Talk:Sunday Times Rich List

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

I suggest the following separate entries should be brought under this heading as sub-categories Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (1-500) Sunday Times Rich List 2003 (501-1000) Sunday Times Rich List 2004 Sunday Times Rich List 2005 Sunday Times Rich List 2006 (published 23 April 2006)

James Kessler

How does the list treat the Royal family? Rmhermen 15:38, Aug 18, 2003 (UTC)

The "rules" are here [1] It doesn't specifically mention the Royal family. I would imagine that as the Queen is the head of the family, most of the wealth of the inner circle comes under her name. As for the royals on the fringes, I guess their discolsed wealth isn't enough to make it on the list. Mintguy 16:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I don't see Elizabeth on the list. Rmhermen 00:56, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
"133. The Queen (Head of State) - £250m". Perhaps what threw you was that she's not listed as "Elizabeth"... -- Oliver P. 01:00, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
  • As of 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC) the external link is broken. Snowolf How can I help? 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The 1st link at the bottom of the page is broken. Needs updating. It would be nice to be able to see this list too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich.oregan (talkcontribs) 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Include/exclude

"The Rich List is not limited to British citizens and it includes individuals and families born overseas but who predominantly work and/or live in Britain. This excludes..."

If it is not limited to the British, why would it exclude some British 'inividuals' all of a sudden? I mean it's not logical.

Bruno —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblontrock (talkcontribs) 04:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export