Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2021 21:08:01 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. Yes, I'm aware of that. I am merely saying that they basically own it and if we were to become a republic then they may still have possession of it, which surely means they own it? I'm pretty sure the owner of relevant land is marked in the Land Registry as Prince Charlie PoW PoW.
|
|
|
Post by willi on Mar 9, 2021 21:41:28 GMT
For once I agree with Piers Morgan, I never thought I'd say that
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 9, 2021 21:44:53 GMT
If the UK became a republic I’m not sure ‘they’ would be able to retain possession, buts it’s complex.
Last time I saw a title from the Duchy it referred to the person currently holding the title by name followed by a phrase like ‘heirs and successors’ making it clear the land was vested not to the named individual but to anyone who could prove the right to inheritance. Commonly used in all landed estates.
|
|
|
Post by gefod on Mar 9, 2021 22:19:29 GMT
Rather the devil you know.
Let’s be straight, with the HoS as the Monarch. It works. When was the last time the HoS blocked Parliament. It’s a ceremonial role.
As for a republic with an elected President, what could possibly go wrong?
BTW, I am the 13th Duke of Wybourne.
|
|
|
Post by mikeunderpenyard on Mar 10, 2021 0:35:31 GMT
For once I agree with Piers Morgan, I never thought I'd say that Which bit do you agree with? What did Piers Morgan say? On Monday's programme, Morgan picked up on the duchess's claim that her request to senior Buckingham Palace officials for help was rejected, after she told Winfrey she had had suicidal thoughts. "Who did you go to?" he said. "What did they say to you? I'm sorry, I don't believe a word she said, Meghan Markle. I wouldn't believe it if she read me a weather report. "The fact that she's fired up this onslaught against our Royal Family I think is contemptible." He also referred to the duchess as the "Pinocchio Princess" in a tweet later that morning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 0:47:30 GMT
Rather the devil you know. Let’s be straight, with the HoS as the Monarch. It works. When was the last time the HoS blocked Parliament. It’s a ceremonial role. As for a republic with an elected President, what could possibly go wrong? BTW, I am the 13th Duke of Wybourne. I used to think like this* but as time goes by the more I come to realise that the whole thing is completely absurd. I just can't justify it in my mind. We might as well select a person at random and tell them to make sure that the government don't piss about, but if they do then don't actually do anything about it. Might as well pick Tony Blair and Lionel Blair to do it. The House of Blair. It's a set up which is at least 500 years out of date. And it wasn't a particularly good one in the first place. * I say I used to think like it, that was probably about 20 years ago. Since then I've just become more and more bemused by the choices humans have made. So much so that I just can't believe this is all real. I don't think I have anything particularly against the Royal family, it's just that I don't understand why they are special. The fact is, they're not. God moves in mysterious ways, I suppose. Edit: just to extend the pointless post a little; if you are a believer in democracy then surely you would consider 'we, the people' as being the manager of the country? If that's the case then I'm not sure how many managers in other lines of work would employ a person on a large wage to sit in the biggest room in the building doing very little real work (perhaps they'd go and buy a client lunch every quarter?) just on the off chance that the employees (the government) all lose their marbles and start smashing up the place. "That's exactly what security guards are doing!" I hear you cry. Yes, but why do we need hundreds of the Feckers and why are they all wearing crowns? The manager is significantly larger than all of the employees put together and not all of them are suddenly going to turn into bad eggs. It just doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure how someone could believe that democracy works yet still find a need for the Royal family. Fortunately, I don't believe democracy works so I don't have to worry about all this nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 1:04:10 GMT
Last time I saw a title from the Duchy it referred to the person currently holding the title by name followed by a phrase like ‘heirs and successors’ making it clear the land was vested not to the named individual but to anyone who could prove the right to inheritance. Commonly used in all landed estates. To be honest, I can't remember. The 'name' field was so long I may have fallen asleep half way through reading it. So, I will trust you on that one as it makes sense. However, it's rather a pointless technicality, isn't it? They basically own the land/assets as, if title states that it will remain passed down to 'heirs and successors', then their family are the only ones who would be able to claim this. It's not like the Spanish are going to invade and declare themselves successors. The only thing which would break the chain would be a republic. As I said, it all depends on what happens once the republic is in place. In the meantime I think it's safe to say that they own such land/assets. Whether they legally own the land doesn't really matter, in reality at least.
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Mar 10, 2021 7:09:18 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. I'm curious why you should think this when you previously lamented that the royal family "have none of the freedoms you or I take for granted, like being able to express an opinion". I think we both know that in reality the Queen's role is purely constitutional; she should always be guided by government ministers. Which is why the article I referenced is pertinent.
