The Royals

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

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.

True, which is why most people aren't that fussed either way.

A footballer or a bloke off the telly, or a businessperson/philanthropist is different because one way or another they are more likely to have earned it in the first place.

kingstonian

shirley_basso said:

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.

From the relatively little I know about rent costs of homes within the Duchy of Cornwall, they are definitely reasonable. No idea about larger properties or farmland etc.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

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.

True, which is why most people aren't that fussed either way.

A footballer or a bloke off the telly, or a businessperson/philanthropist is different because one way or another they are more likely to have earned it in the first place.

Pffft. If you took a random selection of high net worth people do you think the majority will have dragged themselves up from poverty or to a greater or lesser extent will have started a few rungs up the ladder? Equally, why should people be disqualified from this or that role because they come from a very privileged background?

In any case, that's not what the charity want them for. They just want a popular face attached to their charity.

rjsterry

shirley_basso said:

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.

They are far from unique in being born into privilege. A walk around Knightsbridge proves that.

TheBigBean

Who thinks William will become King?

First.Aspect

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

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.

True, which is why most people aren't that fussed either way.

A footballer or a bloke off the telly, or a businessperson/philanthropist is different because one way or another they are more likely to have earned it in the first place.

Pffft. If you took a random selection of high net worth people do you think the majority will have dragged themselves up from poverty or to a greater or lesser extent will have started a few rungs up the ladder? Equally, why should people be disqualified from this or that role because they come from a very privileged background?

In any case, that's not what the charity want them for. They just want a popular face attached to their charity.

There is indeed an old money problem in the UK.

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

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.

True, which is why most people aren't that fussed either way.

A footballer or a bloke off the telly, or a businessperson/philanthropist is different because one way or another they are more likely to have earned it in the first place.

Pffft. If you took a random selection of high net worth people do you think the majority will have dragged themselves up from poverty or to a greater or lesser extent will have started a few rungs up the ladder? Equally, why should people be disqualified from this or that role because they come from a very privileged background?

In any case, that's not what the charity want them for. They just want a popular face attached to their charity.

There is indeed an old money problem in the UK.

Short of state repossession on death, what do you suggest? Like I said, they tried that in Russia. The poor stayed poor and a slightly different small group of people grabbed all the money.

shirley_basso

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

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.

True, which is why most people aren't that fussed either way.

A footballer or a bloke off the telly, or a businessperson/philanthropist is different because one way or another they are more likely to have earned it in the first place.

Pffft. If you took a random selection of high net worth people do you think the majority will have dragged themselves up from poverty or to a greater or lesser extent will have started a few rungs up the ladder? Equally, why should people be disqualified from this or that role because they come from a very privileged background?

In any case, that's not what the charity want them for. They just want a popular face attached to their charity.

There is indeed an old money problem in the UK.

Not really any more. There is SO much new money kicking around. Old money is a bit old hat, and those 'old money' millionaires aren't really that rich, relative to the new money.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

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.

True, which is why most people aren't that fussed either way.

A footballer or a bloke off the telly, or a businessperson/philanthropist is different because one way or another they are more likely to have earned it in the first place.

Pffft. If you took a random selection of high net worth people do you think the majority will have dragged themselves up from poverty or to a greater or lesser extent will have started a few rungs up the ladder? Equally, why should people be disqualified from this or that role because they come from a very privileged background?

In any case, that's not what the charity want them for. They just want a popular face attached to their charity.

There is indeed an old money problem in the UK.

Short of state repossession on death, what do you suggest? Like I said, they tried that in Russia. The poor stayed poor and a slightly different small group of people grabbed all the money.

Inheritance tax has had that effect on lots of wealthy families. The royal family has some exemptions from it, so has been less affected.

pblakeney

TheBigBean said:

Who thinks William will become King?

I do barring accidents or health issues.
I do foresee changes but not to that level.

morstar

I think the fact that modern media has destroyed the myth of the royals being anything other than a normal dysfunctional family naturally lends itself to a huge scaling back.
That’s hardly new though. I think both Charles and William are cognisant of that too.
It will be a far more nuclear family set of royals with the extended royals being recognisable but far lower profile.

First.Aspect

morstar said:

I think the fact that modern media has destroyed the myth of the royals being anything other than a normal dysfunctional family naturally lends itself to a huge scaling back.
That’s hardly new though. I think both Charles and William are cognisant of that too.
It will be a far more nuclear family set of royals with the extended royals being recognisable but far lower profile.

Charles still seeks audiences with prime ministers and tries to exercise his constitutional powers to some extent. Not sure he's quite on board with the whole "normal family" thing.

morstar

First.Aspect said:

morstar said:

I think the fact that modern media has destroyed the myth of the royals being anything other than a normal dysfunctional family naturally lends itself to a huge scaling back.
That’s hardly new though. I think both Charles and William are cognisant of that too.
It will be a far more nuclear family set of royals with the extended royals being recognisable but far lower profile.

