|
Post by mrcoke on Nov 25, 2023 13:52:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 26, 2023 11:34:42 GMT
If the rationale for having a monarchy is making money surely it would make sense to privatise it? That way those that support it can invest in it and remain subjects and those of us who don't want it can opt out and can become citizens. Its coming up to panto season but at least with panto you get to choose whether to go or not. The monarchy is a year round panto that we are all obliged to attend - surely we should at least get the option to opt out? Why would royalists even want us to be there constantly pointing out it's a pile of crap? Surely you'll enjoy it more without us being there?
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Nov 26, 2023 11:43:53 GMT
If the rationale for having a monarchy is making money surely it would make sense to privatise it? That way those that support it can invest in it and remain subjects and those of us who don't want it can opt out and can become citizens. Its coming up to panto season but at least with panto you get to choose whether to go or not. The monarchy is a year round panto that we are all obliged to attend - surely we should at least get the option to opt out? Why would royalists even want us to be there constantly pointing out it's a pile of crap? Surely you'll enjoy it more without us being there? I’ll contact Coutts now to setup my DD.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 26, 2023 12:02:03 GMT
If the rationale for having a monarchy is making money surely it would make sense to privatise it? That way those that support it can invest in it and remain subjects and those of us who don't want it can opt out and can become citizens. Its coming up to panto season but at least with panto you get to choose whether to go or not. The monarchy is a year round panto that we are all obliged to attend - surely we should at least get the option to opt out? Why would royalists even want us to be there constantly pointing out it's a pile of crap? Surely you'll enjoy it more without us being there? Or - if it's about making money, and assuming they do (which I'm not particularly convinced given the opaque nature of the royal finances) then the wuestion should be could we make more money by doing something else with the sovereign grant and the Crown estates? Unless alternative proposals are sought and costed we don't really know what the best financial proposition for the country is? Let's face it, we could really do with any extra income we can get at the moment and surely wanting what's best for the country is the mark of a true patriot?😉
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 26, 2023 12:42:21 GMT
Disengenuous as usual Charles and William receive the Income from the Duchy's PERSONALLY on which they pay tax The Sovereign Grant is in ADDITION So they do benefit from people who die intestate as the Article from Topper says The King and Prince William receive the profits from the duchies (Lancaster and Cornwall) personally, and can spend them as they wish. However, they are not entitled to any proceeds from the sale of any estate assets, which must be reinvested. www.bbc.com/news/explainers-57559653
|
|
|
Post by str8outtahampton on Nov 26, 2023 12:48:36 GMT
If the rationale for having a monarchy is making money surely it would make sense to privatise it? That way those that support it can invest in it and remain subjects and those of us who don't want it can opt out and can become citizens. Its coming up to panto season but at least with panto you get to choose whether to go or not. The monarchy is a year round panto that we are all obliged to attend - surely we should at least get the option to opt out? Why would royalists even want us to be there constantly pointing out it's a pile of crap? Surely you'll enjoy it more without us being there? Great idea. Personally I would sell my house and all its contents in order to support a royal family whose figurehead's chat-up line is "I'd like to be where your tampon is". The bloke is pure class.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 26, 2023 12:48:48 GMT
Charles seems a nice guy, I’m sure if someone wrote him a letter to explain the situation, he’d understand. He may even fly his voyager out to a local charity and give a little speech on the environment as well.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2023 13:45:40 GMT
It is strange how nobody complained about these long standing conventions that have been well known about for years when the Queen was a live.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 26, 2023 16:16:27 GMT
It is strange how nobody complained about these long standing conventions that have been well known about for years when the Queen was a live. Not sure that's true. There has been plenty over the years about the Queen's tax affairs, exemptions from Inheritance tax fact that payment is purely voluntary etc. There was also quite a chunk about the late Queen in the Paradise Papers about iffy offshore investments. Bother to search and there are plenty of other examples too. However there is a large constituency who either take no interest or just shrug and say 'so what?' aided and abbetted by a compliant press who either don't report it, just play it down or print a photo ofva beatific Kate and just move on. Hence a collective amnesia for such things. However you do make a valid point in that Charles doesn't have the popularity of his mother - so over time some of the shit might start to stick.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2023 18:43:48 GMT
It is strange how nobody complained about these long standing conventions that have been well known about for years when the Queen was a live. Not sure that's true. There has been plenty over the years about the Queen's tax affairs, exemptions from Inheritance tax fact that payment is purely voluntary etc. There was also quite a chunk about the late Queen in the Paradise Papers about iffy offshore investments. Bother to search and there are plenty of other examples too. However there is a large constituency who either take no interest or just shrug and say 'so what?' aided and abbetted by a compliant press who either don't report it, just play it down or print a photo ofva beatific Kate and just move on. Hence a collective amnesia for such things. However you do make a valid point in that Charles doesn't have the popularity of his mother - so over time some of the shit might start to stick. I just don’t like that this recent “discovery” about what happens to assets when people die without a will or relatives to inherit being somehow Charles’ fault! It has been going on for generations. It should obviously change but there we go.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 26, 2023 19:04:23 GMT