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 10, 2021 7:27:23 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. I'm curious why you should think this when you previously lamented that the royal family "have none of the freedoms you or I take for granted, like being able to express an opinion". I think we both know that in reality the Queen's role is purely constitutional; she should always be guided by government ministers. Which is why the article I referenced is pertinent. I am being consistent. The Royals do not enjoy the freedom that the majority of the population enjoy due to their position within the constitution. It is also established that one of the key roles of the monarch is to advise/counsel/warn. They do not interfere, but they give voice to power on behalf of others. It is a potential minefield I grant you and open to all sorts of interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by GRL on Mar 10, 2021 7:31:04 GMT
There has been a modern cleansing of the Augean Stables in local farming country. No rivers have been diverted yet, but a Herculean effort has been made to breathe new life into Harewood End Estate. Many of the traditional farmhouses, tumbledown cottages, a chapel, and the stables stood empty or derelict until the Duchy of Cornwall acquired the 900 acres of land in May 2000.
Now, as part of a rural regeneration project costing about £8 million, three groups of buildings are being sympathetically restored at Home Farm, Grange Farm, and Harewood Park. Environmentally sustainable schemes are employed to retain water run-off from the building complexes and the sewage from the project is treated by reed-bed filtration systems. The complex at Grange Farm (4) is heated by way of a Biomass wood-burning district heating system.
The duchy has further opened up the estate to Herefordshire Hydro Group which plans to create a flagship alternative energy system on the land. The "Micro Hydroelectric Scheme" could pave the way for similar projects being developed with the organisation, which seeks to generate alternative power by harnessing streams and rivers and restoring old mills. An existing water wheel at Redbrook Farm (3) would be restored and converted to produce around 2.5 MWh of electricity. At the same time the carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced .
Plans were earlier approved for the building of a multi-million pound mansion at the hub of the estate on the site of Harewood House. Demolished in the 1950s it was adjacent to the restored chapel of St. Denis and once existed as a preceptory of the Knights Templars, and later the Knights Hospitallers of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. In 2003 large 16th century cellars relating to an early Tudor mansion were identified running across most of the site proposed for the Park's new principal dwelling.
The Chapel of St. Denis is over to the right of Grange Farm on private ground at Harewood Park. So on this part of the walk we pass the duchy on the left-hand side.
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 10, 2021 7:37:25 GMT
Last time I saw a title from the Duchy it referred to the person currently holding the title by name followed by a phrase like ‘heirs and successors’ making it clear the land was vested not to the named individual but to anyone who could prove the right to inheritance. Commonly used in all landed estates. To be honest, I can't remember. The 'name' field was so long I may have fallen asleep half way through reading it. So, I will trust you on that one as it makes sense. However, it's rather a pointless technicality, isn't it? They basically own the land/assets as, if title states that it will remain passed down to 'heirs and successors', then their family are the only ones who would be able to claim this. It's not like the Spanish are going to invade and declare themselves successors. The only thing which would break the chain would be a republic. As I said, it all depends on what happens once the republic is in place. In the meantime I think it's safe to say that they own such land/assets. Whether they legally own the land doesn't really matter, in reality at least. A pointless technicality it may be, but on such things does our legal profession earn its corn. If a republic were put in place, the situation probably wouldn’t change in terms of who the beneficiary is because you get back to my earlier point about sequestration. There would be too many ordinary people whose economic well being would be threatened by breaking up the estate. No sane Government would take that risk to make a political point. The Duchy would then be no different to any other Landed estate. Whether that is seen as acceptable is a matter of opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 9:21:10 GMT
To be honest, I can't remember. The 'name' field was so long I may have fallen asleep half way through reading it. So, I will trust you on that one as it makes sense. However, it's rather a pointless technicality, isn't it? They basically own the land/assets as, if title states that it will remain passed down to 'heirs and successors', then their family are the only ones who would be able to claim this. It's not like the Spanish are going to invade and declare themselves successors. The only thing which would break the chain would be a republic. As I said, it all depends on what happens once the republic is in place. In the meantime I think it's safe to say that they own such land/assets. Whether they legally own the land doesn't really matter, in reality at least. A pointless technicality it may be, but on such things does our legal profession earn its corn. If a republic were put in place, the situation probably wouldn’t change in terms of who the beneficiary is because you get back to my earlier point about sequestration. There would be too many ordinary people whose economic well being would be threatened by breaking up the estate. No sane Government would take that risk to make a political point. The Duchy would then be no different to any other Landed estate. Whether that is seen as acceptable is a matter of opinion. So, they own it.
|
|
|
Post by greekgod on Mar 10, 2021 9:59:27 GMT
So was the whole thing, just a plot to get rid of Piers ?
|
|
|
Post by somnambulist on Mar 10, 2021 10:30:25 GMT
For once I agree with Piers Morgan, I never thought I'd say that On this subject at least, I think Piers Morgan and Oprah Winfrey are part of the same problem, and I don't think the general public has been served well by either. One shouts evidence-free opinions ad infinitum whilst seemingly nursing a personal grudge, the other bowled underarm questions obsequiously, without even the pretence of any journalistic impartiality. Frost-Nixon it certainly was not! Both Morgan and Winfrey checked their journalistic credentials at the door. One received seven million dollars, the other got the sack. And as a consequence of the paucity of debate, we're being encouraged to take sides. Never mind nuance, critical thinking, or God forbid, evidence, we need to choose our team, and that choice will be interpreted in the most reductive of ways, and say a lot more about us than it really ought. It seems to be the way of things these days. Meantime the pandemic rages on.
