could make an entire TV series about that relationship. Oh
wait...
>not hiding their finances behind expensive Court Actions, just so 'we'
>cannot see what they have. They should be making an example to all of
>us about openness, making the point that it is wrong to try to
>'scrounge' or evade taxes.
--
Roland Perry
00:59:40 on Sun, 19 Sep 2021, Alan <alan@darkroom.+.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 00:06:23 +0100, nightjar wrote:
>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>>
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand, the
>> Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might be
>> estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to say
>> that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of billions of
>> pounds.
>
>That still doesn't justify keeping their finances secret. The 'Head' of
>the UK should be open,
Was Phil the "Head of the UK", or just an advisor to his wife, who was.
>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>>
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand, the
>> Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might be
>> estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to say
>> that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of billions of
>> pounds.
>
>That still doesn't justify keeping their finances secret. The 'Head' of
>the UK should be open,
Hey, you could make an entire TV series about that relationship. Oh
wait...
>not hiding their finances behind expensive Court Actions, just so 'we'
>cannot see what they have. They should be making an example to all of
>us about openness, making the point that it is wrong to try to
>'scrounge' or evade taxes.
Roland Perry
Clive Page
Sep 19, 2021, 6:36:08 AM9/19/21
to
On 17/09/2021 21:13, nightjar wrote:
> The Sovereign Grant is 15% of the income to the UK from the Crown Estates. That means the UK gets more than six times as much in from the monarchy as it pays out to it.
Only if you consider that the Crown Estates are in some sense their legitimate private property. Some of us think that this ought to be public land.
> The Sovereign Grant is 15% of the income to the UK from the Crown Estates. That means the UK gets more than six times as much in from the monarchy as it pays out to it.
--
Clive Page
JNugent
Sep 19, 2021, 7:14:51 AM9/19/21
to
JNugent
Sep 19, 2021, 7:15:51 AM9/19/21
to
Any tax paid on income is voluntary.
nightjar
Sep 19, 2021, 7:45:20 AM9/19/21
to
On 19/09/2021 06:59, Alan wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 00:06:23 +0100, nightjar wrote:
>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>>
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand, the
>> Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might be
>> estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to say
>> that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of billions of
>> pounds.
>
> That still doesn't justify keeping their finances secret. The 'Head' of
> the UK should be open, not hiding their finances behind expensive Court
> Actions, just so 'we' cannot see what they have.
So, we a have clear and complete statement of the finances of every
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 00:06:23 +0100, nightjar wrote:
>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>>
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand, the
>> Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might be
>> estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to say
>> that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of billions of
>> pounds.
>
> That still doesn't justify keeping their finances secret. The 'Head' of
> the UK should be open, not hiding their finances behind expensive Court
> Actions, just so 'we' cannot see what they have.
Prime Minister do we, or did you mean figurehead?
> They should be making an example to all of us about openness, making the
> point that it is wrong to try to 'scrounge' or evade taxes.
particularly good history of doing so. Of course, we only know much of
that in retrospect, as it is only in recent decades that the media have
reported their activities without self censorship.
--
Colin Bignell
David McNeish
Sep 19, 2021, 8:59:59 AM9/19/21
to
aren't necessarily related to the family having a current constitutional
role (how many visitors does Versailles get?). And the tv series "The
Crown" is a bit tenuous, given that's a dramatisation of historic events,
not live coverage of what HMQ etc are doing.
Norman Wells
Sep 19, 2021, 9:03:00 AM9/19/21
to
I bet I could reduce it to zero.
The French seem to manage perfectly well without one.
What proportion of visitors to the UK would you estimate ever claps eyes
on a member of the Royal family? If they didn't exist tomorrow, would
it make any difference?
Roland Perry
Sep 19, 2021, 9:27:18 AM9/19/21
to
In message <iqoduh...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:24:33 on Sun, 19
Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>What proportion of visitors to the UK would you estimate ever claps
>eyes on a member of the Royal family? If they didn't exist tomorrow,
>would it make any difference?
It's not just seeing the people, it's tours round Buckingham Palace,
Windsor, Tower of London and so on. Do may tourists visiting Paris make
a special effort to see the Elysee Palace? Does Macron even allow tours.
--
Roland Perry
Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 19/09/2021 00:06, nightjar wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of course be
>>>whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how you like
>>>and including whatever you like.
>> Again, listed in the link I gave, complete with the methodology.
>>
>>> They're the ultimate fudge factor.
>>>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand,
>>the Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures
>>might be estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not
>>possible to say that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into
>>tens of billions of pounds.
>
>Only if you're an obsequious courtier.
>
>I bet I could reduce it to zero.
>
>The French seem to manage perfectly well without one.
They have a republican president, who costs much more than our monarchy.
>> On 18/09/2021 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of course be
>>>whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how you like
>>>and including whatever you like.
>> Again, listed in the link I gave, complete with the methodology.
>>
>>> They're the ultimate fudge factor.
>>>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand,
>>the Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures
>>might be estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not
>>possible to say that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into
>>tens of billions of pounds.
>
>Only if you're an obsequious courtier.
