Bobbie Bobster Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 Awesome topic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 5 hours ago, dilligaf said: Agreed Get rid of the royal family too. Nothing more than a tourist attraction. Don’t be daft. I’d rather keep the Royal Family than turn the UK into a mini version of USA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 5 minutes ago, Neil Down said: 5 hours ago, dilligaf said: Agreed Get rid of the royal family too. Nothing more than a tourist attraction. Don’t be daft. I’d rather keep the Royal Family than turn the UK into a mini version of USA Do you not think that the royal family are not just a relic of times very much past ? They don't have any real say or impact on today's society, they are just wealthy dinosaurs in my opinion . Sorry to differ. I would rather see an elected president as in many European countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted April 20, 2018 Author Share Posted April 20, 2018 Ireland, Germany, India have head of states a million miles from USA. There are many different ways of doing it than Monarchy or Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 3 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Do you not think that the royal family are not just a relic of times very much past ? They don't have any real say or impact on today's society, they are just wealthy dinosaurs in my opinion . Sorry to differ. I would rather see an elected president as in many European countries. No thanks, very happy with keeping the Royal Family. Thanks to the young royals, they are moving forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dilligaf Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Neil Down said: 9 minutes ago, dilligaf said: Do you not think that the royal family are not just a relic of times very much past ? They don't have any real say or impact on today's society, they are just wealthy dinosaurs in my opinion . Sorry to differ. I would rather see an elected president as in many European countries. No thanks, very happy with keeping the Royal Family. Thanks to the young royals, they are moving forward IMO the younger royals are moving AWAY from what you like as a monarchy. Especially Harry ( who I have a lot of time for ) because he wants to be his own man, not a puppet.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted April 20, 2018 Share Posted April 20, 2018 1 hour ago, dilligaf said: IMO the younger royals are moving AWAY from what you like as a monarchy. Especially Harry ( who I have a lot of time for ) because he wants to be his own man, not a puppet.. Don’t think they are unless you are referring to their interaction wit the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freggyragh Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 I’m neutral, but I think only the monarchists should be paying for them. I’d probably chip in for the current queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 10 hours ago, dilligaf said: IMO the younger royals are moving AWAY from what you like as a monarchy. Especially Harry ( who I have a lot of time for ) because he wants to be his own man, not a puppet.. Maybe because the question over his parentage is a whole lot more than just scuttlebutt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 9 hours ago, Neil Down said: Don’t think they are unless you are referring to their interaction wit the public. Kardashians part two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 7 hours ago, Freggyragh said: I’m neutral, but I think only the monarchists should be paying for them. I’d probably chip in for the current queen. Who do you think pays for them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 34 minutes ago, Rog said: Maybe because the question over his parentage is a whole lot more than just scuttlebutt. He has an ancestor "The Red Earl" (Spencer) and others whom he resembles ie gingery look. Also, at Willy and Kate's wedding I noticed that one of the Spencers (Aunt?) he also resembles, ie the head and hair. TV caught the profile and you could see this look did not come from that former cavalry officer fellow Hewitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 Just now, Barrie Stevens said: He has an ancestor "The Red Earl" (Spencer) and others whom he resembles ie gingery look. Also, at Willy and Kate's wedding I noticed that one of the Spencers (Aunt?) he also resembles, ie the head and hair. TV caught the profile and you could see this look did not come from that former cavalry officer fellow Hewitt. There's a great many people who do believe that Diana's Dalliance with numerous men, and in particular James Hewitt for an extended period leading up to her conceiving Harry,is more than good enough reason to doubt his CLAIMED blood line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: Who do you think pays for them then? One way or another - WE DO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 7 hours ago, Freggyragh said: I’m neutral, but I think only the monarchists should be paying for them. I’d probably chip in for the current queen. They get The Sovereign Grant voted by Parliament. The old system was the Civil List and the Privy Purse. The Royals get paid if they do public duties and they have to do a certain amount. Other money goes for the household and buildings. Since at least George III in 1760 they had to give up the use of and revenue from the Crown Estate in return for money voted by Parliament. The Crown Estate revenue goes to the Treasury basically and they get the Sovereign Grant paid out of this. The Treasury makes a big profit as little of it goes to the "Royals". In fact 15% of the profit goes to the Sovereign Grant. Charles pushed for more I think on the basis that the Crown Estate is still theirs technically and by convention they agree to these arrangements and of course surrendering the right to impose taxation themselves (1760). Charles thought the valuation was out of date due to offshore licensing, wind farms etc. He wanted a grant that reflected more up to date valuations as I think I recall. On the other hand I would not rate highly their chances of reclaiming the use of and revenue from the Crown Estate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.