Not sure that's true. There has been plenty over the years about the Queen's tax affairs, exemptions from Inheritance tax fact that payment is purely voluntary etc. There was also quite a chunk about the late Queen in the Paradise Papers about iffy offshore investments. Bother to search and there are plenty of other examples too. However there is a large constituency who either take no interest or just shrug and say 'so what?' aided and abbetted by a compliant press who either don't report it, just play it down or print a photo ofva beatific Kate and just move on. Hence a collective amnesia for such things. However you do make a valid point in that Charles doesn't have the popularity of his mother - so over time some of the shit might start to stick. I just don’t like that this recent “discovery” about what happens to assets when people die without a will or relatives to inherit being somehow Charles’ fault! It has been going on for generations. It should obviously change but there we go. It's been a long standing arrangement, but on the understanding that proceeds were recycled into charities - not taken directly by the Duchy for home improvements. That said I doubt Charles knew - probably never thought to ask - or appointed someone to ask for him. Likewise his mother before him. Where Charles is fair game though is that he is the one who claims to want to modernise the monarchy, cut down on pomp and circumstsnce and arcane arrangements and reduce to a core of full time working royals giving value for money. So far he's done anything but.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 26, 2023 19:32:30 GMT
I just don’t like that this recent “discovery” about what happens to assets when people die without a will or relatives to inherit being somehow Charles’ fault! It has been going on for generations. It should obviously change but there we go. It's been a long standing arrangement, but on the understanding that proceeds were recycled into charities - not taken directly by the Duchy for home improvements. That said I doubt Charles knew - probably never thought to ask - or appointed someone to ask for him. Likewise his mother before him. Where Charles is fair game though is that he is the one who claims to want to modernise the monarchy, cut down on pomp and circumstsnce and arcane arrangements and reduce to a core of full time working royals giving value for money. So far he's done anything but. I guess this is a good opportunity for him to change this particular thing (if indeed he has the power to change it).
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Nov 28, 2023 14:52:25 GMT
If the rationale for having a monarchy is making money surely it would make sense to privatise it? That way those that support it can invest in it and remain subjects and those of us who don't want it can opt out and can become citizens. Its coming up to panto season but at least with panto you get to choose whether to go or not. The monarchy is a year round panto that we are all obliged to attend - surely we should at least get the option to opt out? Why would royalists even want us to be there constantly pointing out it's a pile of crap? Surely you'll enjoy it more without us being there? Or - if it's about making money, and assuming they do (which I'm not particularly convinced given the opaque nature of the royal finances) then the wuestion should be could we make more money by doing something else with the sovereign grant and the Crown estates? Unless alternative proposals are sought and costed we don't really know what the best financial proposition for the country is? Let's face it, we could really do with any extra income we can get at the moment and surely wanting what's best for the country is the mark of a true patriot?😉 I find the whole "it's fine because they bring in money" arguement weird. For one thing as you say the numbers are unverifiable and anyway does anyone actually decide to visit a country on the basis that their head of state happens to be an unelected monarch with a bizarre dress sense? In addition why should I or anyone else be obliged to be subservient to a tourist attraction? I love Nemesis at Alton Towers but I'm not expected to bow in its presence let alone accept it has a vital role in our unwritten constitution. It's a truly desperate arguement for accepting an unelected monarch as a head of state.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Nov 28, 2023 19:57:59 GMT
Or - if it's about making money, and assuming they do (which I'm not particularly convinced given the opaque nature of the royal finances) then the wuestion should be could we make more money by doing something else with the sovereign grant and the Crown estates? Unless alternative proposals are sought and costed we don't really know what the best financial proposition for the country is? Let's face it, we could really do with any extra income we can get at the moment and surely wanting what's best for the country is the mark of a true patriot?😉 I find the whole "it's fine because they bring in money" arguement weird. For one thing as you say the numbers are unverifiable and anyway does anyone actually decide to visit a country on the basis that their head of state happens to be an unelected monarch with a bizarre dress sense? In addition why should I or anyone else be obliged to be subservient to a tourist attraction? I love Nemesis at Alton Towers but I'm not expected to bow in its presence let alone accept it has a vital role in our unwritten constitution. It's a truly desperate arguement for accepting an unelected monarch as a head of state. The "it's fine because they bring in money" argument has to be seen for what it is, surely? i.e. It's pure bollocks. That argument wrongly infers that if we were to strip them of any formal duties and become a republic, we would see a dramatic drop in tourists + the money they bring in. Bullshit. Anyone visiting the somewhere other than London can instantly be ruled out anyway, so now what we're saying is specifically is a drop in London tourists... Bullshit, pure, unadulterated bullshit. London is capital of a G7 country. There's probably 100 different tourist attractions within 5 miles of Buckingham Palace whether it be football grounds, shopping districts, museums or fine art galleries. It's London... It would survive and we could put the money we spunk on them to better use.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Nov 29, 2023 17:03:26 GMT
Who's the royal racist, as named in the Dutch version of the latest royal biography?