>
>I bet I could reduce it to zero.
>
>The French seem to manage perfectly well without one.
>What proportion of visitors to the UK would you estimate ever claps
>eyes on a member of the Royal family? If they didn't exist tomorrow,
>would it make any difference?
Windsor, Tower of London and so on. Do may tourists visiting Paris make
a special effort to see the Elysee Palace? Does Macron even allow tours.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Sep 19, 2021, 9:41:20 AM9/19/21
to
In message <b90801db-a914-4f71...@googlegroups.com>, at
03:22:03 on Sun, 19 Sep 2021, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
remarked:
That's not where the President lives.
>And the tv series "The Crown" is a bit tenuous, given that's a
>dramatisation of historic events, not live coverage of what HMQ etc are
>doing.
--
Roland Perry
03:22:03 on Sun, 19 Sep 2021, David McNeish <davi...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>And the tv series "The Crown" is a bit tenuous, given that's a
>dramatisation of historic events, not live coverage of what HMQ etc are
>doing.
Roland Perry
David McNeish
Sep 19, 2021, 10:11:14 AM9/19/21
to
royal family in order to have people flocking to their former palaces.
JNugent
Sep 19, 2021, 10:53:51 AM9/19/21
to
On 19/09/2021 10:24 am, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 19/09/2021 00:06, nightjar wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of course be
>>> whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how you like
>>> and including whatever you like.
>>
>> Again, listed in the link I gave, complete with the methodology.
>>
>>> They're the ultimate fudge factor.
>>>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>>
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand,
>> the Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might
>> be estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to
>> say that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of
>> billions of pounds.
>
> Only if you're an obsequious courtier.
>
> I bet I could reduce it to zero.
>
> The French seem to manage perfectly well without one.
What is the cost of the Presidency (including the Elysee Palace, etc)?
> On 19/09/2021 00:06, nightjar wrote:
>> On 18/09/2021 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>> and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of course be
>>> whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how you like
>>> and including whatever you like.
>>
>> Again, listed in the link I gave, complete with the methodology.
>>
>>> They're the ultimate fudge factor.
>>>
>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>>
>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand,
>> the Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures might
>> be estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not possible to
>> say that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into tens of
>> billions of pounds.
>
> Only if you're an obsequious courtier.
>
> I bet I could reduce it to zero.
>
> The French seem to manage perfectly well without one.
Norman Wells
Sep 19, 2021, 10:54:07 AM9/19/21
to
On 19/09/2021 14:23, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <iqoduh...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:24:33 on Sun, 19
> Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 19/09/2021 00:06, nightjar wrote:
>>> On 18/09/2021 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>>> and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of course be
>>>> whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how you
>>>> like and including whatever you like.
>>> Again, listed in the link I gave, complete with the methodology.
>>>
>>>> They're the ultimate fudge factor.
>>>>
>>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>
>>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand,
>>> the Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures
>>> might be estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not
>>> possible to say that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into
>>> tens of billions of pounds.
>>
>> Only if you're an obsequious courtier.
>>
>> I bet I could reduce it to zero.
>>
>> The French seem to manage perfectly well without one.
>
> They have a republican president, who costs much more than our monarchy.
That's impossible to determine. We don't have and can't get any
> In message <iqoduh...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:24:33 on Sun, 19
> Sep 2021, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 19/09/2021 00:06, nightjar wrote:
>>> On 18/09/2021 22:55, Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>>> and the estimated 'intangible benefits' which can of course be
>>>> whatever your particular agenda wants them to be, costed how you
>>>> like and including whatever you like.
>>> Again, listed in the link I gave, complete with the methodology.
>>>
>>>> They're the ultimate fudge factor.
>>>>
>>>> On a different interpretation I have no doubt they could be zero.
>
>>> Not in any real sense. All brands have a value and, seen as a brand,
>>> the Royal Family has a considerable value to the UK. The figures
>>> might be estimates, but they won't be so far out that it is not
>>> possible to say that the value of the monarchy to the UK runs into
>>> tens of billions of pounds.
>>
>> Only if you're an obsequious courtier.
>>
>> I bet I could reduce it to zero.
>>
>> The French seem to manage perfectly well without one.
>
> They have a republican president, who costs much more than our monarchy.
accurate information about our own. No-one knows who owns what and
no-one can say definitively what should be included or what can be
offset. It's a real pea-souper of foggy obscurity that the monarchy
defends and ruthlessly exploits. We mustn't embarrass the Queen, must
we, so we take everything her accountants say without any questioning or
proper analysis. And even the government is complicit.
>> What proportion of visitors to the UK would you estimate ever claps
>> eyes on a member of the Royal family? If they didn't exist tomorrow,
>> would it make any difference?
>
> It's not just seeing the people, it's tours round Buckingham Palace,
> Windsor, Tower of London and so on.
used to be occupied by a monarch. You don't actually have to have one
who's still alive.
In fact, going round them, the natural thought is no wonder the people
got rid of them.
> Do may tourists visiting Paris make
> a special effort to see the Elysee Palace? Does Macron even allow tours.
0 new messages