Queen rents Diana’s flat to army for £108,000 a year

#1
From The Sunday Times
March 1, 2009

Queen rents Diana’s flat to army for £108,000 a year

Michael Smith
THE Queen is earning more than £100,000 a year from the taxpayer by renting part of a royal apartment once used by Diana, Princess of Wales, to the head of the British Army.

Documents released under freedom of information rules reveal that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) is being charged an annual £108,408 by the monarch for accommodation in Kensington Palace used by General Sir Richard Dannatt, chief of the general staff.

Dannatt, 58, and his wife, Philippa, pay just £8,727 a year to live in the lavish quarters, which defence officials privately admit form part of the apartments used by Diana before her death in 1997. The couple also own a home in Norfolk.
More on the link

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5822096.ece
 
#2
I read this earlier and thought "so what, the story is...?"

The head of the Army is living in a grace and favour flat, paying over 8k for the privilege and he needs it for official entertaining etc. Or is the story that 16 high ranking members of the forces cost the tax payer 400k to house?

I couldn't work out if the thrust of the story was Dannatt actually used a grace and favour house and paid something towards it as opposed to having the use of one but claiming expenses for somewhere else or the fact that 16 top military personnel cost the taxpayer 25k each per year to house, beer money when compared to their political masters housing expenses.
 
#3
I'm outraged! How much is he claiming to live there? It's a disgrace and I shall write to Jacqui Spliff about this. She is an expert in these matters :roll:

I wonder if under FoI we can find out who asked the question? Any guesses?
 
#4
;
wet_blobby said:
I read this earlier and thought "so what, the story is...?"
Exactly, the Queen already makes £12 million a year off the taxpayer, why's the journo getting excited over another £100,000?

wet_blobby said:
I couldn't work out if the thrust of the story was Dannatt actually used a grace and favour house and paid something towards it as opposed to having the use of one but claiming expenses for somewhere else or the fact that 16 top military personnel cost the taxpayer 25k each per year to house, beer money when compared to their political masters housing expenses.
Good point on the MP's, it's not even a grace and favour agreement in one sense; the Queen could make alot more doing it through private channels but she's been good enough to give MOD first refusal. Dannant is (obviously) in London non stop, he probably hardly gets to go home in Norfolk so at least he's using it for proper purposes, not like it's a holiday pad or anything.
 
#5
Seems reasonable, and to be fair the Sunday Times are not treating it as a huge story.

I am much more interested in THIS paragraph in the same story:

The disclosure comes as an army officer reveals in Soldier magazine that the families of some troops serving in Afghanistan were living in homes without heating and hot winter throughout winter.
 
#6
hackle said:
Seems reasonable, and to be fair the Sunday Times are not treating it as a huge story.

I am much more interested in THIS paragraph in the same story:

The disclosure comes as an army officer reveals in Soldier magazine that the families of some troops serving in Afghanistan were living in homes without heating and hot winter throughout winter.
It's happened/happening on my camp as we speak. CoC had a revolt and had to call a meeting with residents.
 
#7
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
;
wet_blobby said:
I read this earlier and thought "so what, the story is...?"
Exactly, the Queen already makes £12 million a year off the taxpayer, why's the journo getting excited over another £100,000?
I am sure that you will want to continue in the mould of 'chippy little republican', but you may wish to be aware that the income from the Crown Estate is exchanged for the Civil List. Last year's income from the Crown Estate was c£222M and the Civil List is c£8M. There are a number of other 'costs' of the Royal Family, but the Government is the one that makes a profit from the arrangement.

With regard to the occupation of the flat by CGS, once again I would echo the comments that at least he is paying rent unlike the truffle-pigs who are alleged to be our democratic representatives.
 
#8
Fifth_Columnist said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
;
wet_blobby said:
I read this earlier and thought "so what, the story is...?"
Exactly, the Queen already makes £12 million a year off the taxpayer, why's the journo getting excited over another £100,000?
I am sure that you will want to continue in the mould of 'chippy little republican
Care to elaborate???
 
