The King
Re: The King
meh, keep the monarch for now, take away their money and power, job's a good un for most people I'd suspect.
Re: The King
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.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
Re: The King
A chunk of the profit goes to the crown. This whole grovelling mentality is so, so damaging.
- Trinucleus
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:45 pm
Re: The King
Couple of positive things from him, going back some years:
Challenged a gaurds officer about the lack of black faces in the ranks. Told 'no one applies' , came back with 'I want to see your plan to tackle it'
Will be 'defender of the faith' but apparently wants to be 'defender of faiths' which is a nice idea but I guess the Anglicans will veto
Then cheated on his wife....
Challenged a gaurds officer about the lack of black faces in the ranks. Told 'no one applies' , came back with 'I want to see your plan to tackle it'
Will be 'defender of the faith' but apparently wants to be 'defender of faiths' which is a nice idea but I guess the Anglicans will veto
Then cheated on his wife....
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: The King
The more horrible Charles is revealed to be...the sooner we have a Republic.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: The King
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.
Re: The King
It's a well known republican plot to sack them all on Christmas Eve, too. Every last one of them. And we'll wave banknotes at them from our Christmas windows in the snow.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: The King
Suggest watch series 4 of The Crown. It's an honest portrait of a marriage that was doomed to fail from the start. Charles did not cheat on his wife, he simply carried on his relationship with Parker Bowles.
He is a spoilt, entitled brat and isn't giving this up, not under any circumstances.
He is a spoilt, entitled brat and isn't giving this up, not under any circumstances.
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
- Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders
Re: The King
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.
And because of the affair, he gave his word to people with no intention of keeping it. [Powys Castle]
If you bring your kids up to think for themselves, you can't complain when they do.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: The King
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]
Re: The King
you'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.
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.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The King
I was surprised to learn that he met Diana when she was 16, and he was 29 and dating her older sister.
If by "surprised" you mean "unsurprised".
Hard drive checks for all royals methinks.
If by "surprised" you mean "unsurprised".
Hard drive checks for all royals methinks.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: The King
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.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: The King
To 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.
They all knew he was in a relationship with Camilla at this time.
Re: The King
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.
Re: The King
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.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- Little waster
- After Pie
- Posts: 2385
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:35 am
- Location: About 1 inch behind my eyes
Re: The King
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).
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.
This place is not a place of honor, no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here, nothing valued is here.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us.
This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
- wilsontown
- Clardic Fug
- Posts: 216
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:51 am
Re: The King
I was struck by the Guardian reporting today - apparently several people they spoke to in the Great Patriotic Queue simply refused to believe the story about Clarence House redundancies.
"All models are wrong but some are useful" - George Box
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: The King
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.
dont tell plodder]
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: The King
My neighbour is a hardcore Royalist and even she thinks Charles is a waste of space. The only child of the Queen she has any time for is Anne.
From what I've read and seen of Chas over the years, he's what happens if no one close to you ever tells you you're wrong and you're sufficiently insulated by wealth and privilege to ignore the rest.
On the upside, he'll have to keep his mouth shut a lot more now. It will be interesting to see if William takes on any of his causes.
I'm a lot less worried about him than what the current government of less rich poshers is doing to us all.
From what I've read and seen of Chas over the years, he's what happens if no one close to you ever tells you you're wrong and you're sufficiently insulated by wealth and privilege to ignore the rest.
On the upside, he'll have to keep his mouth shut a lot more now. It will be interesting to see if William takes on any of his causes.
I'm a lot less worried about him than what the current government of less rich poshers is doing to us all.
Re: The King
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.
Re: The King
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.
I don't mind my taxes helping those worse off than me but paying for someone who is far richer and with a tax exempt income has always grated
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
-
- Catbabel
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am
Re: The King
Charles the Turd treated my colleague Edzard Ernst vindictively and disgracefully back in the day. He recently (2018, I think) became Royal Patron of the Faculty of Homoeopathy, and if you think his crank ideas are not going to be facilitated by his new position and control of certain honours, I think you are going to be disappointed. He thinks that homoeopathy can replace antibiotics. His behaviour over the leaky pen shows he has no impulse control even in high-profile public settings. His acceptance of carrier bags full of cash from dubious sources, and selling honours in exchange for 'charitable' donations to his property and projects, is corrupt. I'm no moral paragon, and no Diana fan, but I think his treatment of her was disgraceful.
He should be awarded the honoray prefix "Fu" in all public settings.
He should be awarded the honoray prefix "Fu" in all public settings.
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4840
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: The King
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,