1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Queen poverty shock. Time to become a republic.

Discussion in 'Personal' started by frodo_magic, Sep 18, 2020.

  1. frodo_magic

    frodo_magic Occasional commenter

    TCSC47 likes this.
  2. Jolly_Roger15

    Jolly_Roger15 Star commenter

    Although directly descended from them, Prince Andrew behaves like a typical Hanoverian, and I am sure he would have been perfectly happy at the time of George IV.
     
    Laphroig likes this.
  3. nomad

    nomad Star commenter

    The article refers to the value of the Crown Estate.

    The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne. But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch.

    The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government. These revenues thus proceed directly to the Treasury, for the benefit of the British nation.

    So, it is not a case of "the Queen's poverty shock", but that less money is going into the Treasury, i.e., money which is available to be spent on the citizens of the country, including you.

    Anti-royalists rarely bother to check facts before spouting garbage.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  4. burajda

    burajda Star commenter

    Anti democratic Frodo recently suggested that the UK should have a powerful Emperor as head of state.
     
    SeanbheanMac and monicabilongame like this.
  5. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    Underlined mine

    Hang on:

    One minute you tell us it's not really hers.

    Then you tell us she gave it away !

    Should I give away to you that penthouse suite in Park Lane (which I don't own), would you take possession of it?
     
  6. BigFrankEM

    BigFrankEM Established commenter

    Powerful, you say?

    But didn't he recommend the domBoris pantomime horse ?
     
  7. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    It was "given away" by George III in 1760, an action binding on all successor monarchs.

    So there is nothing inconsistent in what Nomad wrote.
     
    Jonntyboy and nomad like this.
  8. oldsomeman

    oldsomeman Star commenter

    No thanks to a president of the country, Most of the countries I have viewed, that have presidents, have more problems than royalist countries.Even communist countries such as Russia or China.
    At the moment I cannot think of any person i would like to vote for to rule this country. Well. I suppose you could have Blair or Major. They would take us both back into the EU, No thanks!
     
    peter12171 likes this.
  9. TCSC47

    TCSC47 Star commenter

    Our Royal family are financial descendants of merely one of a number of families who were given huge amounts of English land as favours for helping William the Conqueror establish his rule in England. Once getting on top they managed to suppress the rest of us over the past 1000 years and keep so much wealth for themselves. And we still continue to fall for it.

    Silver spoon? More like silver shovel!
     
  10. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    In what way has the Queen suppressed you?

    Or to ask it another way, what would you have been able to do in your lifetime if the UK had been a republic that you have been prevented from doing because we are a monarchy?

    Well William did own all the land in England personally according to the law of the time so it was his to give!
     
    ajrowing, oldsomeman and peter12171 like this.
  11. TCSC47

    TCSC47 Star commenter

    You are quite right. We, the chattering classes of the UK at the moment are very lucky. Particularly us Baby Boomers. We have had pretty much everything. Including access to some of the lovely places the spoilt aristocrats used to have. Day before yesterday we were at the impressive and lovely Shugborough Hall, stately home of the Earls of Litchfield through the ages where I learnt about the displacement of the original villagers to allow the vast estate to be built.

    It is not for me that I find these people offensive, but for all the people who have been abused and had their lives made unpleasant by these so called aristocrats. They could do what they did because they had the finances to hire the bully boys to push the "commoners" out of the way.

    Umm-m Rotty, I think that that is my point!
     
    monicabilongame likes this.
  12. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    What someone who wasn't the monarch and isn't related to the monarchy did in the 17th century isn't really an answer to the question "what would you have been able to do in your lifetime if the UK had been a republic that you have been prevented from doing because we are a monarchy?"

    I am trying to understand in what way republicans think their personal/family circumstances would be better, or the circumstances of the UK as a whole would be better, if we had a president not a monarch in the 20th and 21st centuries.

