The Royal Family #28

[stardust21]

Let's look it from another angle: I made money and built a house (in this case it was William the Conqueror), then made more money and built (bought) another house and let's imagine my heirs continue to do that. After sufficient number of years, my heirs would own as much palaces and land as RF. Do you expect my heirs to give a country their profit except for taxable income?

As far as I understand, instead of directly owning all the palaces, your RF made the trust (Crown estate) and all revenue from the Estate goes in your treasury. All antiquities and jewellry is also in trust and RF can't sell them or give them away? From the revenue, about 20% goes back to RF for maintenance of the said palaces and salaries of employees.

What is in private RF hands (Balmoral and few others), maintenance is paid from private income of royals.

Yes that is how it works.

The argument is that if we got rid of the Royal’s the Crown Estate is still the publics. The Royal’s argument is that it isn’t, it’s theirs in trust. It’s also why they don’t pay taxes (including inheritance) as all the income from the Crown Estate goes to the public anyway

 

[Boring Monday]

I dont think you would remove titles. Plenty of people have titles including ex nobility of European Republics, like Beas husband, but they don't have roles as Royals. I do think no more nieces and nephews of The Monarch, so Andrews kids and Edwards kids don't have a choice of joining the gravy train. Let the excusing cousins of The Queen die out or retire under the current system.

I suppose the thing is, as it stands Beatrice and Eugiene have, and Louise and James are entitled to, the honourifics as a legacy of being grandchildren of the previous monarch. It’s tricky to remove what someone has had since birth … and I can’t see it would go through Parliament as a retrospective. Beatrice, Eugiene and Louise (should she opt to use it) can’t pass their honours down anyway. Even for James, should he want to use it, the HRH stops with him and again the Wessex Earldom or even the Duke of Edinburgh title would just be amalgamated into the general pool of nobility.

Definitely enact it prospectively and bring the HRH/honours back a generation - so it stops with the children of a monarch/direct heir not the grandchildren. So George’s kids get the HRH/Prince/ss but not those of Charlotte or Louis

 

[LoopyLou47]

Let's look it from another angle: I made money and built a house (in this case it was William the Conqueror), then made more money and built (bought) another house and let's imagine my heirs continue to do that. After sufficient number of years, my heirs would own as much palaces and land as RF. Do you expect my heirs to give a country their profit except for taxable income

Well that depends on whether your heirs want to carry on being Heads of State and having the enormous tax and other benefits that come from that.

 

[thegirlscout]

Looking at the number of private residences, how they are used, Maintained and staffed might be handy as well. The ‘they're privately owned‘ argument really is getting to the point where it doesn’t cut it. How many “bolt holes” can one person need.

Whilst I agree if they do sell them they get to keep the money and they will just be sold to rich foreigners who are never there and don’t contribute to the local community.

 

[peradetlic]

Well that depends on whether your heirs want to carry on being Heads of State and having the enormous tax and other benefits that come from that.

If you look around, all "monied" families have tax benefits and they certainly buy governments including head of states. Look just at America. Why Sanderson isn't the president, but Biden? Unfortunately, corruption and money has infiltrated almost all states in the world, somewhere more open, Also look at the smaller countries where government is marionette. Pinnoce and Peron were good for most of the world as long as they kept shut and did what they were told.

 

[billybudd]

I think the problem is that that is exactly what she has to do, but she can't or doesn't want to. In apparently 10 years of working with early years, she has come up with 5 fairly bland questions in a survey, resurrected the same thing 5 years later as a pie chart and had her picture taken sitting at a desk. This is an area that has been studied and worked on for decades, has had money put in by the way of Surestart centres and early years nursery funding, and taken away again by the government. She could have taken on so many things, for example girls sports, when sports is clearly something she's interested in. She could have done something effective in that instead of horsing around with elite athletes and turning up to Wimbledon and calling it work!

How would she do that? Visit every remaining Sure Start in the country and lobby the conservatives to stop defunding? I think there's a way to do that -- Charles managed to be politcally active for 50 years. There's longstanding arguments about how effective he was. Stopping some huge Chelsea tower seems to be the most effective thing his 50 years of unlawful political interference achieved.

 

[Boring Monday]

Whilst I agree if they do sell them they get to keep the money and they will just be sold to rich foreigners who are never there and don’t contribute to the local community.

I’m not even sure I’d advocate selling them off … but having them do ‘something’ rather than tick over with a skeleton staff for the sake of a couple of weeks a year wouldn’t seem so wasteful …and capping the property they own privately at where it is now.