|
|
|
Post by singe on Mar 10, 2021 10:42:55 GMT
We all know they aren't the real Royal Family anyway. If you haven't watched this little gem, it's well worth it;
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Mar 10, 2021 11:22:51 GMT
For once I agree with Piers Morgan, I never thought I'd say that On this subject at least, I think Piers Morgan and Oprah Winfrey are part of the same problem, and I don't think the general public has been served well by either. One shouts evidence-free opinions ad infinitum whilst seemingly nursing a personal grudge, the other bowled underarm questions obsequiously, without even the pretence of any journalistic impartiality. Frost-Nixon it certainly was not! Both Morgan and Winfrey checked their journalistic credentials at the door. One received seven million dollars, the other got the sack. And as a consequence of the paucity of debate, we're being encouraged to take sides. Never mind nuance, critical thinking, or God forbid, evidence, we need to choose our team, and that choice will be interpreted in the most reductive of ways, and say a lot more about us than it really ought. It seems to be the way of things these days. Meantime the pandemic rages on. That is a remarkably well reasoned analysis. It's also about the only such analysis to encapsulate the reality of what's been going on these last few days. Good on you. I don't always agree with your position on matters but, for me, on this you seem to be bang on the money.
|
|
|
Post by eggchaserbull on Mar 10, 2021 12:49:36 GMT
For once I agree with Piers Morgan, I never thought I'd say that On this subject at least, I think Piers Morgan and Oprah Winfrey are part of the same problem, and I don't think the general public has been served well by either. One shouts evidence-free opinions ad infinitum whilst seemingly nursing a personal grudge, the other bowled underarm questions obsequiously, without even the pretence of any journalistic impartiality. Frost-Nixon it certainly was not! Both Morgan and Winfrey checked their journalistic credentials at the door. One received seven million dollars, the other got the sack. And as a consequence of the paucity of debate, we're being encouraged to take sides. Never mind nuance, critical thinking, or God forbid, evidence, we need to choose our team, and that choice will be interpreted in the most reductive of ways, and say a lot more about us than it really ought. It seems to be the way of things these days. Meantime the pandemic rages on. As somebody who has already stated their indifferent feelings towards the Monarchy, I'm beginning to get totally p!ssed off with the coverage of this, so called, in depth Oprah Winfrey interview. I had no interest in it, and so chose not to watch it; however, every feckin news programme since, and the intervals between other programmes that are normally used for advertising, has been full of the bl00dy thing. It's even managed to find its way to 5 pages on this high browed exchange of ideas. I don't want to know what the people on the streets of Anytown UK think of it; the opinion of any sh!te for brains, who's out on the feckin streets during the pandemic, is of no consequence to me. So, Harry and Meghan, despite wanting to have a low profile you've managed to be the number 1 news item across the world; you've had your say, so now wander off and shut the feck up.
|
|
|
Post by ronnieclayton on Mar 10, 2021 12:51:27 GMT
A Tinsider speaks........
Piers has got something else lined up and got bored with the company he was keeping every morning. Go out with a bang.
|
|
Armchairfan
Senior Member
Posts: 1,825
Member is Online
|
Post by Armchairfan on Mar 10, 2021 12:56:25 GMT
On this subject at least, I think Piers Morgan and Oprah Winfrey are part of the same problem, and I don't think the general public has been served well by either. One shouts evidence-free opinions ad infinitum whilst seemingly nursing a personal grudge, the other bowled underarm questions obsequiously, without even the pretence of any journalistic impartiality. Frost-Nixon it certainly was not! Both Morgan and Winfrey checked their journalistic credentials at the door. One received seven million dollars, the other got the sack. And as a consequence of the paucity of debate, we're being encouraged to take sides. Never mind nuance, critical thinking, or God forbid, evidence, we need to choose our team, and that choice will be interpreted in the most reductive of ways, and say a lot more about us than it really ought. It seems to be the way of things these days. Meantime the pandemic rages on. As somebody who has already stated their indifferent feelings towards the Monarchy, I'm beginning to get totally p!ssed off with the coverage of this, so called, in depth Oprah Winfrey interview. I had no interest in it, and so chose not to watch it; however, every feckin news programme since, and the intervals between other programmes that are normally used for advertising, has been full of the bl00dy thing. It's even managed to find its way to 5 pages on this high browed exchange of ideas. I don't want to know what the people on the streets of Anytown UK think of it; the opinion of any sh!te for brains, who's out on the feckin streets during the pandemic, is of no consequence to me. So, Harry and Meghan, despite wanting to have a low profile you've managed to be the number 1 news item across the world; you've had your say, so now wander off and shut the feck up. I also chose not to watch, but somehow I know exactly what was aired. The entire frenzy is generated by all wings of the media. Bring back The Daily Sport quickly, I could do with confirming whether Elvis is still on the moon!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by sevenoaksbull on Mar 10, 2021 13:51:51 GMT
He is Armchair, along with Freddie Starr and some nervous hamsters....
|
|