Prince Andrew’s Financial Independence: King Charles Cuts Royal Support

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, animalmagic said:

His last attempt to face the public in the Emily Maitlis interview didn't go well.

Perhaps there are more people around who would like to dish the dirt on him?

Can't see any dirt on him ...... the worst accusation was he had consensual sex with a 17yo hooker.

I personally don't have a problem with that, he didn't harm anyone.

It's not as if he had his former wife murdered for hanging out with a Muslim drug dealer.

Edited yesterday at 06:09 AM by BritManToo

[KhunLA]

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

Yes he got his 30 pieces of silver for selling out his family in the moanfest Spare. Bravo. 

 

That only works once. 

 

His lifestyle of taking private jets to polo matches and having hordes of security following you in Range Rovers to preach about the climate isn't cheap. Assuming he has that much (I don't believe he has) then it will last him 2-3 years. Expect a divorce from that awful gold digging woman followed by a grovelling return to the UK in around 2026-2027. Maybe sooner if Trump checks his visa application. 

Multi millionaire gold digging ... that's funny ...

... do the math 

 

So much hate ... or is that envy 😎

 

Edited yesterday at 06:23 AM by KhunLA

[Tidal wave]

Just a couple of pubic hairs getting in the mix at the chocolate factory revolting ugly creatures the lot of them.

[JonnyF]

10 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Multi millionaire gold digging ... that's funny ...

... do the math 

 

 

Doesn't add up. 424,000 annually for 7 years is about 3 million. Maybe she wasn't in every episode? I only watched half of one and that was enough for me so I wouldn't know. 

 

She probably got a few thousand for being the BJ girl in Beverly Hills 90210 as well. 😆 Don't forget opening the suitcase on Deal or No Deal. Few hundred bucks for that. 

 

Of that 3 million she'd have been taxed almost half and probably spent the rest on designer clothes, plastic surgery and transport as she hunted her prey across multiple continents.

 

She's D list. And that is chump change compared to Harry's wealth. She thought he had a lot more though. 

[KhunLA]

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

Doesn't add up. 424,000 annually for 7 years is about 3 million. Maybe she wasn't in every episode? I only watched half of one and that was enough for me so I wouldn't know. 

 

She probably got a few thousand for being the BJ girl in Beverly Hills 90210 as well. 😆 Don't forget opening the suitcase on Deal or No Deal. Few hundred bucks for that. 

 

Of that 3 million she'd have been taxed almost half and probably spent the rest on designer clothes, plastic surgery and transport as she hunted her prey across multiple continents.

 

She's D list. And that is chump change compared to Harry's wealth. She thought he had a lot more though. 

Reading comprehension ... don't hurt yourself 🙄

[digger70]

Prince Andrew’s Financial Independence: King Charles Cuts Royal Support.

 

What about the rest of them, They all are bludging of the Tax payers Money.

They should be All Cut Off they have enough money to live on  the rest of their days.   

How much does the royal family cost the taxpayer?

The real cost of the Royal Family to taxpayers is £510m a year - nearly six times more than the £86m of state funding from the annual Sovereign Grant - anti-monarchy campaigners claim.Sep 23, 2567 BE

[NoshowJones]

5 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

My heart bleeds. He always seemed like a bit of a self entitled fool. He will likely receive little sympathy. He has been a great embarrassment to the family. Ring any bells? 

 

At the start of the year, Epstein is with Andrew at Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. They are photographed together; also in the photo is Melania Trump and Gwendolyn Beck. 

 

Prince Andrew throws a shooting weekend for Maxwell's birthday, and Epstein is in attendance. (Andrew denied it was a birthday party in the Newsnight interview, saying it was "just a straightforward, a straightforward shooting weekend.")

 

Prince Andrew has denied the accusations numerous times. When Maitlis asked him about a photo, first published in 2011, which appears to show Andrew with his arm around Giuffre's waist, he said, "That's me but whether that's my hand or whether that's the position I… but I don't… I have simply no recollection of the photograph ever being taken." He also said it couldn't have been him, because he says he was at a Pizza Express in Woking that evening.

 

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/leisure/arts-and-culture/a60296556/prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-relationship-timeline/

 

 

If a guy pays out millions to a woman because of his questionable behaviour towards her, and then says he is innocent, he has to be a liar, he has to be guilty, same with Michael Jackson.

Does anyone seriously believe that the pair of them are innocent????

