Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: 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 Charles thought the valuation was out of date due to offshore licensing, wind farms etc.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. So when push comes to shove - we do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Rog said: 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. The so called blood line or right to the throne has for centuries been the prerogative of Parliament. They can change it and make it and recently, very recently, they did so. All the areas where the Queen is Head of State were consulted and all agreed. The Isle of Man was not consulted. What the peasants think or choose to believe is of no consequence. And as I say, I noticed the resemblance to his ancestor "The Red Earl" and I think one of his aunts. Contrary to popular belief we do not have a true hereditary system. It is the nominal basis for being "in line to the throne" but legislation gives Parliament the right to change it. And they have been known so to do. Another factor is that the monarchy is fabrication following on from the English Revolution. Some call it a civil war but that is because we do not have revolutions. We are not those frightful Americans! We forget of how we cut off the King's head and a lot of his henchman were shortened too. Also that we confiscated estates. Also that the monarchy was restored under a new system controlled by Parliament and a democracy. "The king/queen reigns. Parliament governs." This is our constitutional settlement which was done to bring order out of chaos and remove the dead hand of the Cromwellians. This enabled the country to have stability so we were all in one piece when the rest of Europe went into revolution. We had at last two hundred years head start with our constitutional monarchy and thus were stable enough to develop a modern industrial economy.. This is still the basis of the Crown's survival to this day. Too much upheaval to change it and it would be like Brexit "For and against" Big row. The monarchy has an inbuilt mechanism for its removal if the general public wanted it...But as of today...They seem happy enough with the system and the settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: The so called blood line or right to the throne has for centuries been the prerogative of Parliament. They can change it and make it and recently, very recently, they did so. All the areas where the Queen is Head of State were consulted and all agreed. The Isle of Man was not consulted. What the peasants think or choose to believe is of no consequence. And as I say, I noticed the resemblance to his ancestor "The Red Earl" and I think one of his aunts. Contrary to popular belief we do not have a true hereditary system. It is the nominal basis for being "in line to the throne" but legislation gives Parliament the right to change it. And they have been known so to do. Another factor is that the monarchy is fabrication following on from the English Revolution. Some call it a civil war but that is because we do not have revolutions. We are not those frightful Americans! We forget of how we cut off the King's head and a lot of his henchman were shortened too. Also that we confiscated estates. Also that the monarchy was restored under a new system controlled by Parliament and a democracy. "The king/queen reigns. Parliament governs." This is our constitutional settlement which was done to bring order out of chaos and remove the dead hand of the Cromwellians. This enabled the country to have stability so we were all in one piece when the rest of Europe went into revolution. We had at last two hundred years head start with our constitutional monarchy and thus were stable enough to develop a modern industrial economy.. This is still the basis of the Crown's survival to this day. Too much upheaval to change it and it would be like Brexit "For and against" Big row. The monarchy has an inbuilt mechanism for its removal if the general public wanted it...But as of today...They seem happy enough with the system and the settlement. The amount of propaganda that has been churned out by "The Firm" and those who benefit by its continued existence is staggering and it's inevitable that "The Sheeple" and those who can't see through the propaganda will swallow it I've watched changes taking place over the years as more and more people are seeing the"Royal Family" for what they really are and the hereditary monarchy for the shameful undemocratic thing that it is. Getting shot of the monarchy and the hanger on's --- Bring it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 12 hours ago, Neil Down said: Don’t be daft. I’d rather keep the Royal Family than turn the UK into a mini version of USA Serious academics point out that the USA has an elected monarchy masquerading as a Presidency and that the UK has an elected Presidency masquerading as a Monarchy. When you think about it...Lot of truth in that concept! The President behaves and acts like a monarch (I don't mean just Trump) whereas in the UK the Prime Minister - supposedly the monarch's personal creature - acts and behaves like a president having the use of royal powers whereas the legal fiction is that monarch is head of state ie their government, their ministers, the laws in their name.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rog said: The amount of propaganda that has been churned out by "The Firm" and those who benefit by its continued existence is staggering and it's inevitable that "The Sheeple" and those who can't see through the propaganda will swallow it I've watched changes taking place over the years as more and more people are seeing the"Royal Family" for what they really are and the hereditary monarchy for the shameful undemocratic thing that it is. Getting shot of the monarchy and the hanger on's --- Bring it on. They have long since seen through it ever since Charles I put his head on the block. We all know it is an act. But where is the pressure for change? Even the new countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand cannot easily agree about Republicanism. The Queen visited the Irish Republic and was warmly welcomed overall. Of course she is still Queen in Ireland but not of Ireland. But there is something deep inside us that seems to want this system. Miss America? Now I recall when Miss America was chosen the commentator invited her to wear the "crown" and "meet your subjects"...Do they still do that? As I say, there is something deeply embedded there and many presidents try to act like monarchs of old times. I could see Corbyn in Buckingham Palace. And lapping it up! You know what, old Willy the Conqueror did a good job when he installed a Norman version of aristocracy and land tenure. Still going strong eh what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, Rog said: The amount of propaganda that has been churned out by "The Firm" and those who benefit by its continued existence is staggering and it's inevitable that "The Sheeple" and those who can't see through the propaganda will swallow it I've watched changes taking place over the years as more and more people are seeing the"Royal Family" for what they really are and the hereditary monarchy for the shameful undemocratic thing that it is. Getting shot of the monarchy and the hanger on's --- Bring it on. It is democratic because its existence is in the hands of a democracy. That is why we once cut off the head of a king. ...Only to end up with a military dictator such that a new form of monarchy was restored having nominal powers and under control of Parliament. This is basically the model we have to this day. Edward VIII was seen off when he was not able to conform. The Royals are by no means permanently in post if they step too far out of line and Parliament's wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 17 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: They have long since seen through it ever since Charles I put his head on the block. We all know it is an act. But where is the pressure for change? Even the new countries like Australia, Canada and New Zealand cannot easily agree about Republicanism. The Queen visited the Irish Republic and was warmly welcomed overall. Of course she is still Queen in Ireland but not of Ireland. But there is something deep inside us that seems to want this system. Miss America? Now I recall when Miss America was chosen the commentator invited her to wear the "crown" and "meet your subjects"...Do they still do that? As I say, there is something deeply embedded there and many presidents try to act like monarchs of old times. I could see Corbyn in Buckingham Palace. And lapping it up! You know what, old Willy the Conqueror did a good job when he installed a Norman version of aristocracy and land tenure. Still going strong eh what? Not for much longer, Barrie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 12 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: It is democratic because its existence is in the hands of a democracy. That is why we once cut off the head of a king. ...Only to end up with a military dictator such that a new form of monarchy was restored having nominal powers and under control of Parliament. This is basically the model we have to this day. Edward VIII was seen off when he was not able to conform. The Royals are by no means permanently in post if they step too far out of line and Parliament's wishes. They can't be replaced by an elected head of state soon enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody2 Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 8 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. only the pro-eu snowflakes should fund the cost of the eu, call it a TT for short aka traitors tax....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 18 minutes ago, Rog said: They can't be replaced by an elected head of state soon enough for me. Proper little Cromwell eh? Well he did at least allow back in the true sons of Abraham for fiscal reasons and to help set up his version of government...So that's one vote for the next president but not I suggest our first president/Lord Protector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 24 minutes ago, Rog said: Not for much longer, Barrie. How long is not for much longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: Proper little Cromwell eh? Well he did at least allow back in the true sons of Abraham for fiscal reasons and to help set up his version of government...So that's one vote for the next president but not I suggest our first president/Lord Protector. Had to get the little dig in eh Barrie! Funny how one only needs to scratch the surface to see how anti-Semitism runs through so many people like the lettering in a stick of rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rog Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 8 minutes ago, Barrie Stevens said: How long is not for much longer? Who can say but time is now running out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 I suspect this may be phase 1 of a planned abdication, and one where Charles does not become King. And that a very principled Liz will short this out over the next year or so before she pops off for a bit of retirement, or, hopefully not, for health reasons. My money is on us having King William in the year of Brexit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted April 21, 2018 Share Posted April 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Rog said: Had to get the little dig in eh Barrie! Funny how one only needs to scratch the surface to see how anti-Semitism runs through so many people like the lettering in a stick of rock. Taking the piss is not anti-Semitism.. I was drawing a long bow and relating your opinions or political view today to the one that prevailed at the time of the Commonwealth ie The Jews were invited back in during a republican time so your "people" so to speak would have been OK during that Republican time not out of step in other words or else they would not have been encouraged to come back. I agree not a good joke! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.