The Royals

rjsterry

The Irish presidency costs more than €4m a year according to Google. Not sure if that includes upkeep of buildings, etc. or is just salaries.

tailwindhome

rjsterry said:

The Irish presidency costs more than €4m a year according to Google. Not sure if that includes upkeep of buildings, etc. or is just salaries.

His salary is 250k

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Charles being investigated for corruption today too.

Ah the royals. Can’t help themselves.

Seems the investigation is more focused on the guy who ran his foundation rather than Charles himself. Following a complaint from an anti-royal pressure group.

Must say I am exhausted by the number of people apparently only just realising that the Windsors are very wealthy.

Wasn't it cash for honours though - would they guy running the foundation be able to deliver the honours ?

rjsterry

tailwindhome said:

rjsterry said:

The Irish presidency costs more than €4m a year according to Google. Not sure if that includes upkeep of buildings, etc. or is just salaries.

His salary is 250k

Which rather illustrates the point.

rick_chasey

Get rid of them, keep the real estate as tourist attractions

ballysmate said:

TheBigBean said:

shirley_basso said:

Not really Charles directly, in this case. Someone acted against his knowledge

Never let the truth get in the way of a forum post.

It's almost as if "they can't help themselves"

Explain to me how cash-for-honours works without Charles?

shirley_basso

Agree. Works well enough in France.

john80

webboo said:

john80 said:

kingstonian said:

Pross said:

I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.

To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.

I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.

Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.

I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.

He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.

kingstonian said:

Pross said:

I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.

To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.

I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.

Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.

I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.

He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.

This is the fundamental issue with this case. She was over 16 and therefore it is not statutory rape for the London case. We then move onto was it consensual. In my view it would have appeared so to him as this was not this girls first rodeo. So then we move onto whether he knew she was sex trafficked. His defence would be that she came onto him and he had no idea as to her back story. This would likely be more plausible to a jury than her story that would be heavily biassed towards rape and known sex trafficking if she wanted to secure some cash. He has folded like a cheap suit and she has made her sex worker money retrospectively with interest so kudos to her.

You appear to be suggesting that she may have been a sex worker. So do you really believe that any female sex worker is choosing that occupation without any influence from anyone else.
But then again I guess most of your conversations with sex workers have been” How much Luv”

I think at this point it is pretty well documented that she was a sex worker and in her case she was heavily influenced to this position by epstein. Do you have a lot of sex worker friends for your insight into the industry as I have none. I am guessing the bulk of people on this forum are also in this position.

rjsterry

shirley_basso said:

Agree. Works well enough in France.

Yes, absolutely no scandals or extravant palaces there 😂

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

tailwindhome said:

rjsterry said:

The Irish presidency costs more than €4m a year according to Google. Not sure if that includes upkeep of buildings, etc. or is just salaries.

His salary is 250k

Which rather illustrates the point.

I agree.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Get rid of them, keep the real estate as tourist attractions

ballysmate said:

TheBigBean said:

shirley_basso said:

Not really Charles directly, in this case. Someone acted against his knowledge

Never let the truth get in the way of a forum post.

It's almost as if "they can't help themselves"

Explain to me how cash-for-honours works without Charles?

What does that change? Buckingham Palace is already a tourist attraction? If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow we still have a lot of stuff to pay for and the Queen is still extremely wealthy in her own right.

On your second point, where does Charles fit in? If I've understood correctly Fawcet has been accused of offering to put in a good word - presumably provide a letter of recommendation, but I don't know the precise details - on someone's knighthood application in return for a donation to the Foundation he manages. Knighthood applications go through the Cabinet Office.

kingstongraham

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Get rid of them, keep the real estate as tourist attractions

ballysmate said:

TheBigBean said:

shirley_basso said:

Not really Charles directly, in this case. Someone acted against his knowledge

Never let the truth get in the way of a forum post.

It's almost as if "they can't help themselves"

Explain to me how cash-for-honours works without Charles?

What does that change? Buckingham Palace is already a tourist attraction? If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow we still have a lot of stuff to pay for and the Queen is still extremely wealthy in her own right.

On your second point, where does Charles fit in? If I've understood correctly Fawcet has been accused of offering to put in a good word - presumably provide a letter of recommendation, but I don't know the precise details - on someone's knighthood application in return for a donation to the Foundation he manages. Knighthood applications go through the Cabinet Office.

Is the "in her own right" bit true, or does she just have a lot of stuff that she's got because she's head of the family that's been the monarchy for a long time?

shirley_basso

rjsterry said:

shirley_basso said:

Agree. Works well enough in France.