 

[LoopyLou47]

If you look around, all "monied" families have tax benefits and they certainly buy governments including head of states. Look just at America. Why Sanderson isn't the president, but Biden? Unfortunately, corruption and money has infiltrated almost all states in the world, somewhere more open, Also look at the smaller countries where government is marionette. Pinnoce and Peron were good for most of the world as long as they kept shut and did what they were told.

They aren't Heads of State though, via hereditary concepts. Talking about dictators in Republics is a bit straw man. We don't want to be like them . That is supposedly one of the benefits of Monarchy put out by Royalists, that it somehow protects us from dictatorship. Biden can be defeated in an election Yes, Americans will be paying for their security, but not for the security of their grandchildrens cousins, aunts and uncles etc.
Also, they are not the same as other rich families, because they need to justify the existence of the Monarchy. Its about optics. When Charles and William talk about the environment, people will justifiably point out their own carbon footprint, of several fully staffed enormous residences, several overseas holidays a year and numerous helicopter trips, as we'll as exemptions from environmental legislation. I doubt Donald Trump for example was able to lobbybthe Scottish government to get exemptions because he wanted to keep watering his golf courses. It is a bit ' Do as I say so I don't have to'.

How would she do that? Visit every remaining Sure Start in the country and lobby the conservatives to stop defunding? I think there's a way to do that -- Charles managed to be politcally active for 50 years. There's longstanding arguments about how effective he was. Stopping some huge Chelsea tower seems to be the most effective thing his 50 years of unlawful political interference achieved.

No. Because its not something she should be involved in at all. It is a political issue, and having Kate there pretending that early years education can be remedied without government funding or by more people being stay at home parents helps no one.

 

[Blurp]

Will be interesting if he gets off….

Duke of Norfolk who planned Queen's funeral - admits running red light

Edward Fitzalan-Howard, the 18th Duke of Norfolk, was pulled over while driving through Battersea in his BMW because officers suspected he had driven through a red light.

www.dailymail.co.uk

He's been banned.

Duke of Norfolk banned from driving

Edward Fitzalan-Howard had hoped his ceremonial duties might lead to him being spared a ban.

www.bbc.co.uk

How would she do that? Visit every remaining Sure Start in the country and lobby the conservatives to stop defunding? I think there's a way to do that -- Charles managed to be politcally active for 50 years. There's longstanding arguments about how effective he was. Stopping some huge Chelsea tower seems to be the most effective thing his 50 years of unlawful political interference achieved.

Apparently he likes to bring people together so that solutions can be found.

How King Charles helped save British farmhouse cheese

The new king helped drive a renaissance in British cheesemaking when the industry was in crisis 30 years ago.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[House of Tea]

Good, that he has been banned!

 

[thegirlscout]

I’m not even sure I’d advocate selling them off … but having them do ‘something’ rather than tick over with a skeleton staff for the sake of a couple of weeks a year wouldn’t seem so wasteful …and capping the property they own privately at where it is now.

I agree - maybe open them up to the public?

 

[Brah Day Izit?]

I don't know if any of you have watched the documentary on Netflix about the Dutchy of Cornwall - it's a two-part series (someone mentioned it on a previous thread). Its absolutely wonderful and I completely fell in love with KC after watching it. He sounds like a very caring landlord.

 

[Dub2020]

I don't know if any of you have watched the documentary on Netflix about the Dutchy of Cornwall - it's a two-part series (someone mentioned it on a previous thread). Its absolutely wonderful and I completely fell in love with KC after watching it. He sounds like a very caring landlord.

Watched it when it was on main TV couple years ago.......by the end I nearly fancied him he came across so well!! I saw him in a whole new handsome light

 

[thegreencow]

A few predictions for the future.

• I do think all hell may break loose now Queen Elizabeth II is gone. There could be a few things exposed in the media as things settle down. I don’t think King Charles will be able to control as much. His temper may backfire on him spectacularly.
• Some protests about the royals’ hypocrisy when it comes to the environment; carbon footprint, hunting etc. it causes a few changes. Not sure what though.
• Andrew ousted from the family soon (next month or so). Romance with Sarah rekindles and they quietly remarry.
• Beatrice and Eugenie welcome another child each next year. Girl for both.
• We will find out more details about the Queen’s death but not via the family. It will be unintentionally leaked.
• Tour of the Commonwealth for William and Catherine announced next year.
• Charles opens a palace or two to the public. Not Buckingham though, probably Balmoral St James’s and possibly Kensington eventually.
• William’s affair is made more public with evidence. There is rarely smoke without fire and the media are unlikely to speculate this much without it. I think Catherine forgave him and they’re fine now. Maybe not a full affair, just a ONS.
• I think some things are too good to be true. Something will come out about Catherine. Things have been a little too quiet with her. If it’s too good to be true it sometimes is.
• William and Harry put old dogs to rest and make up after an emotional heart to heart in the next few years after the affair is leaked. A statement will be made but little fuss.
• Subsequently, Harry and Meghan will return to the UK part time.
• Edward and Sophie made Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh either at Christmas or around the coronation. At least one of their kids takes the HRH if Charles (or William) realises he’s slimmed the monarchy too much.
• A documentary about the Queen’s life next year with royals participating.
• 7-16 year reign for Charles. Camilla will outlive him. I have a feeling Louis will still be a child when William becomes King.
• Charlotte will continue to be a great support for George. Louis is a wild child but he is not the one William and Catherine will have the most concerns about.
• The monarchy will be abolished by the time George’s grandchildren are able to ascend to the throne.
• 1-2 more children for Harry and Meghan. One named after Philip. Harry and Meghan never divorce.

 

[Mrs Fluff]

The thing is when the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, while the titles will pass down to their heirs they automatically loose their royal Duke status anyway and just go into the pool of ‘ordinary’ nobility with all the other non royal dukedoms and titles … so taking away the HRH from an 80 year old, just for the sake of it seems a bit daft … especially when they are still doing work on behalf of the royal family.

Sorry to sound think but does that mean at some point no royal Dukedoms, as in surely they'll run out?

 

[Eirawen]

I suppose the thing is, as it stands Beatrice and Eugiene have, and Louise and James are entitled to, the honourifics as a legacy of being grandchildren of the previous monarch. It’s tricky to remove what someone has had since birth … and I can’t see it would go through Parliament as a retrospective. Beatrice, Eugiene and Louise (should she opt to use it) can’t pass their honours down anyway. Even for James, should he want to use it, the HRH stops with him and again the Wessex Earldom or even the Duke of Edinburgh title would just be amalgamated into the general pool of nobility.

Definitely enact it prospectively and bring the HRH/honours back a generation - so it stops with the children of a monarch/direct heir not the grandchildren. So George’s kids get the HRH/Prince/ss but not those of Charlotte or Louis

Sorry to sound think but does that mean at some point no royal Dukedoms, as in surely they'll run out?

Still no Duke of Crawley, Knotty Ash etc

 

[thegirlscout]

Sorry to sound think but does that mean at some point no royal Dukedoms, as in surely they'll run out?

They merge with the crown if they die out. For instance the Duke of Cambridge was first created in 1660 and was created 4 times before William got it due to the Dukes not marrying or their marriages being invalid, etc and each time that happened it went back to the Crown.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Cambridge - explains it in more detail

I’m not sure if this is the case with Dukedoms in Wales, Scotland and N Ireland. I would imagine as long as there is Royalty there will be Dukes, Barons, etc.

 

[Boring Monday]

Sorry to sound think but does that mean at some point no royal Dukedoms, as in surely they'll run out?

Kent and Gloucester are out for the forseeable because the heirs have heirs.
York will revert to the throne when Andrew dies and will probably go to Louis (it’s the traditional one for the second son if it’s free)
George will get a ‘spare’ one on marriage.
Assuming Charlotte marries, her partner will more than likely be offered one.

It’s the holder that makes the Dukedom royal, not the actual dukedoms themselves so any of the spares would become royal and stay royal down to the grandson of the monarch, when they lose royal status (as will happen to Gloucester and Kent when they are next inherited)

 

[mindlessness]

Kent and Gloucester are out for the forseeable because the heirs have heirs.
York will revert to the throne when Andrew dies and will probably go to Louis (it’s the traditional one for the second son if it’s free)
George will get a ‘spare’ one on marriage.
Assuming Charlotte marries, her partner will more than likely be offered one.

It’s the holder that makes the Dukedom royal, not the actual dukedoms themselves so any of the spares would become royal and stay royal down to the grandson of the monarch, when they lose royal status (as will happen to Gloucester and Kent when they are next inherited)

Ugh, what a legacy from the previous title holder for Louis! ha.

I remember when Harry was getting married people were discussing his possible Dukedom and there aren't that many spare (ie. that are currently reverted to the throne).
____

I think perhaps Queen was fine with Kate and William's workload - otherwise she'd have made them do more right? I get the impression she wanted them to have the 'quiet' time in raising kids before getting down to business/taking on more responsibility. Obviously just me Witchelling here. Now they're P&P of Wales though...I definitely want to see more of them.

Of things I'd like to see Kate get involved with - she's already involved with scouts, I'd love to see her do more with that and kids outdoor education generally. Also more stuff like Action on Addiction.

 

[thegirlscout]

I remember when Harry was getting married people were discussing his possible Dukedom and there aren't that many spare (ie. that are currently reverted to the throne).

Oh I thought all dukedoms etc revert back to the crown when the holder dies and there isn’t an heir? I may have misunderstood.