The MOnarchy

[technobear]

My, my, we have been at the bitter pills haven't we Chill Dude!

death to the technobears...

Classic! :lol:

Fortunately I am not in the business of producing little technocubs (hey, life has some mercies after all ). My point is that it's difficult to have the concept of property or ownership and then not bear a grudge if someone comes along and takes what's yours. Especially when that something is enough land that if sold would keep us up to our eyeballs in schools, hospitals, etc. etc. for decades to come.

 

[MO!]

But thing is, it's not really about holding grudges. Things were done differently back in ye olden times. But why should they carry on recieving special treatment today? I'm not clued up on the facts and figures, but what right do they have to MY taxes? And why do they get different rules?

What's in the past is in the past, but they shouldn't still be getting special treatment! Forgiveness would be easier if the "wrong doings" aren't still so obvious and continuing today!

 

[technobear]

Quite so. When I inherit Daddie's firm, I have to give 40% of it to the government.

I can't see Charles giving 40% of the Royal estate to the government when the Queen pops her clogs.

It's so unfair

As usual the rich have different laws to protect themselves from the legalised theft that is inheritance tax :inferno:

Ooops! Now who's bitter

 

[wadia-miester]

Holding grudges, Wm is bad for that, only the year berfore last I ran into a 'Friend' of mine who took great delight in making my life hell at school, upon seeing me, he sauntered over and proclaimed 'Hiya mate how's it going', swimmingly I replied with a peach of a forearm- smash, & a 'Lite' ridge hand to the throat, while whallowing on the floor he remarked, "WTF do you do that for?", my answer was thus, paybacks a bitch, 'Us' elephants have long memories you bully. and left the scum where he belonged on the floor, Time an amazing healer of festerer of pent up feelings (happily purged now)
The Royal family, televise em' make em pay for the upkeep then sell it around the work, ' The royal family Live on CNN, 'Oh Philiippp don't let the corgi's piss on Zara, you know she saves the goldwen showers for Richard Johnson
Wm

 

[michaelab]

Originally posted by technobear
I can't see Charles giving 40% of the Royal estate to the government when the Queen pops her clogs.
...

As usual the rich have different laws to protect themselves from the legalised theft that is inheritance tax :inferno:

Even worse, there are some parts of the UK which somehow have a special status connected with Prince Charles and/or Prince Philip (can't remember the details). Anyway, if someone who owns a house on land like that (and there are whole towns in this situation) pops their clogs without a will, guess who gets automatic title....The Royal Family - even if that person has dependents or relatives who would normally get the property "by default" :bub:

Inheritance tax is bad in so many ways:
- it's double taxation. You pay tax on all your earnings you use to build up your "estate" and then it all gets taxed again at 40% at the end.
- it comes at the worst possible time for someone (after a bereavement).
- you have to pay the tax before you can realise your assets. It's bad enough that you have to sell your parents house which you were brought up in etc. etc. in order to pay the tax but you have to pay the tax before you're allowed to sell it which usually means taking out a very expensive bridging loan.

Michael.

 

[Graham C]

Originally posted by julian2002

also i feel that if the royals were to charge the country for their public duties, ambasadorial visits, goodwill tours, etc. then the cost would probalby be a lot more than they are paid now. it costs something like 20 million dollars to emply a top holywood actor for 3 months or so. i reckon the top members of the royal family could easily ask that as their fee so maybe it's not such a bad deal after all.

"as i've said the royal familiy is mostly ceremonial with any real power they have bound by tradition and unused by monarchs since the 1700's. tony, ian, et al's reaction to the monarchy struck me as congruent with the darker side of human nature, the unwillingness to forgive that is producing atrocities like sadams extermination of the kurds, the twin towers, northern ireland and irael / palestine. if both sides accepted the status quo and dealt with the situation as it stands now rather than trying to claw back the past then the planet would be a much more pleasant place."
julian

In respect of your first point - the last "official" figure I heard was that the royal list cost the UK £50,000,000 [or $83, 735,000]
This is the tip of the iceberg, since the land value is probably billions. Is it coincidence that the queen is "no longer" the richest woman in the UK?? Sounds like a PR exercise to me..

Second why do you talk as if we are bitching about the potato famine? This stuff is not in the past. They havent given back their dozens of royal estates and 1000's of square miles of land [not to mention London, of course] -they still own them. And of course we still DO have capital punishment in the UK, but only for treason against the monarchy..

Graham C

 

[Paul Ranson]

They havent given back their dozens of royal estates and 1000's of square miles of land [not to mention London, of course] -they still own them.

Give back to whom?

The Crown Estates revenues go to the government for squandering, £170million odd last year.

And of course we still DO have capital punishment in the UK, but only for treason against the monarchy..

High Treason and Piracy. But no longer.

FWIW 'Treason' means betraying the country, that means you. Revolution in a free country should be a risky business.

The ignorance and prejudice in this thread is mind-boggling. At least argue from a position of knowledge.