[digger70]

1 hour ago, digger70 said:

How much does the royal family cost the taxpayer?

The real cost of the Royal Family to taxpayers is £510m a year - nearly six times more than the £86m of state funding from the annual Sovereign Grant - anti-monarchy campaigners claim.Sep 23, 2567 BE

What about using this money for the pensioners in foreign countries who don't get the yearly upgrade on their pension..

 

Do pensioners living abroad get pension increases?

If you retire abroad to any other country, you will not get any annual increases in your state pension. However, there is an exception – if you retire abroad 'part-time' but live in the UK for six months or more each year. In this instance, you will get annual increases in your state pension.

[billd766]

5 minutes ago, digger70 said:

What about using this money for the pensioners in foreign countries who don't get the yearly upgrade on their pension..

 

Do pensioners living abroad get pension increases?

If you retire abroad to any other country, you will not get any annual increases in your state pension. However, there is an exception – if you retire abroad 'part-time' but live in the UK for six months or more each year. In this instance, you will get annual increases in your state pension.

Would you like to do some research on the subject and try again? For instance do you know how many British don't get the annual pension update.

 

Do you even know IF British pensioners offshore get the updates and which countries DO get updated pensions, or even why they do or don't?

[Patong2021]

13 hours ago, john donson said:

why not deport him to his pedo island ?   weird not a word anymore on the epstein list...

 

Because the evidence was not sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Patong2021]

9 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

If a guy pays out millions to a woman because of his questionable behaviour towards her, and then says he is innocent, he has to be a liar, he has to be guilty, same with Michael Jackson.

Does anyone seriously believe that the pair of them are innocent????

 

It is often more cost effective to enter into a financial settlement than to continue a lengthy legal battle. The only ones who prosper are the legal counsels. The alleged victim  is claiming damages. The victim typically wants to be compensated for the real or the fabricated damages. To continue to defend some claims consumes more in legal costs than the claimant is demanding. Also, a drawn out litigation can damage a brand value. He was wise to settle when he could as he could never win  even if "innocent" as his name was sullied and he was assumed guilty by the public.

[still kicking]

15 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

That in-bred Royal family should be sent packing...all of them, including the bull dog camila.

Agree 

[Patong2021]

10 hours ago, digger70 said:

Prince Andrew’s Financial Independence: King Charles Cuts Royal Support.

 

What about the rest of them, They all are bludging of the Tax payers Money.

They should be All Cut Off they have enough money to live on  the rest of their days.   

How much does the royal family cost the taxpayer?

The real cost of the Royal Family to taxpayers is £510m a year - nearly six times more than the £86m of state funding from the annual Sovereign Grant - anti-monarchy campaigners claim.Sep 23, 2567 BE

 

Do you know where the money for the Crown comes from? Apparently you do not.  Neither you, nor the UK taxpayer are directly paying.  The Sovereign Grant, formerly known as the Civil List, is a set percentage of the Crown Estate profits that is given to the royal family each year to cover the costs of their activities on behalf of the UK.  This is approximately 25% of the profits. The balance of profits go to the to the public purse and are used to pay for things such as the generous benefits UK citizens receive. 

The Royals Family may own crown jewels and  some fine arts, but the assets are frozen in that they cannot be sold or taken out of the UK without the permission of the government. It may be theirs, but they can not sell it.

 

Your anti monarchists can claim as they wish, but their sums are sus and unsubstantiated. Even if 510 million, it is a  small cost considering the income the  monarchy generates for the people of the UK.   As per the Regional Studies.org, Recent attempts to measure the size of the impact of the royal family on UK tourism have estimated the capital value of UK monarchy as a business to be £67.5 billion+  and the annual contribution to the UK economy to be £1.766 billion. These estimates included indirect economic effects on tourism, trade, media and arts. 

 

Edited 17 hours ago by Patong2021

[RayC]

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Do you know where the money for the Crown comes from? Apparently you do not.  Neither you, nor the UK taxpayer are directly paying.  The Sovereign Grant, formerly known as the Civil List, is a set percentage of the Crown Estate profits that is given to the royal family each year to cover the costs of their activities on behalf of the UK.  This is approximately 25% of the profits. The balance of profits go to the to the public purse and are used to pay for things such as the generous benefits UK citizens receive. 

The Royals Family may own crown jewels and  some fine arts, but the assets are frozen in that they cannot be sold or taken out of the UK without the permission of the government. It may be theirs, but they can not sell it.

