The Royal Family

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

If 99% of the Royal family hadn't been born into wealth and privilege there is zero chance they would have earned the kind of money that has given them the ridiculously luxurious lifestyle they have been handed on a plate, and paid for by us. for doing nothing more than coming out of the right womb.

A lot of multi millionaires wouldn't swap with them you are correct. There are billions of other people who would snap your hands off for the riches they have been handed for doing pretty much f all.

Of course, but that's not really an argument against the royal family per se. They're not rich because they're the royal family, they're rich because they're part of the aristocracy from which all of our royal families throughout history have emerged - the Queen would still be incredibly wealthy if she hadn't taken a single penny from the taxpayer in her life (e.g. the Spencer family is still worth £100m+ despite not being royal blood). You're making an argument against excessive inherited wealth and for what it's worth I agree with you.

Nonetheless I still respect a lady worth £500m devoting literally her entire life to trying to unite the country as best she can.

[Panto_Villan]

25 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

If 99% of the Royal family hadn't been born into wealth and privilege there is zero chance they would have earned the kind of money that has given them the ridiculously luxurious lifestyle they have been handed on a plate, and paid for by us. for doing nothing more than coming out of the right womb.

A lot of multi millionaires wouldn't swap with them you are correct. There are billions of other people who would snap your hands off for the riches they have been handed for doing pretty much f all.

Also, to go on a bit of a tangent, there's probably at least a couple of billion people who would snap your hand off to get the life of literally any citizen of this country. We've all benefitted massively from being born into a wealthy country with a good education system that we individually did f-all to earn.

It's easy to rail against "the rich" and "the priviledged" but there's an element of glass houses at work here too imo. Very few people ever seem to consider themselves part of those categories despite what the statistics might imply.

[mjmooney]

36 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Nonetheless I still respect a lady worth £500m devoting literally her entire life to trying to unite the country as best she can.

How? By doing an anodyne speech on the telly every Christmas? She simply unites all the flagshaggers to agree with each other. And all the republicans to do likewise. I'd have had more respect if she'd actually broken the rules and stepped in to stop Johnson illegally proroguing Parliament. Nothing against her personally, but the institution of monarchy stinks from arsehole to breakfast. 

[chrisp65]

35 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Of course, but that's not really an argument against the royal family per se. They're not rich because they're the royal family, they're rich because they're part of the aristocracy from which all of our royal families throughout history have emerged - the Queen would still be incredibly wealthy if she hadn't taken a single penny from the taxpayer in her life (e.g. the Spencer family is still worth £100m+ despite not being royal blood). 

Well, there are different ways of taking money. Actually having taxes transferred to your bank account is one way.

You could also be declared the default land owner for all the land and choose which bits the rest of us have to pay rent on. You could gift ‘Cornwall’ to your first born. You can make sure your supporters have swathes of land they can then receive farming subsidies for.

When any land or property ends up ‘ownerless’ for any reason, it reverts to the Crown. That might be a house where the owner had no relatives and left no will, or the Crown Plaza Hotel, or the property of any overseas company that closes etc. All that reverts to the Crown, it’s either sold, or added to the Estate.

£70,000,000 in net profit every year from land ownership.

Don’t say they are not rich because they are royal. That’s absolutely exactly why they are rich. 

[bickster]

The Palace of Versailles has an annual budget of 100 million Euro most of which is self generated

On the other hand we pay... (I think you know what goes here)

There is only one solution in these difficult economic times where cutbacks have to be made and new income streams explored

Chop their effin heads off

[Panto_Villan]

24 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

How? By doing an anodyne speech on the telly every Christmas? She simply unites all the flagshaggers to agree with each other. And all the republicans to do likewise. I'd have had more respect if she'd actually broken the rules and stepped in to stop Johnson illegally proroguing Parliament. Nothing against her personally, but the institution of monarchy stinks from arsehole to breakfast. 

For me it's more about the restrictions you have to accept as part of the role. The Queen has been a good monarch because she doesn't have public opinions on anything at all political or controversial (not sure if you remember the absolute fury from the palace when the Brexiteers claimed she was pro-Brexit), she's always managed to maintain a dignified presence despite spending enormous amounts of time on public engagements and there being cameras literally everywhere she goes.

Basically she has to meet vast numbers of people every year while also not doing anything that stops her being a blank slate that the rest of the country can project onto, which means she can't actually really use her money and power to do anything. Charles is unpopular because he apparently didn't realise this and tried to use his position to have opinions and influence things - which is a disaster waiting to happen really. Frankly the country will get rid of the monarchy if they try to do anything except smile and wave. They're here for our entertainment these days.

I think you underestimate her workload too. The only figure I found with a quick google was that in 2015 she did 341 engagements, but that's a hell of a lot for an 89-year old. If I was worth $500m would I want to spend my entire life making bland small talk with people and getting wheeled out every time there's a visiting head of state, even when I'm in my 90s? No. I'd live like Jack Grealish on steroids. Or at least start interfering in politics.

Edited June 6, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[Panto_Villan]

22 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well, there are different ways of taking money. Actually having taxes transferred to your bank account is one way.

You could also be declared the default land owner for all the land and choose which bits the rest of us have to pay rent on. You could gift ‘Cornwall’ to your first born. You can make sure your supporters have swathes of land they can then receive farming subsidies for.

When any land or property ends up ‘ownerless’ for any reason, it reverts to the Crown. That might be a house where the owner had no relatives and left no will, or the Crown Plaza Hotel, or the property of any overseas company that closes etc. All that reverts to the Crown, it’s either sold, or added to the Estate.

£70,000,000 in net profit every year from land ownership.

