Posted by Eleonore
on 21/10/2009, 14:53:29, in reply to "Re: Princess Máxima"
217.169.229.153
No Henri it IS different. The late Freddie Heineken, the late Frits Fentener van Vlissingen have made their own money. They have paid taxes over their income and their fortune (and quit a lot of it by the way) and with the rest of the money they can do whatever they want.
They are accountable for their actions to the shareholders of their company or the people in the Board of their company (see Scheringa) and they have the risk to lose it all if the market and people turn against them for whatever reason.
The royals are much more protected. The Queen gets an income paid for by the taxpayers (if I don't want Freddie Heineken to be rich I stop buying his beer, I can't hardly stop paying taxes). The money she receives is free from taxation and the same counts for the money she will leave to her heir in her will, instead of the present taxation on money that is left to children in a will (a taxation of 25%, this rises to 50% if grandparents leave some money to their grandchildren).
Fact is, the Dutch State provides the Queen and her heir (and his wife) with a lot of benefits and they seem to enjoy these benefits. Good for them, I would probably do the same thing. But these benefits come with duties as well. The duty to always keep in mind who pays the bill and to act accordingly.
Yes, I see the same program that you see, sometimes when I am terribly bored. But these children are the children of doctors, lawyers, CEO's etc and their parents are not paid for by the state. Their parents pay their share of the taxes (52% of the top-bracket of their income). If one of their parents want to buy a villa in Mozambique, we will not have to foot the bill when it comes to security. If Harald Fentener van Vlissingen who is also involved in the project wants security, he will have to hire a private security firm and pay the bill himself instead of letting the Dutch taxpayers pay for it.
And one question Henri; we know your preference for the royals marrying royal or at least equal. You say they have a duty to do so, their ancestors did so and so should they. They too should bring that sacrifice of marrying someone for duty instead of for love. You detest the idea of royals marrying for love 'like anyone of us'. Yet, when it comes to their spending pattern, you don't seem to have a problem when they behave like the next Paris Hilton, Charlene de Carvalho (who, by the way seems to be a must more repsonsible heir than Paris H.) and you say that since the rich kids from Amsterdam have a right to throw money around, the royals should have that same right. Where is the 'they owe it to their ancestors to be frugal, to be responsible, to leave money to the next generation' now?
As for stripping the monarch of the constitutional powers, I was probably not very clear. Of course the Queen will not be stripped from these powers because her son is involved in a shady project. But one day her son will become King and if he lets himself become part of another shady project at that time, we don't know what will happen.
--Previous Message--
: It would be absurd if the Queen should be
: stripped of all her constitutional
: positions, not because of a abuse of her
: powers or something serious but only because
: of a holiday retreat purchased by her son
: and daughter-in-law.
:
: But also in Norway (Skaugum), Sweden (Haga),
: Belgium (the purchase of a yacht) royals are
: open to criticism.
:
: At the same time every Sunday I see
: "Bij ons in de P.C." on
: television, or "Glitter Glamour
: Gordon" and I see millionaires visiting
: a Millionaire Fair, buying art at the TEFAF
: in Maastricht or bored kids purchasing shoes
: and purses for absurd prices in the P.C.
: Hooftstraat while their daddy's huge SUV is
: waiting (and blocking) the street.
:
: All this (plus TV-presenters earning 10
: times the salary of the Premier or
: footballers with a weeksalary higher than a
: year (!) salary of a minister) seems
: 'acceptable' but uh oh when a member of a
: royal family purchases a yacht (Albert) or a
: holiday retreat (Willem-Alexander).
:
: It is very subjective, double and in a
: certain way unfair.
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread