Who will be crying out in chorus an allegiance to the king?

coluka said:
But how can you be so sure it was pressure? Could it be reasoned negotiation based on particular facts, roles, upkeep of buildings, etc etc, I have no idea btw. I accept the public should have a right to know and judge accordingly too and should not be kept in the dark as to why they were excluded. Pressure is a guess, it is possible, but a guess, maybe it was to avoid a constitutional crisis of sorts, who knows, but i agree we should know why and reflect on it.
Click to expand...
Charles's 'Black Spider memos'.
 
coluka said:
It helps in all walks of life though and people can and do take advantage of their luck handed from birth when it happens. We are all part of the lottery of birth, we can all largely be grateful for being born, some use whatever advantage they can gain for personal privilege over their close cohorts, just to varying degrees of success whether through meritorious hard work, luck or by manipulation of others, or indeed terrible choices.
Click to expand...
Let’s not pretend the extreme ness of being born royal is in anyway comparable to any other accident of birth, and, the key, is it’s a choice to allow it to continue
 
The_Unicorn said:
Every time the Monarchy thinks it will affect them financially
Click to expand...
Exactly I believe there were approx 1,200 laws that the royals had changed to suit the last monarch.

And of course the MPs are not allowed to debate anything in Westminster that could be deemed to be questioning the monarchy and their behaviour in any way shape or form.

It’s far from ceremonial.
 
coluka said:
But how can you be so sure it was pressure? Could it be reasoned negotiation based on particular facts, roles, upkeep of buildings, etc etc, I have no idea btw. I accept the public should have a right to know and judge accordingly too and should not be kept in the dark as to why they were excluded. Pressure is a guess, it is possible, but a guess, maybe it was to avoid a constitutional crisis of sorts, who knows, but i agree we should know why and reflect on it.
Click to expand...
It was to avoid public examination and accountability of their role
 
coluka said:
Again, where are the transcripts, where is the proof that was done. What hold did they have over the Major Government to force his agreement? Your comment may be right, wrong or somewhere in the middle, we don’t know, we don’t have the facts, i agree we should, but we don’t. It will have been a political trade off involving No10 and No11 Downing street. Everyone is guessing or assuming things based on personal bias and pure conjecture, that doesn’t mean your wrong, but equally it doesn’t make you right either. We do need the facts to show why, could it have meant it saved the public purse in some other way? Is this decision covered by the 30 yr rule for cabinet docs to be published? If so, we may find out later this year……. maybe.
Click to expand...
It’s near impossible to know what they paid in tax. For your information, there is a seperate database and application used to manage the royals tax affairs. It’s access is closely guarded, only a handful of senior civil servants at HMRC have access, that the application and database are kept in a on prem data centre because of threat to the leaking of that data.

The royalists can claim conjecture purely because the enormous effort that the royals go to keep their affairs secret.

Nothing screams honesty and equality like ensuring a complete lack of openness.
 
BoroMart said:
Nothing screams honesty and equality like ensuring a complete lack of openness.
Click to expand...
Oh I agree the lack of openness is a problem, fully agree, it needs resolving and if there is wrong doing, whether by the monarchy, parliament or both needs dealing with. If it was in the countries interests then justify it and let the people judge, no problem with that, but until we know for sure, anything is guesswork.
 
coluka said:
Oh I agree the lack of openness is a problem, fully agree, it needs resolving and if there is wrong doing, whether by the monarchy, parliament or both needs dealing with. If it was in the countries interests then justify it and let the people judge, no problem with that, but until we know for sure, anything is guesswork.
Click to expand...
It’s guess work because they’ve chosen to create a veil of secrecy around their affairs, to the point that Parliament are not even allowed to debate it.

Black spider letters, Panama papers tell you who these people are and what their morals are
 
I won’t be swearing allegiance but I’ll be having a party featuring a disco dome, various cheap continental lager and a disappointing finger buffet.
 
BoroMart said:
Give me a valid justification for it not to be
Click to expand...
You don’t answer a question with a question, thats no way to cement your view, you normally like to deal with facts too, I assume conjecture is ok for you as far as the Monarchy is concerned though, thats fine, because you can’t possibly know if you are right or wrong, just like me.
 
coluka said:
You don’t answer a question with a question, thats no way to cement your view, you normally like to deal with facts too, I assume conjecture is ok for you as far as the Monarchy is concerned though, thats fine, because you can’t possibly know if you are right or wrong, just like me.
Click to expand...
The facts on the financial affairs of the royals are limited by design. You know that. So the question has to be who benefits and what is lost by this arrangement.
 
utter waste of finances,im sure they wouldnt have a coronation if they had to pay for it themselves,the whole royal family thing is nothing more than a cult!!!!!
 
BoroMart said:
The facts on the financial affairs of the royals are limited by design. You know that. So the question has to be who benefits and what is lost by this arrangement.
Click to expand...
Addendum:

The facts that are available are not good. We know that Charles inherited a huge amount of assets and cash from his mother and paid zero tax. It’s estimated at a minimum of £1.7billion and included 1/2billion in jewels. I can’t even leave my kids my house without the government taking half of it. Tell my why that’s fair? I’ve worked my **** off in life to drag myself out of the gutter, and he’s cut ribbons, eaten posh meals and lobbied ministers for a living
 
Last edited:
BoroMart said:
The facts on the financial affairs of the royals are limited by design. You know that. So the question has to be who benefits and what is lost by this arrangement.
Click to expand...
Which is why I said Major and his government should also be looked at for their reasoning and whether it was in the public interest. I also queried if the 30 yr rule might see docs released later this year.

The Royals can ask for anything, we all can, yes they are privileged and have peoples ears unlike most of us, but lets see the facts innocent until proven guilty etc surely? I can’t accept they can force a modern government to do something it does not want to do or agree with or feel isn’t justified. They really do not have the power in reality, and if it were somehow proved they have and did abuse their power for personal gain, I would be in the queue calling for action against politicians and calling the Monarchy out too.
 
BoroMart said:
Addendum:

The facts that are available are not good. We know that Charles inherited a huge amount of assets and cash from his mother and paid zero tax. It’s estimated at a minimum of £1.7billion and included 1/2billion in jewels. I can’t even leave my kids my house without the government taking half of it. Tell my why that’s fair? I’ve worked my **** off in life to drag myself out of the gutter, and he’s cut ribbons, eaten posh meals and lobbied ministers for a living
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was fair, I am not arguing it is, we need to know why though, what the trade off was and why. Did the Royals force the governments hand or did the government offer it to them and if so why? What was the politics of it.

It is a hard sell i absolutely accept, but whatever he has inherited, I wouldn’t swap my life for his and there are lots of billionaires using the political system to there advantage, that doesn’t justify it, the question is why have successive governments been happy with the status quo. The answer lies outside of the Monarchy, not within it imho, but I don’t know like you and am happy to accept the reality whatever that were. The Monarchy has a monetary value, the question is at what cost or benefit to our country as a whole, as they do bring joy to many ordinary folk too.

I have no issue with having a referendum and would respect any outcome on it, but i doubt we will ever see one soon and if we did, I doubt we’d see the end of it brought about. I am in support of reducing its cost to the public purse and stuff though. As for the jewels, I doubt Charles can pop down to Sotherby’s and sell them ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top