![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why is the Crown Estate listed as a source of income for Queen Elizabeth, when she receives no income for it? -- 86.150.153.20 ( talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Elizabeth's number is WAY high compared to what Forbes (supposedly the source here) estimates - $650 million rather than the billions on this page. The Crown Jewels and various palaces are not her personal property, so I don't understand how she got such a huge boost on the list. Baseballbaker23 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you as well, Queen Elizabeth's income is no where near what is on here. The money that is on here $14 B., is money that is in-trust for the British nation. Not her personal wealth. Her wealth is only etimated at $400 M. as of 2009. According to the NEW Forbes richest royals list.
This has never made any sense to me; Queen Victoria was receiving £400,000 per annum (Wilson, 2003, p.360) a truly gargantuan sum, and Prince Albert, at least £30,000 per annum (Wilson, 2003, p.55). A fortune consolidated from an income of this size would have placed Queen Victoria amongst the wealthiest in the British Empire. Contemporary Royal finances would stem from this period. Most of the large aristocratic fortunes were targeted, then legislatively destroyed (only one has really survived – Westminster) with legacy, succession and estate duties - inheritance taxes, all of which, a Royal fortune was immune from. Such a fortune would also not have paid any income tax. The Queen ought to be worth, excluding both the Royal estate and Duchy of Lancaster, somewhere in the vicinity of £3.7 billion pounds today, and if she is not, then some serious fiduciary questions (about mismanagement, and possibly fraud) might need asking.
Ref: Wilson, A.N. (2003). The Victorians. London: Arrow Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.60.223 ( talk) 06:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I've found this source [1] and I wonder if that would be a credible source to use for The King of Spain's inclusion in the list? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 16:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I support merging this article into List of heads of state and government by net worth. That page covers all the same people, and then some. There is no need for two lists to separate royals from commoners, which is a distinction that gets muddled when you include emirs, maliks and so forth that do not translate nicely into Western terms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we include or have a separate list for Royals who aren't currently head of state of their country or are subnational monarchs (examples. Constantine II of Greece or Maori King Tuheitia Paki)? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 10:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've found this source [2] that suggests that The Pope has a net worth of $571,704,953 but I'm not sure if it would be a good enough source to use to place The Pope in the list but I am going to include it unless someone can give me a reason not to The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who made all these major changes to the page but they've left it in a real state. They've left countries out, titles out and I think we've lost a few of the Royals in the list. All these have left the page of a much lesser quality that what it originally was. While I'm in favour of the Forbes mentions being nullified, We do need to maintain the sources of wealth and the separate list for non-reigning monarchs. So What I'm going to do is undo all these major edits so we can start again and this time only have the Forbes influence toned down. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that looks like a good idea. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "royals" is naff at best. Is there a compelling reference for this neologism? -- Nick Bell ( talk) 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Beatrix is worth a bit more than 200 million: http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Oranje-boven-koningin-Beatrix-hard-op-weg-naar-1-miljard-26031 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numtek ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I think that the article needs updating because the ancient king Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud is no longer a king. Regards -- Eclipsis Proteo ( talk) 22:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Update - it seems like soneone took a single article in Forbes from 2011 and created this page. The people and their wealth is out of date and it all seems pretty unsubstantiated. Isn't it just a candidate for deletion? Zero1zero2 ( talk) 06:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Why Indian king is not in the list??? SREERAJFRMINDIA ( talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Why is the Crown Estate listed as a source of income for Queen Elizabeth, when she receives no income for it? -- 86.150.153.20 ( talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, Elizabeth's number is WAY high compared to what Forbes (supposedly the source here) estimates - $650 million rather than the billions on this page. The Crown Jewels and various palaces are not her personal property, so I don't understand how she got such a huge boost on the list. Baseballbaker23 ( talk) 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you as well, Queen Elizabeth's income is no where near what is on here. The money that is on here $14 B., is money that is in-trust for the British nation. Not her personal wealth. Her wealth is only etimated at $400 M. as of 2009. According to the NEW Forbes richest royals list.
This has never made any sense to me; Queen Victoria was receiving £400,000 per annum (Wilson, 2003, p.360) a truly gargantuan sum, and Prince Albert, at least £30,000 per annum (Wilson, 2003, p.55). A fortune consolidated from an income of this size would have placed Queen Victoria amongst the wealthiest in the British Empire. Contemporary Royal finances would stem from this period. Most of the large aristocratic fortunes were targeted, then legislatively destroyed (only one has really survived – Westminster) with legacy, succession and estate duties - inheritance taxes, all of which, a Royal fortune was immune from. Such a fortune would also not have paid any income tax. The Queen ought to be worth, excluding both the Royal estate and Duchy of Lancaster, somewhere in the vicinity of £3.7 billion pounds today, and if she is not, then some serious fiduciary questions (about mismanagement, and possibly fraud) might need asking.
Ref: Wilson, A.N. (2003). The Victorians. London: Arrow Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.60.223 ( talk) 06:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I've found this source [1] and I wonder if that would be a credible source to use for The King of Spain's inclusion in the list? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 16:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I support merging this article into List of heads of state and government by net worth. That page covers all the same people, and then some. There is no need for two lists to separate royals from commoners, which is a distinction that gets muddled when you include emirs, maliks and so forth that do not translate nicely into Western terms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Should we include or have a separate list for Royals who aren't currently head of state of their country or are subnational monarchs (examples. Constantine II of Greece or Maori King Tuheitia Paki)? The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 10:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I've found this source [2] that suggests that The Pope has a net worth of $571,704,953 but I'm not sure if it would be a good enough source to use to place The Pope in the list but I am going to include it unless someone can give me a reason not to The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know who made all these major changes to the page but they've left it in a real state. They've left countries out, titles out and I think we've lost a few of the Royals in the list. All these have left the page of a much lesser quality that what it originally was. While I'm in favour of the Forbes mentions being nullified, We do need to maintain the sources of wealth and the separate list for non-reigning monarchs. So What I'm going to do is undo all these major edits so we can start again and this time only have the Forbes influence toned down. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that looks like a good idea. The C of E. God Save The Queen! ( talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The term "royals" is naff at best. Is there a compelling reference for this neologism? -- Nick Bell ( talk) 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Beatrix is worth a bit more than 200 million: http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Oranje-boven-koningin-Beatrix-hard-op-weg-naar-1-miljard-26031 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numtek ( talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I think that the article needs updating because the ancient king Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud is no longer a king. Regards -- Eclipsis Proteo ( talk) 22:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Update - it seems like soneone took a single article in Forbes from 2011 and created this page. The people and their wealth is out of date and it all seems pretty unsubstantiated. Isn't it just a candidate for deletion? Zero1zero2 ( talk) 06:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Why Indian king is not in the list??? SREERAJFRMINDIA ( talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)