At some point you'd think they need to be told their share will be cut back.
It's an anachronism that he gets money from the Crown Estate "owning" the sea bed, but it's only really become an issue now that offshore wind is a big business.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The British Monarchy
- Thread starter west didsblue
- Start date
At some point you'd think they need to be told their share will be cut back.
It's an anachronism that he gets money from the Crown Estate "owning" the sea bed, but it's only really become an issue now that offshore wind is a big business.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
He's a hypocritical twat. He owns the seabed. He could let them put windfarms on it for nowt.GB energy to 'partner' with the crown estate.
A nice backdoor revenue scheme for Charlie on top of his massive pay rise.
With the rises in utility bills one would suspect the extra 45m will just about keep the lights on..
It must be pretty costly to heat those large homes. Thoughts and prayers.
He's a hypocritical twat. He owns the seabed. He could let them put windfarms on it for nowt.
It's a bit more complicated I think, as The Crown Estate is technically owned by the Monarch, but is managed independently, and almost all the revenue goes to the treasury. It should change, as it's daft that they own it, but also because offshore wind means the bits of the revenue that do go to the Monarchy are now quite high.
From Labour's perspective, it could have an advantage, as there's a suggestion that it puts any borrowing "off the books", so they can bypass their fiscal rules to invest more quickly.
It’s one of those typically British legal fictions like the royal prerogative. The monarch has no say in the finances of the Crown Estate. Cameron increased the percentage that went to the monarch’s expenses. As the total take of the Crown estate has increased, so the current gov may reduce the portion handed over.It's a bit more complicated I think, as The Crown Estate is technically owned by the Monarch, but is managed independently, and almost all the revenue goes to the treasury. It should change, as it's daft that they own it, but also because offshore wind means the bits of the revenue that do go to the Monarchy are now quite high.
From Labour's perspective, it could have an advantage, as there's a suggestion that it puts any borrowing "off the books", so they can bypass their fiscal rules to invest more quickly.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
'Technically owned by the monarch"It's a bit more complicated I think, as The Crown Estate is technically owned by the Monarch, but is managed independently, and almost all the revenue goes to the treasury. It should change, as it's daft that they own it, but also because offshore wind means the bits of the revenue that do go to the Monarchy are now quite high.
From Labour's perspective, it could have an advantage, as there's a suggestion that it puts any borrowing "off the books", so they can bypass their fiscal rules to invest more quickly.
stonerblue
Well-Known Member
Owns it though eh..It’s one of those typically British legal fictions like the royal prerogative. The monarch has no say in the finances of the Crown Estate. Cameron increased the percentage that went to the monarch’s expenses. As the total take of the Crown estate has increased, so the current gov may reduce the portion handed over.
The problem is that ‘democratic monarchy’ is an oxymoron. So we pretend to have a monarch with overarching powers but those powers are exercised by the PM. Similarly, we say we are a democracy, but the head of state cannot be arraigned in his own courts, ie is above the law. I believe the US is currently having a bit of a problem in this area.Owns it though eh..
Gremlin
Well-Known Member
The monarch is supposed to act as a apolitical figurehead and as long as they take no part in any decision making (something the Queen did quite well - jury is out on Charlie as he has form in making his views known) then it generally works as it separates the implementation of laws (acting on behalf of the crown) with the creation of laws (a political act via parliament). It allows, for instance, the military to swear allegiance to the monarch who remains constant even as governments of different persuasions come and go. In the US, they get around that by swearing allegiance to the flag rather than the president.The problem is that ‘democratic monarchy’ is an oxymoron. So we pretend to have a monarch with overarching powers but those powers are exercised by the PM. Similarly, we say we are a democracy, but the head of state cannot be arraigned in his own courts, ie is above the law. I believe the US is currently having a bit of a problem in this area.