 

Your anti monarchists can claim as they wish, but their sums are sus and unsubstantiated. Even if 510 million, it is a  small cost considering the income the  monarchy generates for the people of the UK.   As per the Regional Studies.org, Recent attempts to measure the size of the impact of the royal family on UK tourism have estimated the capital value of UK monarchy as a business to be £67.5 billion+  and the annual contribution to the UK economy to be £1.766 billion. These estimates included indirect economic effects on tourism, trade, media and arts. 

 

 

Or alternatively 

 

https://www.republic.org.uk/halfbillionroyals

[spidermike007]

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Because the evidence was not sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sometimes beyond a reasonable doubt is a silly threshold. Perhaps at trial. But, in many other situations, doubts are fine. Clowns are clowns. Pedos are pedos. 

[NoshowJones]

7 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

It is often more cost effective to enter into a financial settlement than to continue a lengthy legal battle. The only ones who prosper are the legal counsels. The alleged victim  is claiming damages. The victim typically wants to be compensated for the real or the fabricated damages. To continue to defend some claims consumes more in legal costs than the claimant is demanding. Also, a drawn out litigation can damage a brand value. He was wise to settle when he could as he could never win  even if "innocent" as his name was sullied and he was assumed guilty by the public.

You can make all the excuses for him that you want, I am no legal expert, but no one who is genuinely 100% innocent is going to give an accuser millions.

[Patong2021]

21 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

You can make all the excuses for him that you want, I am no legal expert, but no one who is genuinely 100% innocent is going to give an accuser millions.

 

Not making excuses, nor commenting on Andrew's responsibility. I approach this as a cost benefit exercise. You have assumed that anyone who is not guilty will fight to the end. That is not the reality. Relatively few personal injury cases go to trial. An estimated 90%+ of US filings never do.

Even when they do go to trial,  many civil suits are settled before the final adjudication. The larger the case, the greater the likelihood of a settlement.  Andrew was hard pressed to fund his defence, and was relying on his family to assist. The family believed it best to settle as the case was tarnishing the brand image.

 

 

[Patong2021]

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Sometimes beyond a reasonable doubt is a silly threshold. Perhaps at trial. But, in many other situations, doubts are fine. Clowns are clowns. Pedos are pedos. 

In civil suits, there is a finding of responsibility.

In criminal suits, there is finding of guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.

Please consider what you are saying when you wish the very important principle of reasonable doubt be put aside. Innocent people would be more likely to be convicted. Is that really where you want the justice system to go, for the presumption of innocence to be cast aside? It has served society well for 2000+ years as the concept dates back to the Israelite's biblical laws and the Roman civil laws. We saw what happened when some segments of society chose to apply it in their biased way. Do you wish a return to the Spanish Inquisition and the edicts of  the Church during Medieval times? 

[Patong2021]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Or alternatively 

 

https://www.republic.org.uk/halfbillionroyals

 

Ok. And where are the revenues derived from the activities attached to the monarchy, and the revenues gained from Royal estates and properties? You present only estimated costs. 

[NoshowJones]

23 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Not making excuses, nor commenting on Andrew's responsibility. I approach this as a cost benefit exercise. You have assumed that anyone who is not guilty will fight to the end. That is not the reality. Relatively few personal injury cases go to trial. An estimated 90%+ of US filings never do.

Even when they do go to trial,  many civil suits are settled before the final adjudication. The larger the case, the greater the likelihood of a settlement.  Andrew was hard pressed to fund his defence, and was relying on his family to assist. The family believed it best to settle as the case was tarnishing the brand image.

 

 

I will never except any excuses for paying out to people who accuse you of any crime if you are 100% innocent. Now let's just agree to disagree and leave it there.

[billd766]

10 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Because the evidence was not sufficient to show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

Or alternatively 

 

https://www.republic.org.uk/halfbillionroyals

If you wish to accept and believe what the republic.org (an unelected body of people) who perhaps represent a very small percentage  of the UK population, you are more than welcome.

 

For myself and possibly a large percentage of the UK population, republic.org (an unelected body of people), they are little but an annoyance. They say a lot but do little.

 

IF they were organised and stood for representation as a political group in every constituency in the UK, IMHO they would loose their deposit in most constituencies and possibly gain at most 1 or perhaps 2 seats.

[digger70]

19 hours ago, billd766 said:

Would you like to do some research on the subject and try again? For instance do you know how many British don't get the annual pension update.