Paul

 

[wadia-miester]

Originally posted by Paul Ranson
Give back to whom?

The ignorance and prejudice in this thread is mind-boggling. At least argue from a position of knowledge.

Paul

Arhh, the good old Ranson, kill the thread with standard ex grad potential eliteisum & Aloofiness Mr Theroy plays the black and white card eh?.
Hey, maybe the music snobs on the other channel can 'Handle your truth' as opposed to us Intellectualy challenged minions.
Their having a fun time up there, It's venting their spline time at the Not so white Royal family, they all as bent as a nine bob notes in their own way, It's just now there are getting caught hook line and sinker, where as in the past, they screwed up, and it were buried, not so easy now
Charlie boys own Duchy of Cornwall brings him what £50m@year?, has 2 kids and a nag plus a load of horses to surport, tuff call.
Prehaps what would be better, how about

Royal wife swop Queenie swops with Mrs Smith from Scunthorpe with 8 kids and 2 dobermans in her two bed half semi
And Holidays from Hell, where The Young Royals swop their Carribean cruise for 10 days at Butlins Minehead with just £50 spending money and one swim suit, now that TV to watch

 

[MO!]

please do educate us your humble servents then oh ye great one.

 

[julian2002]

ok 50 million sounds like a lot of money but when you realise that's 6 months of tom cruise's or tom hanks 's time it sounds like a bit of a bargain that you're getting all these incredibly famous people flying all over the world acting as ambassadors for the country.

chris,
i'm not the one that's bitter. i'm the one promoting forgiveness and understanding.
also if your parents were canny enough to put the 'farm' in trust or use one of the other tax loopholes that are what really keep the rich from paying inheritance tax then you too wouldn;t have to. the thing is that most people are unwilling to spend 5000 ukp on an accountant or tax lawyer to save 100,000 or whatever the inheritance is. whereas the aristos have been at it for years. is this a bad thing? or just the laziness or ignorance of the common man?

michael,
if the property is leased (as most flats in the uk are for example) then usually it's a given that the property will revert to the leaseholder when the lease expires or the lesee dies. recently my grandmother died, she lived in a rented house for the best part of 50 years, does that mean that her house should have become the property of my dad? No, it reverted to the people who owned it.

there does seem to be a lot of knee jerking going on in this thread. along with judgement without knowledge.
cheers


julian

 

[Graham C]

Originally posted by Paul Ranson
Give back to whom?
Paul

Well thats not rocket science is it? I thought the country [or at least the South - what people in the South often refer to as 'the whole country'..] was in the grip of a housing crisis? Haves and have nots? People in London bulshitting self-certified mortage values for a house?

Short of Gordon Brown actually doing what he says, and moving 30000 civil servants out of London, why not build council/housing assoc/affordable houses/garden cities/new towns/etc on it? You know, the things they stopped building 40 years ago..

 

[technobear]

Originally posted by julian2002
if the property is leased (as most flats in the uk are for example) then usually it's a given that the property will revert to the leaseholder when the lease expires

Yes

Originally posted by julian2002
or the lesee dies.

Not necessarily. A lease can be inherited.

Originally posted by julian2002
recently my grandmother died, she lived in a rented house for the best part of 50 years, does that mean that her house should have become the property of my dad? No, it reverted to the people who owned it.

Because she didn't own the lease or the house. All she had was a rental agreement which terminates automatically on death. She had no title to the property.

If she had bought the house leasehold then the lease would have passed to your Dad on her death (assuming she made a will).

 

[julian2002]

perhaps the govornment should re-posess all those existing council houses it sold off for a steal during the 80's to unscrupulous tennants who bit their arm off when offered a house for a few thousand pounds. Or maybe if your parents die whilst living in a council house then you should inherit it. that just about fits with what most are suggesting for the royals on this thread - don;t forget one law for all of us....

still i do think the govt needs to do something about housing, a legislation stating that for every 400,000 pound executive house built the building company has to build 1 sub 100,000 family starter home. also a scheme where the buyer of a new starter home has to live in the property for at least 2 years before selling it would stop people using property at this level as an investment and shutting out genuine family buyers. older property should be unregulated though. council houses i don't think would work in the current climate of having to get onto the property ladder as a national mindset.

cheers


julian

 

[sideshowbob]

i'm the one promoting forgiveness and understanding.

As my first serious contribution to this thread: It's nothing to do with forgiveness. It's a constitutional question, not a moral one, i..e, should the head of state be an unelected monarch?

All the other questions (cost to the taxpayer, land and property ownership, etc) are secondary. Start with the fundamental democratic question and the argument for abolition of the monarchy is pretty straightforward, their value to tourism and the like, or whether they should be allowed to own their land and property, is irrelevant to that debate.

-- Ian

 

[domfjbrown]

Oh goodie - housing and royals - two of my fave getting lashed up and slagging off conversation threads!!!!

