Being a royal doesn't strike me as a bad gig. I'm sure there are lots of people who would be willing to do the same job for a lot less. I know it doesn't work that way, but they can hardly go on strike. We should cut the money we give them drastically. Let them decide how they spread it out and give it to.
This taxpayer money you talk of...my understanding is they still technically own huge amounts of the country, and this generates huge profits, which are donated to the treasury with a rebate for annual operating costs.
You take that off them and you should take property of Lords Westminster, bedford, spencer-Churchill etc etc.
How did they get to own huge amounts of the country?
In olden times, if they had a big enough army, they just helped themselves. And their descendants and parasites made sure they kept it.
Being a royal doesn't strike me as a bad gig. I'm sure there are lots of people who would be willing to do the same job for a lot less. I know it doesn't work that way, but they can hardly go on strike. We should cut the money we give them drastically. Let them decide how they spread it out and give it to.
I think its ok for the minor royals, but if you're close to the top you have no privacy, you can't choose who you marry, they really would rather you didn't divorce, etc. Do you think posh birds are a better shag? You know, there's lots of down sides.
Being a royal doesn't strike me as a bad gig. I'm sure there are lots of people who would be willing to do the same job for a lot less. I know it doesn't work that way, but they can hardly go on strike. We should cut the money we give them drastically. Let them decide how they spread it out and give it to.
I think its ok for the minor royals, but if you're close to the top you have no privacy, you can't choose who you marry, they really would rather you didn't divorce, etc. Do you think posh birds are a better shag? You know, there's lots of down sides.
I'm glad someone is getting to the real issues to be quite honest.
This is definitely an overlooked aspect of the debate.
Being a royal doesn't strike me as a bad gig. I'm sure there are lots of people who would be willing to do the same job for a lot less. I know it doesn't work that way, but they can hardly go on strike. We should cut the money we give them drastically. Let them decide how they spread it out and give it to.
I think its ok for the minor royals, but if you're close to the top you have no privacy, you can't choose who you marry, they really would rather you didn't divorce, etc. Do you think posh birds are a better shag? You know, there's lots of down sides.
I'm glad someone is getting to the real issues to be quite honest.
This is definitely an overlooked aspect of the debate.
Being a royal doesn't strike me as a bad gig. I'm sure there are lots of people who would be willing to do the same job for a lot less. I know it doesn't work that way, but they can hardly go on strike. We should cut the money we give them drastically. Let them decide how they spread it out and give it to.
I think its ok for the minor royals, but if you're close to the top you have no privacy, you can't choose who you marry, they really would rather you didn't divorce, etc. Do you think posh birds are a better shag? You know, there's lots of down sides.
Well Princess Anne has divorced, Prince Andrew has divorced and Price Charles has divorced. I haven't divorced! Yes there is the lack of privacy whichis an issue for clebrities in general. The point is, they make lots of money outside of the public purse through land etc... All part of being royals. Everybody else is being squeezed so why not them?
Totally agree Muttley, I just slightly disagree that it's an easy gig. Easy for some maybe, but not others and don't forget, all other celebrities chose that path - the royals had no choice - they were born into it.
some interesting comments & opinions .. thanks chaps, chapesses and any Princes, Princesses. Dukes, Dames or other flim flammers who may have contributed ((:>) ..
I dread to think of what disdain and indifference the 'royals' will attract when Charlie inherits the 'throne' .. who on earth could take the 'coronation' of that well meaning but useless chump seriously ?
This taxpayer money you talk of...my understanding is they still technically own huge amounts of the country, and this generates huge profits, which are donated to the treasury with a rebate for annual operating costs.
You take that off them and you should take property of Lords Westminster, bedford, spencer-Churchill etc etc.
How did they get to own huge amounts of the country?
In olden times, if they had a big enough army, they just helped themselves. And their descendants and parasites made sure they kept it.
Or something like that.
;o)
Well put Oggy I never realised you were a historian
The Royal Family donate huge amounts to the Treasury? New one for me. Source? Crown Estates aren't Liz's land. Dutchy of Cornwall?
The issue of how the aristocracy came about their lands is a whole new thread.
goes back to 1066, even before then .. I guess there's only the odd million books or so that have been written about the subject .. it's really a pity that Cromwell was about 150/200 years too early
This taxpayer money you talk of...my understanding is they still technically own huge amounts of the country, and this generates huge profits, which are donated to the treasury with a rebate for annual operating costs.