Yes, absolutely no scandals or extravant palaces there 😂

Since the monarchy have been abolished and the stately homes returned to the state as tourist attractions, tourism hasn't suffered as a result of there being no monarchy.

They are good for supporting trade overseas. DoY must have been in his element in the gulf

Dorset_Boy

shirley_basso said:

rjsterry said:

shirley_basso said:

Agree. Works well enough in France.

Yes, absolutely no scandals or extravant palaces there 😂

Since the monarchy have been abolished and the stately homes returned to the state as tourist attractions, tourism hasn't suffered as a result of there being no monarchy.

They are good for supporting trade overseas. DoY must have been in his element in the gulf

Well the Queen doesn't own Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle.
It seems she does own Sandringham and Balmoral though.

shirley_basso

Most of the rooms and gardens are private.

Not like France. If you go to Versailles / the Loire you can pretty much go anywhere.

First.Aspect

So the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have Royal families that don't seem to be complete self entitled fuckbags or have a massive and bloated state funded wealth.

How does that work?

First.Aspect

I really wonder about the language filter on here sometimes. I can't call Cressida Dick by her real name or smoke a fag, but I can refer to someone as a fuckbag.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

So the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have Royal families that don't seem to be complete self entitled fuckbags or have a massive and bloated state funded wealth.

How does that work?

Mmm current Dutch king is a bit of a knobber tbf. Didn't get his "Prince Pils" nickname for nothing.

Definitely not as wealthy but then Holland is a substantially smaller country.

They also abdicate rather than clinging on till death, so the whole thing is a bit more low key.

Plus for all the parades they do, weddings, the lot, the police allocate a spot for protestors to show their dislike.

So in the videos of the king's wedding you'll see a bit where the carriage gets eggs flour and food colouring thrown at it.

That's part of the deal.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

rjsterry said:

rick_chasey said:

Get rid of them, keep the real estate as tourist attractions

ballysmate said:

TheBigBean said:

shirley_basso said:

Not really Charles directly, in this case. Someone acted against his knowledge

Never let the truth get in the way of a forum post.

It's almost as if "they can't help themselves"

Explain to me how cash-for-honours works without Charles?

What does that change? Buckingham Palace is already a tourist attraction? If the monarchy was abolished tomorrow we still have a lot of stuff to pay for and the Queen is still extremely wealthy in her own right.

On your second point, where does Charles fit in? If I've understood correctly Fawcet has been accused of offering to put in a good word - presumably provide a letter of recommendation, but I don't know the precise details - on someone's knighthood application in return for a donation to the Foundation he manages. Knighthood applications go through the Cabinet Office.

Is the "in her own right" bit true, or does she just have a lot of stuff that she's got because she's head of the family that's been the monarchy for a long time?

They tried this in Russia and look where that got us. If we accept that people can inherit property or money from their parents, then we have to accept that wealth will accumulate. She owns Balmoral and Sandringham privately. Buckingham Palace comes with the job.

First.Aspect

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

So the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have Royal families that don't seem to be complete self entitled fuckbags or have a massive and bloated state funded wealth.

How does that work?

Mmm current Dutch king is a bit of a knobber tbf. Didn't get his "Prince Pils" nickname for nothing.

Definitely not as wealthy but then Holland is a substantially smaller country.

They also abdicate rather than clinging on till death, so the whole thing is a bit more low key.

Plus for all the parades they do, weddings, the lot, the police allocate a spot for protestors to show their dislike.

So in the videos of the king's wedding you'll see a bit where the carriage gets eggs flour and food colouring thrown at it.

That's part of the deal.

I would be in favour of Andrew coming back to public life so some perishables can be thrown at him.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

So the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have Royal families that don't seem to be complete self entitled fuckbags or have a massive and bloated state funded wealth.

How does that work?

I think it's just that their royal families were less wealthy to start with. I'm sure if you hunt around you can find a story of one of them caught in a scandal. It's just not as big a deal because it's the Swedish rather than the British royal family.

https://english.elpais.com/spanish_news/2021-03-09/spains-king-felipe-vi-struggles-to-repair-tarnished-image-of-royal-family.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9106029/Inside-bitter-feud-Princess-Mary-sister-law-Princess-Marie.html

rick_chasey

Britain is too highly strung to be able to show that parts of the UK aren't fans of them.

Would feel a week's worth of opinion columns.

TheBigBean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepalese_royal_massacre

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

Britain is too highly strung to be able to show that parts of the UK aren't fans of them.

Would feel a week's worth of opinion columns.