    It was common for landowners to move villagers in the 17th + 18th centuries but generally speaking they moved the villagers to a newly built village not far away. From what I've read the villagers of the time tended to view their new homes as an improvement on what they'd had before and would have been mystified by the claim that they had been "abused" and their lives "made unpleasant" by the relocation. (Of course there will be exceptions, I'm not claiming landowners of that time were all paragons of virtue. Some were very unpleasant. Many still are judging by the number of unpleasant neighbours reported here.)

    How is what landowners did then different in principle from the London slum clearances of 100 years ago when east enders were forcibly relocated to monolithic new estates in Essex? Many of the people moved out of London didn't want to go but were forced to by the "bully boys" of London County Council (to borrow your terminology).
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    nomad likes this.
  13. Dragonlady30

    Dragonlady30 Star commenter


    Oh come on, get off the fence and tell us what you really think!! I can't stand people who are indecisive. :p
     
    monicabilongame, ajrowing and nomad like this.
  14. TCSC47

    TCSC47 Star commenter

    Just to say, that I am not necessarily against our present monarchy and think both the Queen and Prince Charles and some of the others have worked hard to use their position for the general good.

    This doesn't excuse them as far as I am concerned for keeping so much of their wealth to themselves. I think though it is as much an indication upon us all that we are happy for them to do it. That is what I don't understand.

    I quickly add, I don't want their wealth. As already explained I and my social set have as much as we need. Their wealth - and this is why I am linking the Royals to all the monied people - was gained at the expense of others. Nothing less. So I say that they should all give away their wealth to make the world an equal place for all.

    However, I am not really that naïve. I know that for every Royal who would give away their wealth and place in our society, some obnoxious grabber would move in. We don't have to look further than our PM and the USA president. So, OK, I can put up with the Queen, but I don't have to like the system.
     
  15. TCSC47

    TCSC47 Star commenter

    Human kind is Human kind and acts as such. We have many more people successfully and unpleasantly taking advantage of others in our history. The slave trade, to mention only one. The whole of human history is littered with such dreadful issues.

    I am aware of many altruistic actions by some, but they are by far not the majority.
     
  16. oldsomeman

    oldsomeman Star commenter

    I think it needs to be pointed out that most of the wealth of the monarchy is not theirs. Were land accrues income Prince Charles, as an example, pays tax on earnings, and in his case uses a lot of wealth to carry out the projects he cares about.
    The queen uses her royal allowances to those of the royals carrying out public duties on behalf of the Government of the day, and the various groups who desire royal patronage.
    we have this wrong belief that a president would somehow be better when in reality he/she could be worse. In our government, the PM elected is the head of the Government and royalty is not supposed to be involved in Politics. I cant see some person elected a president not wanting to get stuck in and interfering in the role of government with all the problems that might cause,
     
    TCSC47 likes this.
  17. hairyfairy

    hairyfairy New commenter

    "what would you have been able to do in your lifetime if the UK had been a republic that you have been prevented from doing because we are a monarchy?"

    Be a citizen rather than a subject.
     
  18. Rott Weiler

    Rott Weiler Star commenter Forum guide

    My passport says I am a British Citizen.

    It always has done since I first got a passport in the 1980s. It's never said I am a British Subject.

    What does yours say?
     
  19. hairyfairy

    hairyfairy New commenter

    I didn’t know that but then I don’t have a British passport.

    So Her Britannic Majesty doesn’t have subjects but citizens. How very Republican.
     
  20. Jonntyboy

    Jonntyboy Lead commenter

    History, it's called. Many things were wrong in the past, just as there are now and as there will be in the future. Some, no doubt, much more wrong than some of the wrong things that happened in the past.

    How sure are you that your own ancestors in, say, 1346, didn't set fire to some neighbouring hovel to grab their land? Or, in 205 BC, didn't club a rival to death so that you could take over his hut and women? Or, even, sometime in the past couple of hundred years, didn't fraudulently claim something they were not entitled to to the detriment of others and the benefit of their own wealth.

    But all that apart, give me the Queen with her dignity and wisdom anyday over 99.9% of the elected Presidents and other "leaders" that the world has of late had to suffer! President Mugabe as a republican hero, anyone?
     
    peter12171 and nomad like this.

Share This Page