Re: The King
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2022 10:23 am
meh, keep the monarch for now, take away their money and power, job's a good un for most people I'd suspect.
That’s Crown Estate, owned by the government rather than the monarch.plodder wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:33 amf.ck off private property - the entire seabed below high water out to a few miles? Doesn't even pay inheritance tax. Ridiculous stance to take.TopBadger wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 9:30 amIIRC Sandringham is privately owned by the Monarch, and not Crown Estate (owned by the public but given to the Monarch). So it's likely much less contentious for them to do these things on their private property...Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Tue Sep 13, 2022 11:40 pm
As a large rural landowner he can do loads, again non-politically, e.g. he's been overseeing Curlew reintroductions at Sandringham this year, and hosts meetings of farmers etc. interested in various topics.
I wouldn't choose for him to be in charge of that land - it should be managed for the public benefit by people accountable to the public.
And if those who wish to abolish the monarchy have their way, all of them will be redundant.bjn wrote: ↑Wed Sep 14, 2022 7:13 amThe household staff were employed directly by the Queen. There are something like 800 of them. Charles had/has about 100 of them for himself. Duchy of Cornwall is a separate thing, as are his various charities. Chuck will be stepping into the role of Monarch and be taking over those 800, because they know what’s they are doing for a monarch. This leaves 100 people without a role. Some may go with Charles, some may go to the new Prince of Wales, some will literally be redundant.
How's that not cheating on his wife ???purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:06 amCharles did not cheat on his wife, he simply carried on his relationship with Parker Bowles.
Because all three knew what was going on. Be of no doubt, I find the whole thing totally bizarre, however this was a 19 year old teenager engaged to be married to the next monarch and she was only 20 when they married. Charles was 32 and Camilla 34 years old at this juncture and both of them exploited a young woman in the knowledge they could manipulate her because of her youth and immaturity.Lew Dolby wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:27 amHow's that not cheating on his wife ???purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 9:06 amCharles did not cheat on his wife, he simply carried on his relationship with Parker Bowles.
And because of the affair, he gave his word to people with no intention of keeping it. [Powys Castle]
On the contrary, I'm saying as a person who watched the wedding and the engagement from Ireland, the whole spectacle most certainly was viewed as being appalling.plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:15 amyou're *this* close to saying "it was of a time and things were different" - please don't.
there was general outrage at the time and huge sympathy for Diana, hence the public's response when she died.
Charles has been coming across as a total tw.t all this life. The only people who sympathise with him are vague spiritual types and desperate environmentalists who'll rightly clutch at any straw they can get.
my bad - sorry!purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:25 pmOn the contrary, I'm saying as a person who watched the wedding and the engagement from Ireland, the whole spectacle most certainly was viewed as being appalling.plodder wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:15 amyou're *this* close to saying "it was of a time and things were different" - please don't.
there was general outrage at the time and huge sympathy for Diana, hence the public's response when she died.
Charles has been coming across as a total tw.t all this life. The only people who sympathise with him are vague spiritual types and desperate environmentalists who'll rightly clutch at any straw they can get.
The Spencers are another shower of bastards.purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:30 pmTo also mention Lady Diana Spencer's father sealed the fixation that she was a virgin. Gross, and the Royal Family went with this.
They all knew he was in a relationship with Camilla at this time.
As a telling example of the sort of bubbles people (we?) exist in Mrs Waster is a hardcore, Tory-voting, DM-reading monarchist who is up to date (and keeps me up-to-date whether I want to or not) with every tedious, mind-numbing detail about the extended Royals goings-on (as well as being a fully signed up member of the "Kate is Wonderful, Meghan is Black Dreadful" Club courtesy of the aforementioned far-right sh.t-rag).
Suddenly, I get where your energy comes from, to write these excellent off-the-wall anti-establishment diatribes: an escape valve to maintain marital bliss.Little waster wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 1:48 pmAs a telling example of the sort of bubbles people (we?) exist in Mrs Waster is a hardcore, Tory-voting, DM-reading monarchist who is up to date (and keeps me up-to-date whether I want to or not) with every tedious, mind-numbing detail about the extended Royals goings-on (as well as being a fully signed up member of the "Kate is Wonderful, Meghan is Black Dreadful" Club courtesy of the aforementioned far-right sh.t-rag).
As you can imagine the long winter nights just fly by in our house.
Anyway the conversation the other night went:-
LW: You see today's news about the Royals?
MW: What? The thing about the cloud in the shape of the Queen?
LW: No.
MW: About where the corgis are going?
LW: No.
MW: About Zara Philips dress?
LW: No. The bit about Charles sacking 100 people at Clarence House as they were working extra hard to deal with the funeral and ease his transition into the monarchy literally during one of the Queen's funeral services.
MW: No never heard of it, not even a whisper, the King would never do that, are you sure you didn't just make it up? La-la-la-la-not-listening.
And that's why we are in the state we are in.
Unfortunately there won't be much taking money away from them, as under a deal made as recently as 1993, and reaffirmed in 2013, the sovereign has immunity from inheritance tax. Clearly it would be silly to have an inheritance tax charge on "crown assets" that they hold only in name and are really state assets. But they are immune on their privately held estate also. Given the sovereign receives a sovereign grant to be able to carry out their public functions, it seems quite unnecessary that they should be immune from inheritance tax on their private wealth. Heads of State of other countries do the job on an awful lot less.
And exemptions from several laws.IvanV wrote: ↑Fri Sep 16, 2022 4:08 pmUnfortunately there won't be much taking money away from them, as under a deal made as recently as 1993, and reaffirmed in 2013, the sovereign has immunity from inheritance tax. Clearly it would be silly to have an inheritance tax charge on "crown assets" that they hold only in name and are really state assets. But they are immune on their privately held estate also. Given the sovereign receives a sovereign grant to be able to carry out their public functions, it seems quite unnecessary that they should be immune from inheritance tax on their private wealth. Heads of State of other countries do the job on an awful lot less.
With any luck his reign will be so watered down it will have no effect at all.Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑Sun Sep 18, 2022 9:24 amHe recently (2018, I think) became Royal Patron of the Faculty of Homoeopathy,