|
Post by Hawkeye on Mar 9, 2021 16:00:37 GMT
I don't really care about the cost, it's fundamentally unjust to perpetuate a system in which people are born into privilege and wealth. It's an anachronism in modern society and needs to go. As for Harry and Meghan, I hope that they are as good as their word and now retreat into the private world they so crave. Somehow I doubt it. An interesting position Som. in our modern society of which you speak, thousands are born into privilege and wealth. Some of them into families who have created that wealth others who have inherited it. How would you stop that happening? By appropriation? That’s hardly just in a modern and free society. Wealth and privilege is also relative; the Royal Family are undoubtedly rich and privileged, but have none of the freedoms you or I take for granted, like being able to express an opinion or go where we want when we want without hindrance is really available to them. Would you put your family through the nonsense they have to put up with? I wouldn’t and if the Saxe Coburg Gotha family are happy to do it in return for a a fraction of the income we as a country get from the Crown Estate then they are welcome to it. I’d rather have that soap opera as HoS than a superannuated politician. agree totally on the Harry and Meghan thing, they should now just live a life away from the public. They won’t though, because they both crave the association to the Royal Family. Without it he’s just another nice but dim Ex Guards officer who would otherwise be selling ‘nice hices’ to Sloaney couples and she’s a jobbing actress. Spot on. Was pondering making a response but wouldn't have been able to put it anywhere near so eloquently as that. Good work sevenoaksbull.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Mar 9, 2021 16:22:04 GMT
Jobbing actress - that was a BAFTA performance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2021 16:23:05 GMT
As kids when not worrying about Polo's making you impotent we would also be sharing amazing facts such as the Queen owning all the swans in the country.
What was that all about?
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Mar 9, 2021 16:26:47 GMT
Does she own the one at the bottom of Aylestone Hill?
|
|
|
Post by eggchaserbull on Mar 9, 2021 16:38:49 GMT
As kids when not worrying about Polo's making you impotent we would also be sharing amazing facts such as the Queen owning all the swans in the country. What was that all about? If you'd worn them as a shirt, rather than a contraceptive, you'd have looked so cool that you'd have had many chances for reproduction.
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Mar 9, 2021 16:40:02 GMT
Does she own the one at the bottom of Aylestone Hill? No the Black Swan at Much Dewchurch. Rather more inclusive.
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 17:03:25 GMT
Quite so Eggchaser. Also, the cost of having them is actually quite cheap. Way back when the Crown had more real power the financially incontinent King George ran out of money and Parliament had to bail him out. The price was to concede all the revenues from the Royal Estates to the Exchequer and since then, all the revenue comes to Government. Now known as The Crown Estate, it’s income is worth way more than the cost of maintaining the Royal Family. The Royals actually only own Sandringham and Balmoral, the rest belongs to us through the Historical Royal Palaces. You appear to have overlooked The Duchy of Cornwall, valued at over £1bn and owned by Charlie Farlie. The Duchy of Cornwall is completely separate and I hadn’t overlooked it, it was not pertinent to the point I was making. The Prince of Wales doesn’t ‘own’ it either, he is the current beneficiary and in turn William Cambridge will be the beneficiary, then young George. As I’m sure you know, the Duchy owns vast tracts of Cornwall, Dorset and of course, The Oval and its environs in London. The Duchy exists to meet the costs of the heir to the Throne, so cost to the taxpayer is nada. It also funds the Cambridges and Harry and Meghan (not much longer for the latter probably) It is managed by an independent board of trustees and I can assure you they are ruthlessly commercial in the way they do things. Historically, they didn’t pay tax, but that changed a few years ago and they now pay into the exchequer. They are also leading investors in green and sustainable property development and not for the reasons you might think either. It’s a way for them to maximise the return on the assets; if it didn’t make money they wouldn’t do it, no matter the thoughts of the present Duke.
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 17:07:20 GMT
An interesting position Som. in our modern society of which you speak, thousands are born into privilege and wealth. Some of them into families who have created that wealth others who have inherited it. How would you stop that happening? By appropriation? That’s hardly just in a modern and free society. Wealth and privilege is also relative; the Royal Family are undoubtedly rich and privileged, but have none of the freedoms you or I take for granted, like being able to express an opinion or go where we want when we want without hindrance is really available to them. Would you put your family through the nonsense they have to put up with? I wouldn’t and if the Saxe Coburg Gotha family are happy to do it in return for a a fraction of the income we as a country get from the Crown Estate then they are welcome to it. I’d rather have that soap opera as HoS than a superannuated politician. agree totally on the Harry and Meghan thing, they should now just live a life away from the public. They won’t though, because they both crave the association to the Royal Family. Without it he’s just another nice but dim Ex Guards officer who would otherwise be selling ‘nice hices’ to Sloaney couples and she’s a jobbing actress. They've expressed enough opinions for my liking. I just wish they'd stop. Wasn't that the deal? For Harry and Meghan, yes.
