It's my understanding the Civil List was started during George III's reign when what is called the Crown Estate was under his direct control, but that he was also responsible for paying for the civil service, armed forces, etc. The Civil List was the trade-off, whereby the lands would be managed by the government, a fund supplied to the royal family, and the government took over paying the civil service, etc. The ownership of the Crown Estate has remained with the sovereign. Each new reign, until this one, the terms were set between government and monarch to last the duration of the reign. THEORETICALLY, when Charles becomes king, he could decline making such a deal and take direct control of those lands. Britain needs to make a choice. It can't complain the civil list or sovereign grant is "inflated." Would they rather the queen reap the even more enormous profits of the Crown Estate? That is not public land.
There is no proof of this. It is just what they say to rationalize this nonsense. Versailles gets more tourists without an expensive grifter family to pay for.
Time that the King and the rest of them paid for their expenses from their business interests and land holdings, rather than a continued grant from their ‘subjects.’ Disgraceful. We are no longer serfs.
The royal family don’t bring tourism money. Foreigners come to see the palaces and the history not the royals. So with or without the royal family the UK will have tourists
They "come for the palaces and history not the royals". That's rediculous. They are living history. I am not interested in visiting the UK without the Royal family.
What did you think of the details in this year's Sovereign Grant report?
It's my understanding the Civil List was started during George III's reign when what is called the Crown Estate was under his direct control, but that he was also responsible for paying for the civil service, armed forces, etc. The Civil List was the trade-off, whereby the lands would be managed by the government, a fund supplied to the royal family, and the government took over paying the civil service, etc. The ownership of the Crown Estate has remained with the sovereign. Each new reign, until this one, the terms were set between government and monarch to last the duration of the reign. THEORETICALLY, when Charles becomes king, he could decline making such a deal and take direct control of those lands.
Britain needs to make a choice. It can't complain the civil list or sovereign grant is "inflated." Would they rather the queen reap the even more enormous profits of the Crown Estate? That is not public land.
The RF brings in more money from tourism and the RF works diligently for their charities.
There is no proof of this. It is just what they say to rationalize this nonsense. Versailles gets more tourists without an expensive grifter family to pay for.
There's talk now about them not having their own charities and working to help existing charities instead. No more bags of cash for Charles.
I, for one, do not wish to visit the UK without the Royal Family.
Time that the King and the rest of them paid for their expenses from their business interests and land holdings, rather than a continued grant from their ‘subjects.’ Disgraceful. We are no longer serfs.
They are worth every penny! Don’t really fancy a President Johnson or Starmer!
The Royal Family cost the British people nothing🥸
Tourism pays for the Royal Family 100 times over!😎
Source?
I frankly want to visit the UK for the Royal family one day.
@@SpiderWireless
Common Sense🧐
The royal family don’t bring tourism money. Foreigners come to see the palaces and the history not the royals. So with or without the royal family the UK will have tourists
I agree. The royals hide out so much, wanting their privacy, no one can see them...unless it's another ribbon cutting or plaque unveiling. Boring.
Very true.
They "come for the palaces and history not the royals". That's rediculous. They are living history. I am not interested in visiting the UK without the Royal family.
There's a reason why buckingham palace is more popular than the Versailles in france.and don't the royals privately owned those palace?
This was overall poor journalism.