You take that off them and you should take property of Lords Westminster, bedford, spencer-Churchill etc etc.
How did they get to own huge amounts of the country?
How did they get it? Or how did they keep it?
Mostly they inherited it or married into a family that had inherited it.
Lord Westminster's family married into a family that had inherited 500 acres of what is now belgravia and Kensington and the family developed it.
I can't find the exact quote now but when asked, the late Lord Westminster explained that what one needed to join the ranks of the very wealthy was an ancestor who was well connected at the time of the Norman conquests.
Keeping it and what you do with it is harder and many a previously wealthy family has managed to blow fortune through giving it to e.g. Feckless gambler, poor business person, losing out to scams etc.
Some families view the wealth as a privilege they can use to better society, Westminster was reportedly such a man. It becomes a benefit and a burden.
The major royals I think are of the same view.
The minor royals tend to give the impression of being on one long jolly like a trustafarian.
Not true. Parliament banned it in Cromwell's absence. However, he probably sympathised. Other leading figures at the time, such as Edward Whalley, did more to enforce the ban than Cromwell.
As Stuart Jennings, one of the academic advisors at the National Civil War Centre (Newark museum) says:
“The Parliamentary act abolishing Yuletide as 'popish superstitions' was passed in 1644, but Cromwell was away fighting at the time so definitely did not ban Christmas. But he must have sympathised with the clamp down as during his period as Lord Protector the legislation was enforced. In Newark Christmas was observed openly up to 1646 and probably was over much of the 1650s, but much more quietly and secretly. You had to be careful.”
The museum continues:
"Things got dicey in Newark in 1655 as Edward Whalley, the Major General for the Midlands, was based in the town. He was committed to the new regime, signed the death warrant of King Charles and was an efficient solider who keenly imposed the new rules on Christmas. Even eating mince pies was frowned upon. So good cheer had to be kept firmly under wraps in the 1650s and not until the restoration of King Charles II did the festive good times roll again.."
They are so far removed from my life I really don't care what dreamt up titles they may or may not get. All seems to me as a bit old fashion but having said that, the royals are part of this country's history. I can't say I really know what way is best, you can't have family lines of princess and princess going off in all directions. It would dilute the brand. Maybe we should have a referendum on the monarchy and offer the country the choice of taking back control and spending the money saved on something like a large social project.
Andrew saw action in the Falklands so deserves credit for that but otherwise he and Fergy were arguably the main contributors in all sorts of ways towards the tarnishing of the image of the Royal Family.
He comes across as arrogant with a sense of entitlement in contrast to his sister Princess Anne and his nephews William and Harry.
I didn't know there was a brothel and golf course in the Falklands.
Maybe we could say that we - the public - will pay for the Queen and her Children and that's all. And income they make from land etc is factored into that payment. That means the rest of them have to make their way in ife like the rest of us. The Queen and her immediate family will hardly be poor, so the grandchildren should do ok you would have thought.
Constitutionally and technically the monarch still has a role both as the head of the judiciary for example, or the armed forces. It is interesting that the Brexit court case is partly about by-passing Parliament and going for Royal assent in the Brexit shenanigans. That many senior Tories (and Danny Dyer) are related to the Royals, and are minor minor Royals themselves (like Jeremy Hunt) adds an extra frisson to establishment behaviour, and this is all well and good as long as the wider population 'know their place '. If you are Irish for example, you are a citizen, but in the UK you are a subject I believe.
Constitutionally and technically the monarch still has a role both as the head of the judiciary for example, or the armed forces. It is interesting that the Brexit court case is partly about by-passing Parliament and going for Royal assent in the Brexit shenanigans. That many senior Tories (and Danny Dyer) are related to the Royals, and are minor minor Royals themselves (like Jeremy Hunt) adds an extra frisson to establishment behaviour, and this is all well and good as long as the wider population 'know their place '. If you are Irish for example, you are a citizen, but in the UK you are a subject I believe.
I don't think that's the case for the vast, vast majority anymore - we're almost all British Citizens now.
I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects. In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects. In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I knew that at one time all British people were considered as 'subjects' of the 'reigning monarch' at the time of their birth .. I don't know if this is still the case .. As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous
This taxpayer money you talk of...my understanding is they still technically own huge amounts of the country, and this generates huge profits, which are donated to the treasury with a rebate for annual operating costs.