 

Do you even know IF British pensioners offshore get the updates and which countries DO get updated pensions, or even why they do or don't?

Put your glasses on ,READ what I posted  . Don't come back with a stupid Reply.

[billd766]

26 minutes ago, digger70 said:

Put your glasses on ,READ what I posted  . Don't come back with a stupid Reply.

What a pity you did not bother to answer my question.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

If you wish to accept and believe what the republic.org (an unelected body of people) who perhaps represent a very small percentage  of the UK population, you are more than welcome.

 

For myself and possibly a large percentage of the UK population, republic.org (an unelected body of people), they are little but an annoyance. They say a lot but do little.

 

IF they were organised and stood for representation as a political group in every constituency in the UK, IMHO they would loose their deposit in most constituencies and possibly gain at most 1 or perhaps 2 seats.

 

On one point, I think that you are being overly generous: Currently, I would imagine that if Republic fielded candidates in a General Election they would have no chance of winning any seats. 

 

However, that is not the point. Imo - although it is not flawless - the Republic report does a very good job of puncturing this myth that the Royal Family is somehow a revenue generating machine, that ploughs profits back into the UK - which if the institution did not exist - would otherwise somehow be 'lost': You are, of course, welcome to accept and believe the alternative view which the likes of Brand Communications - a PR company - peddles about the monarchy.

 

I also agree that, currently, republicans are very much in the minority in the UK. I hope that, in time, this situation will change.

[RayC]

5 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Ok. And where are the revenues derived from the activities attached to the monarchy, and the revenues gained from Royal estates and properties? You present only estimated costs. 

 

The revenues gained from Royal estates and properties would not suddenly dry up if the monarchy were to be abolished. One need only look at France for proof of that.

 

What exactly are these (other) "revenues derived from the activities attached to the monarchy"? 

[digger70]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

What a pity you did not bother to answer my question.

I don't have to answer your question  because Everything is explained in my post.

You didn't read my post very well did you?

[Sigmund]

Maybe make a deal with Epstein's sister or the other top world politicians or business tycoons,  involved in their filthy boys club affairs and hanky panky during the Epstein years of glory (holes)  ?

Edited 2 hours ago by Sigmund

[billd766]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

On one point, I think that you are being overly generous: Currently, I would imagine that if Republic fielded candidates in a General Election they would have no chance of winning any seats. 

 

However, that is not the point. Imo - although it is not flawless - the Republic report does a very good job of puncturing this myth that the Royal Family is somehow a revenue generating machine, that ploughs profits back into the UK - which if the institution did not exist - would otherwise somehow be 'lost': You are, of course, welcome to accept and believe the alternative view which the likes of Brand Communications - a PR company - peddles about the monarchy.

 

I also agree that, currently, republicans are very much in the minority in the UK. I hope that, in time, this situation will change.

I do admit to being polite and generous in thinking that they may win one or 2 seats.

 

Well at the age of 80, I very much doubt that it will ever change in my lifetime. Perhaps in my UK son's lifetime, though he is 46 and I doubt it, but maybe in my grandchildren's lifetime as they are 9 and 13.

 

OTOH the republican movement may die out itself during that time.

 

I also doubt that many overseas or even domestic tourists would travel to the UK just to see some person as a republican leader as they do no to see members of the Royal Family.

 

Besides as most of the Sovereign Grant is spent on salaries for the staff and maintenance for the buildings, leiitle if ant monet would be saved anyway.

[RayC]

10 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I do admit to being polite and generous in thinking that they may win one or 2 seats.

 

Well at the age of 80, I very much doubt that it will ever change in my lifetime. Perhaps in my UK son's lifetime, though he is 46 and I doubt it, but maybe in my grandchildren's lifetime as they are 9 and 13.

 

OTOH the republican movement may die out itself during that time.

 

I also doubt that many overseas or even domestic tourists would travel to the UK just to see some person as a republican leader as they do no to see members of the Royal Family.

 

Besides as most of the Sovereign Grant is spent on salaries for the staff and maintenance for the buildings, leiitle if ant monet would be saved anyway.

 

Although we hold diametrically opposite views of the monarchy, I agree with everything you say except for the bit about tourists travelling to the UK to meet members of the Royal Family.

 

Surely only the most ardent of (overseas) monarchists would plan a trip with the sole purpose of being part of a royal walkabout and nothing else? The number of such people must be so miniscule as to make no discernable difference to tourist numbers or the revenue generated.