Lifes work.

[ike]

what a bunch monkey brained of inbred toffs the royals are.

(the 'facts' according to Alan Ross)

It's easy to judge others without ever meeting them or anyone in their 'circle'. I wouldn't presume or expect anyone should care what my opinion was of the Royals. Charles, Anne and the Gloucesters all live within 5 miles.

I have met and spoken to Princess Anne in person. She came across as a very nice, down-to-earth person and I am sure that is not just protocol, as is Prince Charles whom my father worked for and used to chat with regularly in the course of his work (woodsman and stonewaller on the Home Farm) and when invited to Highgrove for the annual workers bash.

It's pointless really - but if spouting off your 'knowledge' of them makes you personally feel better....

Ike

 

[Digit]

The 'depravation' of Cornwall wouldn't be like that of Wales would it? You know, distance from ports and markets for example.

[/quote]The Duchy of Cornwall refers to the land owned by the Duke of Cornwall, and not to the County of Cornwall. As far as I can ascertain the Duchy owns 51,885 hectares, mostly in the south of England (and not necessarily all in Cornwall, in fact over half the estate is on Dartmoor in Devon) , which is run on a commercial basis - tenanted out to some 200 farms, plus 2400 acres of woodland, a few castles and mineral rights over the whole county.

It might also be worth asking how much of Dartmoor would survive in other hands. I would also point out that he pays taxes on his income from the estates, just as a commoner would, so only the landlord's name would change if got the rocket.

Roy.

 

[RogerS]

........ So there.

Ooooh...get you. Teddy back in the pram yet?

 

[Jake]

. I would also point out that he pays taxes on his income from the estates, just as a commoner would, so only the landlord's name would change if got the rocket.

He didn't half kick up a stink about that - they had to raise his royal stipend to compensate him he moaned so much.

The rate paid might go up quite a bit if the famous royal bashers can be believed.

 

[Digit]

Personally I've yet to meet anyone who volunteered to pay taxes! :lol:
Let's face it, there's a whole industry based on tax avoidance isn't there?

Roy.

 

[Gill]

I used to be about as fervently anti-monarchist as it was possible to be. Then I heard Billy Bragg talking about our constitution and he described his reluctant acceptance of the monarchy, saying that if you were going to create a system, you wouldn't choose this one but nevertheless it's the one we've got and the turmoil that changing it would generate just wouldn't be worthwhile. That view struck me as reasonable.

More recently, I've been pondering on the problems which face our society and been struck by how we're now having to confront issues which were identified back in the seventies but which no government has faced up to, no matter what its political hue. For instance, when I was at school we knew oil would run out in the early 21st century and some form of alternative energy would be required. Yet each government has left the problem to its successor. Our political system promotes a short term outlook which can damage our long term welfare.

I know a lot of people ridicule Prince Charles for his opinions, but imagine what might have happened if he had been as ardent about energy independence as he has been about organic farming. The Duke of Edinburgh set up a scheme to promote good citizenship which still has many virtues today, even if it doesn't seem to be as popular as it once was. Prince Charles' own Prince's Trust has provided long term support for many youngsters setting up in business. These aristocrats have shown an interest in matters which affect the long term development of Britain.

The Royal Family has a permanence and independence which has now led me to believe that I was wrong to rail against them. I loathe the feudal patronage system they represent but I've come to see them as a potential bulwark for undertaking long term projects which transcend short term political adventurers. After all, they don't have to seek re-election every five years and they're so wealthy that vested interests would find it very difficult to suborn them.

I never thought I would express such an opinion, but I would like to see the Royal Family given more influence over issues which will take more than a couple of sessions of Parliament to bring to fruition.

Gill

 

[davin]

Give them a nice little stately home somewhere, with a nice little balcony so that they can wave at the tourists.
Let them live on their savings (should last them a few thousand years).
I don't wish them any harm. Just don't personally want to finance their lifestyle (financing mine is hard enough).
I understand that for older generations they perhaps give a feeling of history and nostalgia for a past.Just don't feel they have a place in modern Europe.
Anyway what do I know I wasn't born in Britain.

ps I just read Billy Braggs book as well, worth a read. Appears that he lives in a stately home in Dorset himself...

 

[Digit]

Let them live on their savings (should last them a few thousand years).
I don't wish them any harm. Just don't personally want to finance their lifestyle (financing mine is hard enough).

Ah! But there in lies the problem. You don't think the job of head of state would then be left vacant do you?
Step up Tony Blair, David Cameron, etc, nice fat expense account, jobs for the boys, yet another cross to put on paper, and not only *** scandals and disfunctional families but a bigger bill to boot. That you can bet on!

Roy.

 

[NeilO]

Im not against the Royal Family per se, but im talking about the immediate Royal family, but the hangers on .. you know fifteenth cousin seven times removed, should they be classed as royal and awarded living expenses???
go back far enough were probably all related, am I, or you enetitled to a litle privelege just for being you?

Tony, I understand were your coming from , But for her Maj to throw a banquet, you reaaly think she stands over a hot stove and cooks the bleeding lot, or is it a case "super Idea, Charles....Have Jenkins make all the arrangements"....

so immediate Royals , bearable, but how many parasites do we have to put up with....

my two penneth...

 

[RogerS]

Im not against the Royal Family per se, but im talking about the immediate Royal family, but the hangers on .. you know fifteenth cousin seven times removed, should they be classed as royal and awarded living expenses???
go back far enough were probably all related, am I, or you enetitled to a litle privelege just for being you?

Tony, I understand were your coming from , But for her Maj to throw a banquet, you reaaly think she stands over a hot stove and cooks the bleeding lot, or is it a case "super Idea, Charles....Have Jenkins make all the arrangements"....

so immediate Royals , bearable, but how many parasites do we have to put up with....

my two penneth...

How can you make such a sweeping generalisation as this?

Do you know for sure how much these living expenses are and who gets what?

Do you know how much charitable or other work all these alleged 'hangers-on' do or do not?

Do you have a definitive list of the alleged 'hangers-on'?

If you do then let's all discuss the merits but until then........

 

[NeilO]

Roger,
not wanting you to blow a gasket :lol:
I said I Havent got a with the Immediate royal family, but just because you happen to be born within the extended family does that make the justifaction of being able to live off the state?

no, I dont have a definative list of whos who, wish I had, but my point is we pay for the royals, why should we pay for the "royalish" families too..

its my ranting , possibly of a madman :lol: but its mine...

if I have caused any offence, bite me :lol: :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

if I have caused any offence, bite me :lol: :lol:

Bring back the Guillotine, I say. Give it a 5 degree back bevel for good measure.
Viva la revolution. :lol:

 

[Digit]

Our present Royal Family did at one time largely support themselves Neil. They were persuaded to give up several estates I believe it was, and accept the civil list.
If you check your history this was under Attlee's premiership I believe, the idea was to make them state employees at the same time that he nationalised everything else that didn't move fast enough!
It's another urban myth like subsidies to farmers are for the benefit of the farmer, they were designed to keep wages down to improve export competition.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

Viva la revolution.

And look what happened afterwards! No thank you very much!

Roy.

 

[Anonymous]

Viva la revolution.

And look what happened afterwards! No thank you very much!

Roy.

OK Roy.

(maybe just one or two of them, and the odd politician?) :lol:

 

[Digit]

(maybe just one or two of them, and the odd politician?) Laughing

Oh Okay! But you'll have to allow them a closed season for breeding.

Roy.

 

[BradNaylor]

The whole concept of the position of head of state being passed down through one family is quite patently ridiculous. I concede that the current Queen has done a good job - as has her husband; however there is absolutely no rational reason why she should ever have become head of state in the first place.

The problem, as Gill alludes to, is what to replace them with.

The assumption seems to be that the only alternative would be a president elected from the ranks of elderly politicians. Why?

My solution would be simple.

A ceremonial president would be elected by the people every four years or so and would serve one term. Call them 'King' or 'Queen' if you like. The election would be open to anyone - with one proviso.

Anyone who had held office in a political party in the the previous 25 years would be disqualified from putting their name forward for the position of president.

We might then get a head of state elected by the people who the people could genuinely respect.

A few possible examples of suitable candidates;

David Attenborough
Dr Robert Winston
Helen Mirren
Tommy Walsh :lol:

Cheers
Dan

 

[Digit]

There are certain virtues to that idea Dan I have to agree. The Israelies tried that when the state was created, they offerred the job to Einstein.
He refused.
My personal objection would be yet another meaningless cross to put on paper.
Before we start 'Electing' a King I would like to see my vote actually mean something rather than simply supplying bum paper for parliament.

Roy.

 

[Maia28]

I often think I would rather have Elizabeth, Charles or William as absolute dictator and do away with the pretence of democracy we currently have. In many ways, deciding the head of state by birth is the ultimate lottery - much like the old house of Lords used to be. I understand what you are saying Dan, but ultimately most human behavior is absurd and ridiculous. I doubt that it is possible for the people to choose someone whom the majority would be happy with, far better to stick with the system that has worked for so long.

Interestingly, I think Poland did elect their kings as far back as the 1500s, but they weren't a sovereign country then.

Andy

 

[Digit]

pretence of democracy we currently have.

Yep! It was Ken Livingstone who said that if voting changed anything they'd ban it!

Roy.