Don’t say they are not rich because they are royal. That’s absolutely exactly why they are rich. 

Do you really think any family gets to ascend to the throne without already being extremely rich and influential? They might be richer now, but I somehow doubt William would be a binman if some other aristocrat had ended up with the crown a few generations back.

[mjmooney]

9 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Do you really think any family gets to ascend to the throne without already being extremely rich and influential? They might be richer now, but I somehow doubt William would be a binman if some other aristocrat had ended up with the crown a few generations back.

Well, this is going into the wider (and arguably more important) issue of aristocracy, capitalism and the class system. And, yes, you're right. 

[Panto_Villan]

3 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Well, this is going into the wider (and arguably more important) issue of aristocracy, capitalism and the class system. And, yes, you're right. 

True. And just to make it clear - while I stick up for the Queen in this thread I'd happily jack inheritance tax up to punitive levels if I was PM. I respect her as an individual but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the landed gentry she is part of.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

while I stick up for the Queen in this thread I'd happily jack inheritance tax up to punitive levels if I was PM

You can't punish dead people

[MakemineVanilla]

As a well qualified Lefty who knew a trot or two in my youth and who resented every penny of my surplus value which was confiscated by my class enemies, I understood that every Marxist in my acquaintance, dreamt of a heroic death while storming the Winter Palace for the glory and liberation of the enslaved down-trodden masses.

There were even a few who, in their cups, would imagine out loud, the delights of bayoneting the Romanovs and every member of the bourgeoisie they could think of.

But of course, once they grew up, married and knocked out a couple of wage-slaves for the benefit of their class enemies, they realised that what they really needed was to join the property-owning classes and get their greasy mits on as many consumer durables as possible.

Suddenly the idea of Trotsky's Permanent Revolution lost its appeal, and what they wanted was social stability.

The losses in the last English Civil War, didn't bode well.

So in the end they decided that although the system was shit and they still hated rich c**ts, they would hold the system in contempt, while knowing that no system is perfect, and that one shit system is probably no better than the next.

[Panto_Villan]

27 minutes ago, bickster said:

You can't punish dead people

Indeed. The thing being punished is the inheritance itself, which is kinda the point.

Not that most of the electorate see it that way.

[chrisp65]

58 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Do you really think any family gets to ascend to the throne without already being extremely rich and influential? They might be richer now, but I somehow doubt William would be a binman if some other aristocrat had ended up with the crown a few generations back.

The trouble is ‘any’ family doesn’t have access do they. It’s a stitch up and you’ve fallen for it.

The privilege of dropping out of the anointed fanny, sold to you as their burden and their duty. I mean, as scams go, it’s about the best.

It’s feudal, it’s embarrassing and people tugging their forlocks or whatever else it is they tug when they think of their superiors is all a bit embarrassing.

 

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Indeed. The thing being punished is the inheritance itself, which is kinda the point.

Not that most of the electorate see it that way.

My point was that punitive was not correct usage, unless you wish to punish dead people for not using all their money and assets whilst they were alive

[Panto_Villan]

10 minutes ago, bickster said:

My point was that punitive was not correct usage, unless you wish to punish dead people for not using all their money and assets whilst they were alive

Yeah, I got that. But that is exactly what I meant by a punitive inheritance tax - encouragement for people to spend accumulated wealth before they die, because otherwise the state would end up taking most of it.

I think it would solve quite a few societal problems, but people reflexively dislike the idea of a "death tax" even if it would probably benefit a large majority of the population.

(But that's probably a bit too much of a digression from the topic at hand.)

Edited June 6, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[MakemineVanilla]

26 minutes ago, bickster said:

My point was that punitive was not correct usage, unless you wish to punish dead people for not using all their money and assets whilst they were alive

I recall that in Robert Tressell's The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists, that in his ideal socialist society, all money would lose its value if it wasn't spent after a certain amount of time, which would prevent people accumulating it and giving them an advantage over others.

Therefore achieving perfect equality.

[tonyh29]

We live in a monarchy , whilst not a staunch supporter  ,  i.e I've not been to a royal wedding , didn't buy Candle in the wind when Diana died and don't read the Daily Express   , I  quite like the fact that we are a monarchy  ... it hardly makes me a flagshagger anymore than voting leave made me a gammon  ..   

I get not everyone likes the idea of being a monarchy and they are free to expout that view and try and change it if they so wish , but antiquated working class chip on the shoulder views aint really going to sway me to join your cause 

 

 

[TheAuthority]

4 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

No, but they’re a perfect example of what you did mention, right? The monarchy no longer existing and the royal assets all being transferred to the state.

 

No they're not a perfect example of what I talked about.  The French got rid of the monarchy in 1792 and their assets were seized by the state.

I don't imagine a popular uprising and the general populace taking back all crown land.

The titles would stop, the ability to hand out titles would stop and they wouldn't get any money from tax payers. They'd still be one of the richest families on the planet just without all of the bs.

[TheAuthority]

20 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I get not everyone likes the idea of being a monarchy and they are free to expout that view and try and change it if they so wish , but antiquated working class chip on the shoulder views aint really going to sway me to join your cause 

 

 

Also known as reasoned, rational common sense.

[TheAuthority]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m just suggesting an intervention for their own good might be in order.

We supply the land and the income that perpetuate this dysfunctional family’s lifestyle. It’s our duty to help them stand on their own two feet, without benefits, and lead a more normal rewarding life. Where they put their own toothpaste on their toothbrush and where they don’t have to run the constant risk of piles from all that sitting down at banquets. 

Careful there Chris, starting sound a bit like Maggie T