You take that off them and you should take property of Lords Westminster, bedford, spencer-Churchill etc etc.
How did they get to own huge amounts of the country?
How did they get it? Or how did they keep it?
Mostly they inherited it or married into a family that had inherited it.
Lord Westminster's family married into a family that had inherited 500 acres of what is now belgravia and Kensington and the family developed it.
I can't find the exact quote now but when asked, the late Lord Westminster explained that what one needed to join the ranks of the very wealthy was an ancestor who was well connected at the time of the Norman conquests.
Keeping it and what you do with it is harder and many a previously wealthy family has managed to blow fortune through giving it to e.g. Feckless gambler, poor business person, losing out to scams etc.
Some families view the wealth as a privilege they can use to better society, Westminster was reportedly such a man. It becomes a benefit and a burden.
The major royals I think are of the same view.
The minor royals tend to give the impression of being on one long jolly like a trustafarian.
I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects. In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects. In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I knew that at one time all British people were considered as 'subjects' of the 'reigning monarch' at the time of their birth .. I don't know if this is still the case .. As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous
I don't think (most) British people are considered subjects anymore, either legally, technically or practically - pretty sure that all changed over the past couple of decades and we're citizens now rather than subjects, quite right too.
I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects. In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I was speaking technically I suppose and I think all British people are technically subjects. In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
I knew that at one time all British people were considered as 'subjects' of the 'reigning monarch' at the time of their birth .. I don't know if this is still the case .. As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous
I don't think (most) British people are considered subjects anymore, either legally, technically or practically - pretty sure that all changed over the past couple of decades and we're citizens now rather than subjects, quite right too.
Yes, it made a massive difference to my life when I became a citizen as opposed to a subject
Comments
And their descendants and parasites made sure they kept it.
Or something like that.
;o)
This is definitely an overlooked aspect of the debate.
I dread to think of what disdain and indifference the 'royals' will attract when Charlie inherits the 'throne' .. who on earth could take the 'coronation' of that well meaning but useless chump seriously ?
I never realised you were a historian
The issue of how the aristocracy came about their lands is a whole new thread.
Mostly they inherited it or married into a family that had inherited it.
Lord Westminster's family married into a family that had inherited 500 acres of what is now belgravia and Kensington and the family developed it.
I can't find the exact quote now but when asked, the late Lord Westminster explained that what one needed to join the ranks of the very wealthy was an ancestor who was well connected at the time of the Norman conquests.
Keeping it and what you do with it is harder and many a previously wealthy family has managed to blow fortune through giving it to e.g. Feckless gambler, poor business person, losing out to scams etc.
Some families view the wealth as a privilege they can use to better society, Westminster was reportedly such a man. It becomes a benefit and a burden.
The major royals I think are of the same view.
The minor royals tend to give the impression of being on one long jolly like a trustafarian.
As Stuart Jennings, one of the academic advisors at the National Civil War Centre (Newark museum) says:
“The Parliamentary act abolishing Yuletide as 'popish superstitions' was passed in 1644, but Cromwell was away fighting at the time so definitely did not ban Christmas. But he must have sympathised with the clamp down as during his period as Lord Protector the legislation was enforced. In Newark Christmas was observed openly up to 1646 and probably was over much of the 1650s, but much more quietly and secretly. You had to be careful.”
The museum continues:
"Things got dicey in Newark in 1655 as Edward Whalley, the Major General for the Midlands, was based in the town. He was committed to the new regime, signed the death warrant of King Charles and was an efficient solider who keenly imposed the new rules on Christmas. Even eating mince pies was frowned upon. So good cheer had to be kept firmly under wraps in the 1650s and not until the restoration of King Charles II did the festive good times roll again.."
Maybe we should have a referendum on the monarchy and offer the country the choice of taking back control and spending the money saved on something like a large social project.
If you are Irish for example, you are a citizen, but in the UK you are a subject I believe.
In the British nationality ceremony I believe people have to swear an oath of allegiance to the monarch.
As regards an oath of allegiance, for example, a person elected as an MP is not allowed to take their seat unless they swear an oath of allegiance to the 'monarch' .. and our 'national anthem', never mind the people, the country, just save the 'queen' .. ridiculous
Ahem
http://forum.charltonlife.com/discussion/comment/2655952/#Comment_2655952