|
|
|
Post by willi on Mar 9, 2021 17:15:23 GMT
An odious bunch of over privileged spongers .... completely past their usefulness date ...... I’d get rid of the lot ! I’d also get rid of the House of Lords ! I presume you're referring to Harry and Megan here
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Mar 9, 2021 17:40:27 GMT
You appear to have overlooked The Duchy of Cornwall, valued at over £1bn and owned by Charlie Farlie. The Duchy of Cornwall is completely separate and I hadn’t overlooked it, it was not pertinent to the point I was making. The Prince of Wales doesn’t ‘own’ it either, he is the current beneficiary and in turn William Cambridge will be the beneficiary, then young George. As I’m sure you know, the Duchy owns vast tracts of Cornwall, Dorset and of course, The Oval and its environs in London. The Duchy exists to meet the costs of the heir to the Throne, so cost to the taxpayer is nada. It also funds the Cambridges and Harry and Meghan (not much longer for the latter probably) It is managed by an independent board of trustees and I can assure you they are ruthlessly commercial in the way they do things. Historically, they didn’t pay tax, but that changed a few years ago and they now pay into the exchequer. They are also leading investors in green and sustainable property development and not for the reasons you might think either. It’s a way for them to maximise the return on the assets; if it didn’t make money they wouldn’t do it, no matter the thoughts of the present Duke. Coincidentally, I have just been reading the obituary of Sir Jimmy James who became Secretary and Keeper of the Records, effectively chief executive, of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1993 after leaving a similar post with the Grosvenor Estate. An interesting character and, it seems, no slouch when it came to making such organisations work efficiently and effectively. That tends to support your comment that the Duchy is ruthlessly commercial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2021 18:18:35 GMT
If he is the beneficiary and his son and then grandson are to be beneficiaries I think it's fair to say that, in reality, he is the owner until we get rid of the monarchy.
At which point, what happens to all this land and assets? Would they 'donate' it to an organisation such as the National Trust, would they sell it off or would they retain it?
I think the answer to that question answers whether or not he truly 'owns' it. I'm sure there's an answer to this...
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 18:25:56 GMT
The Duchy of Cornwall is completely separate and I hadn’t overlooked it, it was not pertinent to the point I was making. The Prince of Wales doesn’t ‘own’ it either, he is the current beneficiary and in turn William Cambridge will be the beneficiary, then young George. As I’m sure you know, the Duchy owns vast tracts of Cornwall, Dorset and of course, The Oval and its environs in London. The Duchy exists to meet the costs of the heir to the Throne, so cost to the taxpayer is nada. It also funds the Cambridges and Harry and Meghan (not much longer for the latter probably) It is managed by an independent board of trustees and I can assure you they are ruthlessly commercial in the way they do things. Historically, they didn’t pay tax, but that changed a few years ago and they now pay into the exchequer. They are also leading investors in green and sustainable property development and not for the reasons you might think either. It’s a way for them to maximise the return on the assets; if it didn’t make money they wouldn’t do it, no matter the thoughts of the present Duke. Coincidentally, I have just been reading the obituary of Sir Jimmy James who became Secretary and Keeper of the Records, effectively chief executive, of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1993 after leaving a similar post with the Grosvenor Estate. An interesting character and, it seems, no slouch when it came to making such organisations work efficiently and effectively. That tends to support your comment that the Duchy is ruthlessly commercial. Jimmy James was a real character and he was succeeded by a chap called Bertie Ross, who I knew through work. Another properly commercial operator who many underestimated at their peril. It’s been a while since I had any dealings with the Duchy, so not sure who the current chief is.
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 18:44:18 GMT
If he is the beneficiary and his son and then grandson are to be beneficiaries I think it's fair to say that, in reality, he is the owner until we get rid of the monarchy. At which point, what happens to all this land and assets? Would they 'donate' it to an organisation such as the National Trust, would they sell it off or would they retain it? I think the answer to that question answers whether or not he truly 'owns' it. I'm sure there's an answer to this... As to him being the owner, well if he was, he would be free to sell, but he isn’t, so he’s not the owner. As to what would happen if you got rid of the monarchy, you’d have to look at the Trust deeds, but as it’s nothing to do with the Government or Parliament, any move to sequester would be a significant legal challenge and to be frank, not worth the bother just to satisfy republican wishes of a future government. What would be gained anyway? A large number of ordinary working people derive their livelihoods from the Duchy estates which if it was dissolved would be at risk. It’s not like the National Trust, it is a commercial operation, as is The Crown Estate for that matter. Both pay their way and invest in improving the areas they work in for the wider benefit of the country and also act as business incubators, because they have no shareholders they can play the long game.