What? The reason we know about the Prince's Foundation scandal is because an anti monarchist pressure group reported it to the police. The Mail is full of stories slagging off the junior royals. The Queen is the only one who gets widespread respect, which is probably deserved.

First.Aspect

Most people in the UK don't give the royals much thought. And if they did, they'd question the value of the civil list.

Mostly it is a blue rinse generation thing. Who are the tabloid readership these days. I can't imagine many younger people think of them as being anything other than minor celebs.

All the charity stuff is spiffing, but you don't need a royal family for that, quite honestly, and the representatives of the bodies supporting these charities don't need to be state funded multi millionaires nor qualify solely by birth.

rick_chasey

First.Aspect said:

Most people in the UK don't give the royals much thought. .

Have to disagree there.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

Most people in the UK don't give the royals much thought. And if they did, they'd question the value of the civil list.

Mostly it is a blue rinse generation thing. Who are the tabloid readership these days. I can't imagine many younger people think of them as being anything other than minor celebs.

All the charity stuff is spiffing, but you don't need a royal family for that, quite honestly, and the representatives of the bodies supporting these charities don't need to be state funded multi millionaires nor qualify solely by birth.

If we were starting from scratch we wouldn't do it this way, and I think it could certainly do with a trim, but we aren't starting from scratch and if not them, then we're just swapping them for someone else doing the same job. The current state of the place would suggest that democratic selection of representatives is not quite the gold standard process we thought it was. Charities want well known figureheads. I don't see that some footballer or bloke off the telly is that different.

The Sovereign Grant is about £86m a year, which includes the running costs of places like Buckingham Palace, part of which is a public art gallery. More than Ireland for sure, but small beer in public expenditure terms.

shirley_basso

It's not so much the cost which is the issue, is the principle of being born into such privilidge.

There's a question of whether it could be same with families passing down high levels of wealth, but I don't draw a parallel there.

kingstongraham

The idea that income from the Duchy of Lancaster is the queen's private income from her merely being a rich person is stretching it a bit.

shirley_basso

In fairness, from what you read, Prince Charles has been a pretty shrewd investor, acquiring residential and commercial land.

I can't work out if the rents on the Duchy estate are reasonable or not.

webboo

john80 said:

webboo said:

john80 said:

kingstonian said:

Pross said:

I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.

To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.

I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.

Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.

I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.

He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.

kingstonian said:

Pross said:

I don't get why people even think the photo is that damning. How many hundreds / thousands of people would he have met and had his photo taken with over the years and would he be expected to remember them all? What I don't get is why he didn't say 'the photo appears to show that I did meet her but I can't recall it and I certainly never has sex with her'.

To join Rick's game of guessing guilt from media reports I would say on the balance of probability he had sex with her but may or may not have known she was under age (in the US) and / or trafficked or doing so in any way against her will. However, from the information I've seen / read I don't think I could find guilty beyond reasonable doubt that would be required for a criminal conviction.

I would echo what most others seem to have said, the guy is a complete sleaze and shouldbe removed permanently from public life and any public funding so I certainly don't have any sympathy for him. His attempts at a defence show how divorced he is from reality.

Your first paragraph mirrors what I’ve previously said here. Completely agree that he’s no doubt been photographed with thousands of people over the years and he cannot possibly be expected to remember each and every person.

I also believe he probably did have sex with her, but she was over the age of consent in the UK so no issue UNLESS it was against her will and/or she was being sex trafficked. I don’t know what actual evidence there is of her being sex trafficked tbh.

He is definitely a complete sleaze, who has a hugely inflated view of his own importance, so seeing him brought down to size and have him humiliated is good to see.

This is the fundamental issue with this case. She was over 16 and therefore it is not statutory rape for the London case. We then move onto was it consensual. In my view it would have appeared so to him as this was not this girls first rodeo. So then we move onto whether he knew she was sex trafficked. His defence would be that she came onto him and he had no idea as to her back story. This would likely be more plausible to a jury than her story that would be heavily biassed towards rape and known sex trafficking if she wanted to secure some cash. He has folded like a cheap suit and she has made her sex worker money retrospectively with interest so kudos to her.

You appear to be suggesting that she may have been a sex worker. So do you really believe that any female sex worker is choosing that occupation without any influence from anyone else.
But then again I guess most of your conversations with sex workers have been” How much Luv”

I think at this point it is pretty well documented that she was a sex worker and in her case she was heavily influenced to this position by epstein. Do you have a lot of sex worker friends for your insight into the industry as I have none. I am guessing the bulk of people on this forum are also in this position.

No I have no sex worker friends but I worked in a profession where occasionally I would meet them.