My money was always on Fergie.
Wrong! Charlie boy and Kate apparently.
🫢 naughty naughty.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Nov 29, 2023 18:36:08 GMT
Who's the royal racist, as named in the Dutch version of the latest royal biography? My money was always on Fergie. Wrong! Charlie boy and Kate apparently. 🫢 naughty naughty. Who cares?
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on Nov 29, 2023 19:30:38 GMT
Have you get figures to explain this “profit”?
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 29, 2023 19:30:47 GMT
Who's the royal racist, as named in the Dutch version of the latest royal biography? My money was always on Fergie. Wrong! Charlie boy and Kate apparently. 🫢 naughty naughty. Perfectly normal for a soon to be Grandfather to write letters enquiring about the possible "Skin Tone" of his future Grandson Nothing to see here
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 29, 2023 19:36:53 GMT
Have you get figures to explain this “profit”? You probably missed it Royland I posted a reply to Mr Coke with a link that what he was claiming was rubbish The Income from the Duchy's of Lancaster and Cornwall go directly to Charles and William estimated to be about £20M a year if I recall on which they pay tax. No correction from Mr Coke yet. Edit: i now realise you were asking a different question. Apologies, as you were.
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 29, 2023 20:11:05 GMT
Who's the royal racist, as named in the Dutch version of the latest royal biography? My money was always on Fergie. Wrong! Charlie boy and Kate apparently. 🫢 naughty naughty. Perfectly normal for a soon to be Grandfather to write letters enquiring about the possible "Skin Tone" of his future Grandson Nothing to see here Doesn’t it depend on the context? My wife and I have had a few conversations about what “skin tone” any child of ours would come out as.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 29, 2023 20:26:36 GMT
Perfectly normal for a soon to be Grandfather to write letters enquiring about the possible "Skin Tone" of his future Grandson Nothing to see here Doesn’t it depend on the context? My wife and I have had a few conversations about what “skin tone” any child of ours would come out as. Did your Father write letters to your wife about it?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Nov 29, 2023 20:40:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cvillestokie on Nov 29, 2023 20:45:48 GMT
Doesn’t it depend on the context? My wife and I have had a few conversations about what “skin tone” any child of ours would come out as. Did your Father write letters to your wife about it? He’s been involved in conversations that we’ve had about it when we’ve visited the UK. We don’t write letters.
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 6, 2023 11:27:45 GMT
It's going well William lad......
|
|
|
Post by jimmygscfc1234 on Dec 6, 2023 12:42:43 GMT
Three years later or third time in a year? What's the story?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 6, 2023 12:46:59 GMT
Three years later or third time in a year? What's the story? 1 year, 3 years. Either way it's performative bollocks from a monarchy that has the wealth (and properties) to end homelessness tomorrow if it really wanted to........................
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 6, 2023 12:56:25 GMT
Three years later or third time in a year? What's the story? 1 year, 3 years. Either way it's performative bollocks from a monarchy that has the wealth (and properties) to end homelessness tomorrow if it really wanted to........................ do they? I'm very much a republican but that charge would lay at the governments door
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Dec 6, 2023 13:23:25 GMT
1 year, 3 years. Either way it's performative bollocks from a monarchy that has the wealth (and properties) to end homelessness tomorrow if it really wanted to........................ do they? I'm very much a republican but that charge would lay at the governments door Of course it should be at the governments door, but it's William himself who's made it his mission to end homelessness his words not mine. As I say performative bollocks, hold your nose and have a photo taken with the proletariat and then get back in the Range Rover and fuck off to the next photo op............
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Dec 6, 2023 13:46:30 GMT
The propaganda machine rolled heavily into action this morning, didn't it. Lovely cosplay pic across almost all of the Tory press, and the Mirror. Front page news. What had they actually done? Been to a reception
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Dec 6, 2023 13:52:47 GMT
Three years later or third time in a year? What's the story? 1 year, 3 years. Either way it's performative bollocks from a monarchy that has the wealth (and properties) to end homelessness tomorrow if it really wanted to........................ Careful, you'll miss out on your gong for all your good work.
|
|