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Mar 9, 2021 19:23:10 GMT
You appear to have overlooked The Duchy of Cornwall, valued at over £1bn and owned by Charlie Farlie. The Duchy of Cornwall is completely separate and I hadn’t overlooked it, it was not pertinent to the point I was making. The Prince of Wales doesn’t ‘own’ it either, he is the current beneficiary and in turn William Cambridge will be the beneficiary, then young George. As I’m sure you know, the Duchy owns vast tracts of Cornwall, Dorset and of course, The Oval and its environs in London. The Duchy exists to meet the costs of the heir to the Throne, so cost to the taxpayer is nada. It also funds the Cambridges and Harry and Meghan (not much longer for the latter probably) It is managed by an independent board of trustees and I can assure you they are ruthlessly commercial in the way they do things. Historically, they didn’t pay tax, but that changed a few years ago and they now pay into the exchequer. They are also leading investors in green and sustainable property development and not for the reasons you might think either. It’s a way for them to maximise the return on the assets; if it didn’t make money they wouldn’t do it, no matter the thoughts of the present Duke. Certainly ruthless. www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 19:52:51 GMT
There is a good reason which I would have thought any left leaning person might approve of. Homes are provided to meet the housing needs of people who might not be in a position to buy. If they allow tenants to buy, that is one less home available for rent to a local person who can’t afford to buy.
Many, if not all, planning authorities put something similar in place on any new development by Housing Associations. The Duchy is simply looking to maintain the supply of homes to those in need and the value of its asset. In that respect they are no different to a Housing Association or Local Council which retains its Council Houses. The Right to Buy has completely skewed the provision of decent affordable housing and limiting its availability is, in my view, a socially responsible thing for any landlord to do, especially those with a vested interest in maintaining a balanced community.
|
|
|
Post by Incognito on Mar 9, 2021 20:01:27 GMT
Nothing to stop them reinvesting the sale proceeds in new, additional, builds thereby increasing the property availability. Like what Councils should have done.
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 20:24:53 GMT
It’s not as simple as that. It would be easier to give tenants who want to buy a cash sum based on the value of the house which they could use as a deposit to buy another house in the open market. That would leave the original house still available for rent and more importantly retain the integrity of the estate, which makes it easier to manage and maintain for everyone’s benefit. The Duchy, just like Housing Associations, do reinvest surpluses to build more, because the more you build, the more you earn and the more you earn the more you can sustain what you want to do.
I could go on, but I suspect you’re all getting bored now.......
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Mar 9, 2021 20:43:39 GMT
There is a good reason which I would have thought any left leaning person might approve of. Homes are provided to meet the housing needs of people who might not be in a position to buy. If they allow tenants to buy, that is one less home available for rent to a local person who can’t afford to buy. Many, if not all, planning authorities put something similar in place on any new development by Housing Associations. The Duchy is simply looking to maintain the supply of homes to those in need and the value of its asset. In that respect they are no different to a Housing Association or Local Council which retains its Council Houses. The Right to Buy has completely skewed the provision of decent affordable housing and limiting its availability is, in my view, a socially responsible thing for any landlord to do, especially those with a vested interest in maintaining a balanced community. I'm not sure why a "left leaning person" should approve of the Queen and Prince Charles apparently vetting the contents of government bills to suit their own agenda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2021 21:03:21 GMT
You appear to have overlooked The Duchy of Cornwall, valued at over £1bn and owned by Charlie Farlie. The Duchy of Cornwall is completely separate and I hadn’t overlooked it, it was not pertinent to the point I was making. The Prince of Wales doesn’t ‘own’ it either, he is the current beneficiary and in turn William Cambridge will be the beneficiary, then young George. As I’m sure you know, the Duchy owns vast tracts of Cornwall, Dorset and of course, The Oval and its environs in London. The Duchy exists to meet the costs of the heir to the Throne, so cost to the taxpayer is nada. It also funds the Cambridges and Harry and Meghan (not much longer for the latter probably) It is managed by an independent board of trustees and I can assure you they are ruthlessly commercial in the way they do things. Historically, they didn’t pay tax, but that changed a few years ago and they now pay into the exchequer. They are also leading investors in green and sustainable property development and not for the reasons you might think either. It’s a way for them to maximise the return on the assets; if it didn’t make money they wouldn’t do it, no matter the thoughts of the present Duke. The Duchy also owns vast tracts of Herefordshire and is the county's biggest landowner. "The Guy’s Estate extends to 4,601 hectares, consisting mostly of Grade 2 land, and all set in the peaceful and beautiful surroundings of the Herefordshire countryside. It covers some 15 miles from the southern end at Ross-on-Wye to just north of Hereford, and falls into six sections, mostly agricultural, with around 500 hectares of spectacular woodland and a scattering of residential properties". Nice work if you can get it!* *You can't.
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 21:06:53 GMT
As you say, “apparently vetting”. Don’t forget, HM has a constitutional role to advise, counsel and warn the government on issues of policy going in to law. That is a role she takes very seriously and for which she (as head of state, nor her in person) has a staff of advisers, as does Prince Charles as heir apparent. They do not do this for their personal benefit, but for the benefit of the Crown and in the context of our unwritten constitution. They cannot be seen to do anything which would look like personal interest, because if they did it undermines the whole purpose of the monarchy. It’s a tricky concept to split the interests of the Monarch as HoS and the personal interests of Elizabeth Mountbatten, but split they are and there are a load of checks and balances to ensure that they remain so.
If you move to an elected HoS you then have someone who has achieved that office through garnering support from particular groups, and will then be beholden to them, meaning the distinction between personal interests and constitutional interest is blurred, which in the wrong hands can lead to corruption.
|
|