Charles still seeks audiences with prime ministers and tries to exercise his constitutional powers to some extent. Not sure he's quite on board with the whole "normal family" thing.

Maybe explained myself badly.

I think the public now see them as a ‘normal’ family. There isn’t automatic deference to their behaviour and we don’t want to fund an extended cast of dozens.

I agree both Wills and Charles will continue to use their influence wherever they deem it appropriate.

amrushton

Of course they will. They will use the Queens (or Kings) Consent which is a thing that any new law or change to a law that affects the RF has to be submitted to the Monarch to see if they agree. Non agreement means the law or change doesnt get passed or is altered to suit.

john80

amrushton said:

Of course they will. They will use the Queens (or Kings) Consent which is a thing that any new law or change to a law that affects the RF has to be submitted to the Monarch to see if they agree. Non agreement means the law or change doesnt get passed or is altered to suit.

How many laws has the queen refused to agree to in the last 5 decades or however long she has been in the position.

First.Aspect

john80 said:

amrushton said:

Of course they will. They will use the Queens (or Kings) Consent which is a thing that any new law or change to a law that affects the RF has to be submitted to the Monarch to see if they agree. Non agreement means the law or change doesnt get passed or is altered to suit.

How many laws has the queen refused to agree to in the last 5 decades or however long she has been in the position.

It's not Brenda you need to worry about. It is the Intellectual pigmy children.

Pross

john80 said:

amrushton said:

Of course they will. They will use the Queens (or Kings) Consent which is a thing that any new law or change to a law that affects the RF has to be submitted to the Monarch to see if they agree. Non agreement means the law or change doesnt get passed or is altered to suit.

How many laws has the queen refused to agree to in the last 5 decades or however long she has been in the position.

Have you somehow missed all the stuff about it being her 70th anniversary as Queen this year? We're getting an extra day off so we can pretend to be friends with the neighbours and talk about how we should all get together more often.

john80

First.Aspect said:

john80 said:

amrushton said:

Of course they will. They will use the Queens (or Kings) Consent which is a thing that any new law or change to a law that affects the RF has to be submitted to the Monarch to see if they agree. Non agreement means the law or change doesnt get passed or is altered to suit.

How many laws has the queen refused to agree to in the last 5 decades or however long she has been in the position.

It's not Brenda you need to worry about. It is the Intellectual pigmy children.

I would suggest that the first law Charles refuses to sign will be the removal of the monarchy's ability to do so.

tailwindhome

Reminder, while you'll don't want the media to ask the Head if State about the 12 million pound pay off in sex abuse case, the accused is one of four people who can act as Head of State if she's unable to fulfil her duties

But, you're right, ask no questions

surrey_commuter

If the queen dies before May will the teachers have to give/work their free day back?

If she hangs on until June will we get jubilee, funeral and coronation?

Tashman

Back to back wins for the first time in forever last night. Happy days

surrey_commuter

Tashman said:

Back to back wins for the first time in forever last night. Happy days

new manager bounce?

shirley_basso

Is the Royals a nickname for a football team?

First.Aspect

shirley_basso said:

Is the Royals a nickname for a football team?

Oldham?

Edit - no, Reading.

Approximately the same number of people care.

Tashman

shirley_basso said:

Is the Royals a nickname for a football team?

As FA says, Reading FC although I've always preferred The Biscuitmen as the proper nickname. He's also correct that not many care

Munsford0

surrey_commuter said:

If the queen dies before May will the teachers have to give/work their free day back?

If she hangs on until June will we get jubilee, funeral and coronation?

No sign of us getting an extra day off; the whole thing happens bang in the middle of our half term break so we'd have been off anyway...

shirley_basso

Good foresight of HM to know the jubilee would fall in 1/2 term

kingstongraham

Munsford0 said:

surrey_commuter said:

If the queen dies before May will the teachers have to give/work their free day back?

If she hangs on until June will we get jubilee, funeral and coronation?

No sign of us getting an extra day off; the whole thing happens bang in the middle of our half term break so we'd have been off anyway...

Unless you're an academy, you should be getting that extra day somewhere.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

Munsford0 said:

surrey_commuter said:

If the queen dies before May will the teachers have to give/work their free day back?

If she hangs on until June will we get jubilee, funeral and coronation?

No sign of us getting an extra day off; the whole thing happens bang in the middle of our half term break so we'd have been off anyway...

Unless you're an academy, you should be getting that extra day somewhere.

It's optional apparently.

orraloon

Tashman said:

shirley_basso said:

Is the Royals a nickname for a football team?

As FA says, Reading FC although I've always preferred The Biscuitmen as the proper nickname. He's also correct that not many care

Had a pee through the gate of their training ground last Saturday after the brewery visit to Siren Craft plus their neighbours Elusive Brewing before boarding the bus back into Reading. 40 mins on bus is 40 mins innit, better prepped than sorry.