Right - housing - easy. Ban buy-to-let. Ban holiday homes. Oh look - Devon, Cornwall and Dorset at the very minimum now have THOUSANDS of affordable homes. Sorted. Oh - and if they can't ban holiday homes due to all these rich toffs, why not make them pay for them? Why should rich asshole who uses his holiday cottage once a year pay less than 100% council tax on it? Why not make him pay 4x ALL bills on it - ah, diddums, can't pay the bills? Good - sell up at a fair price to a country dweller who has more right to be there than you. Tossers.

And I have PERFECT right to say that, having been born in Cornwall and living in Devon for 2/3 of my life. Holiday homes are rife down here.

And house prices haven't been good value since 2000, but if dickheads are willing to pay the price...

As for the royals, can't say anything better than anyone else, but they are a waste of space. They're supposed to be our figureheads are they? Great - serial adulterers, druggies, rapists, perverts, dole scroungers - whatever you want to call them. I think the Sex Pistols put it best:
"God save the Queen
'Cos tourists are moneeeeeey!"

Or you could listen to "Stuff the Jubilee" by Carter - that says everything I'd like to say. I know there's the odd person who really likes the royals, but based on my experience of people I know, they're in the same small percentage as people who think the asylum system is fair - I mean, why look after your own war-hero pensioners when you can let in any old crim (as in BOGUS, not REAL asylum seeker - let me make that clear - no problem with the REAL ones here!) and give them everything scot free.

As with the old days, the Monarchy is like a fat Lord of the manor, getting fat off of everyone else's toil. Roll on the revolution!

And is it just me who feels that the bogus aslyum thing is almost tantamount to inverse slavery?

 

[ilockyer]

Seems there's quite a hotbed of republicanism going down on this forum, judging by the poll results thus far.

It definitely does make a mockery of our status as a so-called democratic nation, something we can't possibly be since we've an un-elected head of state. I think Michael's right, the best solution is to adopt the same approach as some European countries, keep them on for the ceremonial stuff, make them self-financing etc. and have an elected Head of State.

They don't need multiple houses though, I'm not sure which of the palaces they own and which are state-owned, but, with the possible exception of Buckingham Palace, the state owned ones should all be taken back and opened fully to the public as museums, they could then all live in Buckingham Palace or their own properties! The then government seemed happy enough to sell off state-owned housing that the masses lived in, so why not them as well?

That enables us the best of both worlds, more democratic set-up and also still able to keep the yanks coming in to gawp at Buckingham Palace etc. Of course, it won't remove the problem they have of seeming to think everyone knows the queen because it's such a small country. There's no question that the tourist industry does well from them, and it seems to often be the main argument of pro-royalists.

If they can't cope with that, then I say take more drastic action, banish the whole lot of them to a one bedroom council flat in a high rise block in Stonebridge Park, strip them of all their wealth and make them live on the hand-outs that the unemployed etc. have to struggle by on. They've seen it from one side, do 'em good to have a reality check (or even cheque!). Then turn Buck Palace and all their other places into huge hostels for the homeless and/or affordable starter flats for first time buyers.

 

[domfjbrown]

Originally posted by ilockyer
That enables us the best of both worlds, more democratic set-up and also still able to keep the yanks coming in to gawp at Buckingham Palace etc. Of course, it won't remove the problem they have of seeming to think everyone knows the queen because it's such a small country.

Reminds me of a cheesorama on TV on Saturday...

"Where's Gareth?"
"Torturing Americans"
"How thoughtful of him"
....
"Do you KNOW Oscare Wilde?"
"Errr not personally, no, but I do know someone who could get his fax number for you"

 

[HenryT]

Dom,

I see you managed to bring out all the old war-horses in that one post... but you missed out single mothers..!

 

[domfjbrown]

Well, I'll get enough hassle about bogus asylum seekers, since most people don't have a problem squandering money on them (rather like the royals). If they only kept the non-bogus ones here, that'd be another advantage for housing here.

Single mothers - well, waste enough money on them so why waste anything else (my breath, motor neurons, kilojoules of energy typing about them etc etc...

 

[julian2002]

ian,
maybe you're right and they shouldn't be head of state, however they are head of state in name only with powers that haven;t been used in over 300 years, for gods sake even the opening speech for parliament is written by the incumbent govornement. this makes me feel that people are acting emotionally as power left unused is power lapsed. can you imagine what would happen if the monarch did exercise the power they supposedly hold? either nothing or there'd be a bit of a media circus and then nothing so why all the vitriol?

ilockyer,
so all their houses should be repossessed even if owned by them? hmmm sounds like you favour a certain failed type of sociology, which at heart makes you more of a dole scrounging want somethign for nothing than dom's beloved (bogus) asylum seekers. however as you live in a country where such opinions are not a jailable offence you're welcome to them.

i still say that having at least 5 A-list celebs at the country's beck and call all year round for less than the cost of 1 hollywood star for 6 months is a bit of a bargain.

let me pose a question then... what is peoples ideal society? total anarchy or the ulimate communism of thx1183 or 1984? seriously though how would you like to see the country run?
cheers


julian