#9
The statement that "the Queen already makes £12 million a year off the taxpayer" struck me as one of the standard, selectively quoted, arguments put forward by those who believe that the Royal Family should be abolished. If that is not what you meant, then that is my poor inference from your statement!
 
#10
Surely the way to settle this is to get someone to provide a quote for the cost of an equivalent flat, which can host and accomodate dignitaries, provide easy access to Whitehall for emergencies, and which provides security provisions that a 4* General and prime terrorist target needs? I'm guessing its not far off the amount quoted in the first place?
 
#11
So basically the Queen has this property in her portfolio, she is leasing it to the Army to house their top man. I would hazard a bet that the Queen could make a lot more than 100k renting that out to someone else, so the Army are getting a preferential rate, the General and his family are in a nice appartment that is well located for his job and paying a subsidised rate since this isn't his property and is being used due to work commitments.

I can't see a story here except that people are using common sense, unless they expect the Queen to give away her properties, or for the head of the army to live in something that's not quite as nice, or secure?
 
#12
jim30 said:
Surely the way to settle this is to get someone to provide a quote for the cost of an equivalent flat, which can host and accomodate dignitaries, provide easy access to Whitehall for emergencies, and which provides security provisions that a 4* General and prime terrorist target needs? I'm guessing its not far off the amount quoted in the first place?

If you've seen London prices for renting then 100k a year for that property in that area is as cheap as you'll ever get!
 
#13
It's not Diana's flat, the fucking bitch is dead.

They'll be bleating about her hearse next, just because she lay in it once.

I'm surprised this story hasn't been led by the Diana Memorial Tabloid AKA The Daily Express.
 
#14
Fifth_Columnist said:
The statement that "the Queen already makes £12 million a year off the taxpayer" struck me as one of the standard, selectively quoted, arguments put forward by those who believe that the Royal Family should be abolished. If that is not what you meant, then that is my poor inference from your statement!
You did misinterpret what I wrote, I haven't a link, but I'm sure I read in Private Eye last year that her income (not Crown Estate) when expenses etc are covered, comes in the region of £12 million.

I'm a fifth generation soldier, every generation has been involved in a conflict, there is no way that I am Republican (although I accept that there are many serving personnel who are, which is fine). I was trying to emphasize another commentators view that there was no real story to be told, by using a grand sum of £12 million in comparison to a paltry £100k.

I think we just got our wires crossed, and you were spot on with the rest of your comment by the way - well informed.
 
#15
dingerr said:
It's not Diana's flat, the fucking bitch is dead.
Never one to beat about the bush, then again, I wouldn't want an AT by my side who wouldn't...
 
#16
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
dingerr said:
It's not Diana's flat, the fucking bitch is dead.
Never one to beat about the bush, then again, I wouldn't want an AT by my side who wouldn't...
Confession time! When I was married my ex-wife (staunch Royalist!!!!) on hearing about the car crash said " I hope the bitch dies".

It was her Guv :twisted:
 

diplomat

MIA
Book Reviewer
#17
rickshaw-major said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
dingerr said:
It's not Diana's flat, the fucking bitch is dead.
Never one to beat about the bush, then again, I wouldn't want an AT by my side who wouldn't...
Confession time! When I was married my ex-wife (staunch Royalist!!!!) on hearing about the car crash said " I hope the bitch dies".

It was her Guv :twisted:
From what I remember your ex rather hoped you were driving too!
 
#18
diplomat said:
rickshaw-major said:
sarge_massage_my_passage said:
dingerr said:
It's not Diana's flat, the fucking bitch is dead.
Never one to beat about the bush, then again, I wouldn't want an AT by my side who wouldn't...
Confession time! When I was married my ex-wife (staunch Royalist!!!!) on hearing about the car crash said " I hope the bitch dies".

It was her Guv :twisted:
From what I remember your ex rather hoped you were driving too!
At least I'd have a halo around my head i.e. a Merc Steering Wheel. :twisted:
 
#20
Which Republican owns the Times again?

Nice attempt at trying to attack two birds with one stone you grubby little oik.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top