Prince Andrew US civil sexual assault case
Discussion
JuniorD said:
Was Prince Phillip ever known as a philanderer back in his day?
I used to share a flat with a media person who alleged Andrew was subject to one of those D-notice things, and when you google the rumour there are only one or two results of note about it. Separately I got to know a journalist years later who pretty much said the same thing.
Phillip is reported to be everybody's favorite royal, I have never heard of anything bad but saying that it may have been easier to cover things up in those days, who knows.I used to share a flat with a media person who alleged Andrew was subject to one of those D-notice things, and when you google the rumour there are only one or two results of note about it. Separately I got to know a journalist years later who pretty much said the same thing.
Mort7 said:
Someone I know worked in Royal Protection for Andrew a good few years back. Although they weren't indiscreet in any way, they were far from complimentary about his condescending attitude too.
I think I once read that he had people "moved on" who didn't do what he said (even when it was against protocol)? I had a quick Google and couldn't find anything specific, but I did find this article from 2009 mentioning Maxwell's visits!https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfa...
funkyrobot said:
Why on earth are we still funding the lifestyle of people like him.
Just because he was born into a certain family.
Madness.
I'm not sure we are. The crown estate provides significantly more into the treasury than they get back as an allowance.Just because he was born into a certain family.
Madness.
The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. The queen also pays tax on her other incomes.
2.7 million visitors to Windsor and Buckingham Palace
Then you've the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
https://brandfinance.com/news/press-releases/value...
and the queen is still working at 93!
So tell me - how exactly is that funding?
Byker28i said:
I'm not sure we are. The crown estate provides significantly more into the treasury than they get back as an allowance.
The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. The queen also pays tax on her other incomes.
2.7 million visitors to Windsor and Buckingham Palace
Then you've the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
https://brandfinance.com/news/press-releases/value...
and the queen is still working at 93!
So tell me - how exactly is that funding?
Exactly The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. The queen also pays tax on her other incomes.
2.7 million visitors to Windsor and Buckingham Palace
Then you've the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
https://brandfinance.com/news/press-releases/value...
and the queen is still working at 93!
So tell me - how exactly is that funding?
FredericRobinson said:
Tyre Smoke said:
Historically the offspring of a Monarch have all gone off the rails. Some more than others.
...Edward who is gay. ...
Does that count as off the rails?...Edward who is gay. ...
NoNeed said:
Byker28i said:
I'm not sure we are. The crown estate provides significantly more into the treasury than they get back as an allowance.
The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. The queen also pays tax on her other incomes.
2.7 million visitors to Windsor and Buckingham Palace
Then you've the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
https://brandfinance.com/news/press-releases/value...
and the queen is still working at 93!
So tell me - how exactly is that funding?
Exactly The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. The queen also pays tax on her other incomes.
2.7 million visitors to Windsor and Buckingham Palace
Then you've the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
https://brandfinance.com/news/press-releases/value...
and the queen is still working at 93!
So tell me - how exactly is that funding?
All they have to do is show up at events, wave at people and the money flows. Hell, they don't even need to do that because of the heritage side of things. The buildings they reside in make money without them having to lift a finger.
Their idea of what is work is considerably different to the average Joe. My point still stands.
It's like someone inheriting a successful family business. They haven't had to put any graft in, the money just flows.
NoNeed said:
Byker28i said:
I'm not sure we are. The crown estate provides significantly more into the treasury than they get back as an allowance.
The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. The queen also pays tax on her other incomes.
2.7 million visitors to Windsor and Buckingham Palace
Then you've the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
https://brandfinance.com/news/press-releases/value...
and the queen is still working at 93!
So tell me - how exactly is that funding?
Exactly The Crown Estate brought in £330 million in 2017/18, this money goes to the government who then give the Queen a grant based on 25% of the Crown Estate’s income two years previously. The queen also pays tax on her other incomes.
2.7 million visitors to Windsor and Buckingham Palace
Then you've the monarchy’s annual contribution to the UK economy to be around £1.8bn a year, drawing in an additional £550m of tourism revenues a year, and an increase in trade, from the Royal Family acting as ambassadors, supposedly worth £150m a year.
https://brandfinance.com/news/press-releases/value...
and the queen is still working at 93!
So tell me - how exactly is that funding?
It’s not like people don’t visit France or their former royal residences or sites. Tourism would be the same without the royals.
Giving the royals loads of estates and palaces and then saying those locations make money so it’s the royals making money is frankly nonsense.
Prince Andrew has shown how much use he was as a trade ambassador. Wasn’t he actually sacked from that role?
Giving the royals loads of estates and palaces and then saying those locations make money so it’s the royals making money is frankly nonsense.
Prince Andrew has shown how much use he was as a trade ambassador. Wasn’t he actually sacked from that role?
El stovey said:
It’s not like people don’t visit France or their former royal residences or sites. Tourism would be the same without the royals.
Giving the royals loads of estates and palaces and then saying those locations make money so it’s the royals making money is frankly nonsense.
Prince Andrew has shown how much use he was as a trade ambassador. Wasn’t he actually sacked from that role?
People do visit other places around the world, but we didn't lop the heads off ours royals so I suppose we have to keep them.Giving the royals loads of estates and palaces and then saying those locations make money so it’s the royals making money is frankly nonsense.
Prince Andrew has shown how much use he was as a trade ambassador. Wasn’t he actually sacked from that role?
I like the idea of keeping them. Get rid of them and the political elite will get idea's, well, the chance to put idea's into practice. President Blair perhaps? President Clarkson (I could be tempted there), five year elections for some numb nuts mouth piece of whoever has the most money to lobby and the most political clout.
No thanks.
Zirconia said:
El stovey said:
Only because she’s raised such hopeless successors.
You do have a point there, jug ears should be skipped and if he had any decency drop the title straight to son number 1.
Welcome back. Did you have some time off?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff