Woody2Shoes
Impressive Member
I think you'll find that the royal estates provide all sorts of good things for ordinary people.
Very sad news
- Thread starter Garno
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Woody2Shoes
Impressive Member
I think that the NHS and education have been funded by, and will continue to be funded by, taxation and public borrowing as ever was.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
As will royalty apparently "taxpayers in the United Kingdom are paying more money than ever for the Royal Family. The latest Sovereign Grant accounts show that the monarchy cost £69.4 million in 2020"
Woody2Shoes
Impressive Member
OK, so what was that money actually spent on do you suppose? Goods and services provided by British people for British people, in large part - salaries for policemen/cooks/gardeners/conservators/ratcatchers/electricians/historians/accountants etc etc Do you want to put all these good people on the dole?
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
They don't provide goods and services for the british people.OK, so what was that money actually spent on do you suppose? Goods and services provided by British people for British people, in large part - salaries for policemen/cooks/gardeners/conservators/ratcatchers/electricians/historians/accountants etc etc Do you want to put all these good people on the dole?
Woody2Shoes
Impressive Member
Who don't?
The underprivileged everywhere should just pull themselves together and grin and bear it. They wouldn't need an NHS if they lived healthier lives and stopped eating chips.
Tell me a socialist country that's truly socialist. Cuba? Would you like to use them for an example? The had an easy time (though not particularly free for anyone there, nor was there more wealth around than sort of necessities plus liquor to keep everyone quiet) while they could get $8MM a day from the soviets.
Didn't work that well post-soviet.
Or a country that's very socialist and I'll check the median income and disposable income.
If we don't just cherry pick one country to look at, but rather use the average from each group, the socialist group doesn't fare well.
Here in the states, if you actually want a pension and health care, etc, all you need to do is track down a trade job. But you have to show up - nobody is just going to put it there for you. The idea that there's a huge group of people stuck by capitalist force working at the dollar store and being in debt so someone can ride on a yacht...not very accurate.
Being in the bottom 10% in the states, though, is no party until you get to a low enough bracket that everything is essentially provided to you for free (but the rule is if you're in that group, you can't do anything gainful to threaten your ability to stay there -e.g., if you manage to make it on to disability for one reason or another, the last thing you'd want to do is get caught doing any side work).
As an Army veteran who has met a few of the royal household , and been spoken too by HRH Phil the Greek, he was very anti BS and all sort of high nosed snobbery, mush a lads lad, a true innovator in the royal house and imho his greatest " gift" to the world was the DoE scheme got my silver and then joined the army so never had the time to go for the gold much to me dissapointment.
But, getting back to the op - a sad day for Her maj and the rest of the family and to the friends of HRH. The country as a whole imho will be sad too but life goes on for the rest of us muck rakers bills to pay and furinture to make,
Karl
But, getting back to the op - a sad day for Her maj and the rest of the family and to the friends of HRH. The country as a whole imho will be sad too but life goes on for the rest of us muck rakers bills to pay and furinture to make,
Karl
Steve Beck
Member
Farewell to a fellow Navy man. From a US Navy veteran. He always seemed to be a steady, honorable and honest man.
The House of Windsor is the title for most of the royals. In 1960 the Queen and Prince decided to allow their offspring/descendants to use the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor".
In 1947 when the Prince married his cousin he was known as Philip Mountbatten.
The Mountbatten name came about when Germany came second in WW1. At the time a German family called Battenberg decided their interests would be improved by an subtle name change.
I wonder if Philip's union has introduced some element of inbreeding that may explain the families troubles over the last 2 generations.
shed9
establiSHED member
The reality is far from simple jealousy and to label it as such is woefully lacking in understanding and societal empathy.
J-G
Established Member
That is incorrect, they were in fact THIRD cousins - sharing a Great Great Grandparent -- Queen Victoria - who really was a first Cousin to Prince Albert. --- Oh, and marrying a cousin is not considered 'inbreeding'
Mountbatten was not a 'subtle name-change' it is a simple Anglicisation of the name, 'Berg' being the German for mountain. The Battenbergs in Germany did not become Mountbattens.
Last edited:
The Civil List is paid without regard to financial need and seems to avoid any "means testing". Most State Benefits are subject to detailed verification. Why not introduce legislation to verify need and avoid tax payer's money going into some royal back pocket.OK, so what was that money actually spent on do you suppose? Goods and services provided by British people for British people, in large part - salaries for policemen/cooks/gardeners/conservators/ratcatchers/electricians/historians/accountants etc etc Do you want to put all these good people on the dole?
Sorry to hear the news, and you have to feel for the queen must be a big blow to her. Already fed up with the press and their habit of wheeling anyone who so much as changed the oil on his car out for their view. I think it reached an all time low with Diana when some paper had an interview with her colonic irrigationist, not sure I would want to know what 'insight' they might have provided !
As far as I can see COUSINS are COUSINS and are related. An attempt has been made to explain the antics and questionable actions of royal family members. The view presented was intended as a sympathetic excuse for theirs actions that have been reported by press and others. Other royal families have experienced upsets with degrees of inbreeding giving rise to unfortunate consequences.
Can you throw any light on reasons why a normal family would anglicise their name to produce a subtle name change?
Whilst you have been contemplating about the future of the monarcy you may not have noticed the sun is out and your woodworking beckons, not so easy for me as I have managed to jar the old back so doing a bit of hobbling and finding it hard to use my workbench.
How much tourist revenue do you suppose they generate ? I think if you disregard all other considerations and just look at it from a purely fiscal point of view they are good value for money.
- Status
