BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 06:59 AM

"Right now I'm watching some not-particularly-talented bimbo jump around saying, 'I wanna F-U - I wanna F-U - I wanna F-U F-U funk!' Or something like that. Pretty classy, anyway. At least I can sigh and roll my eyes, and change the channel - she has to pretend she's enjoying it ...."...I'm sure, meself, I heard a miracle just before that - Kylie's voice came through the sound-system before Shirley stopped straining..?!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 11:55 AM

I can't see "the Chelsea barracks debacle" as a very convincing example of democratic rights being trampled underfoot by Charles' successful lobbying against the proposed Rodgers redevelopment. Nodody got a chance to vote about whether they wanted it - and I'm pretty sure if people had been given a vote on it most would have seen it the same way as Charles did.

As with the famed National Gallery "monstrous carbuncle" which was nearly inflicted on us.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 12:06 PM

The point isn't whether people would have voted for or against it, the point is due process wasn't followed because Chaz called up another group of unelected types, the Qatar royal family and persuaded them to withdraw funding because he didn't like it. Even a high court judge thought he was exceeding his remit as he also lobbied Westminster Council and the Mayor.

He ignored the democratic process and his view counted above everyone who didn't get to express theirs. That is simply wrong, it's elitist and it ignores the common consensus - whichever way that leans.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 12:16 PM

Jealousy is a very ugly emotion, and it turns its sufferers into ugly people.

This is a choice Right Wing myth. It's not a matter of being jealous of anyone - it's a matter of despising a system of heartless self-interest that generates those levels of priviledge anyway. It's a matter of conscience amnd humanity in the face of the social & cultural apartheid that mires this country into a mess of grotesque wealth on one hand and ghastly poverty on the other. It's also a matter of tearfully lamenting a once beautiful country carved up on ancient fuedal privileges and UTTERLY WASTED by developers and other opportunists in the name of progress.

I'm reminded of an old blind man who got his sight back after 60 years having lost it at the age of ten. He took one look at the ugly mess that had become of the town he remembered so well and hung himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 12:20 PM

I would say that the elitists were those who thought they knew best what developments should be imposed on us.
Like the ones who dumped the 60s high rise flats and town centres on us, while they went to live in traditional style communities.
It all had to be torn down, but they kept their millions.
As McGrath said, Charles was actually speaking for the ordinary Joe AGAINST the elitists.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 12:50 PM

It all had to be torn down, but they kept their millions.

Not all, in fact this country is one ugly concrete mess of development abomination wherever you look. God knows there're even listing some of these monstrosities now! The piss reeking disgrace that is Preston Bus Station for Christ's sake. And many a high-rise hell still stands testimony to the same grasping inhumanity that sends the windfarms sprawling over our once beautiful countryside today. But hey, great views from the top, eh?

Odd then that we still retain our images of the picturesque. I still have my Grandmother's little picture of a thatched country farm with geese in the yard. It was a birthday card as I recall - she like it so much she had it framed & hung on the wall of her shoddy post-war Sunderland council semi in one of the roughest estates in the North East. I wonder - do people who live in thatched country cottages have pictures of such estates on their walls?

I hope and pray there is a parallel universe somewhere in which they got it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 01:13 PM

Agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 01:35 PM

MtheGM made a comment on the naval uniforms worn by Prince Philip and Prince Charles - The uniforms worn were 100% naval - Ceremonial Day Dress:

Ceremonial Day Dress
This is worn only by Admirals and Vice Admirals along with members of the Royal Family and consists of a tailcoat with white facing and gold edging worn with gold shoulder boards, black and gold belt and gold laced black trousers. It is worn at parades such as Lord High Admiral's Divisions (BRNC) or at state occasions.

For the edification of Steve Shaw and co. The Royal Family costs the UK Tax Payer nothing.

In exchange for the now defunct civil list payments the Exchequer got their hands on what is called "The Crown Estate"

By the bye it should be remembered or recognised by all that the minute you pay your taxes (as members of the Royal Family do) the money is no longer yours (as tax payers or anybody else)- the money belongs to the Exchequer and it is up to them what it gets spent on (That's why "Road Tax" does not get spent on roads).

So what does pay for our Head of State.

Now the defunct civil list that SS referred to:
About £7.5million goes to the Queen - this covers Official "Head of State" type expenses. The remaining £395,000 goes to Prince Philip for his Official "Husband of the Head of State" expenses. But you said the Royal Family as "Head of State" costs us £32million so who pays it? Rhetorical question Steve so don't strain yourself (It isn't revenue gained from Tourists).

I will introduce you to three of the best run enterprises in the United Kingdom:

The Crown Estate - worth £230million a year in profit to the Exchequer - and that is AFTER all costs related to the upkeep of the Queens "Official" residences have been paid (that is the missing £24million from your £32million)

The Duchy of Cornwall - Belongs to the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne - Last year the profit (voluntarily taxable) was £17million and that Dear Steve, is the profit after all costs (including security) for the Prince's family and household have been paid for.

The Duchy of Lancaster - Owned by the Queen, last year the profit (voluntarily taxable) was £9million and that Dear Steve, is the profit after all costs (including security) for the Queens family, excluding the Prince of Wales and his family, and household have been paid for.

So the sums add up as follows - using your now defunct "Civil List" model:

The Exchequer pays out - £7.9million

The Exchequer in return receives - £230million + £8million + £34million = ££242million

Now I would say that that was rather a good deal wouldn't you?

By the way Steve you would not last one week working their schedule and the HM The Queen and Prince Philip are 86 and almost 91 respectively. Don't know about you but being forced to always be impeccably turned out and transported around to be affable and appear interested in everything said to you by complete and utter strangers under the constant gaze of the press sounds a bloody hard and thankless task and pretty nightmarish to me.

Oh by the way Steve how much have you raised for Charity over your course on earth so far?? How many Charities and Foundations are you Patron of?? i.e. what "good" have you done in your life??

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 01:59 PM

Steve:

Charity involvement and Patronage which has resulted in hundreds of millions being raised. If you tote up the involvement of the Queen, Prince Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward the number is 2,397.

Take the entire Royal Family and the number is over 3,538

The Queen is 86 right?

Typical Morning:
The Queen's working day begins like many people's - at her desk.

After scanning the daily British newspapers, The Queen reviews her correspondence.

Every day, 200-300 (and sometimes many more) letters from the public arrive. The Queen chooses a selection to read herself and tells members of her staff how she would like them to be answered.

This enables Her Majesty personally to see a typical cross-section of her daily correspondence. Virtually every letter is answered by staff in her Private Secretary's office or by a lady-in-waiting.

The Queen will then see, separately, two of her Private Secretaries with the daily quota of official papers and documents. This process takes upwards of an hour.

Every day of every year, wherever she is, The Queen receives from government ministers, and from her representatives in the Commonwealth and foreign countries, information in the form of policy papers, Cabinet documents, telegrams, letters and other State papers.

These are sent up to her by the Private Secretaries in the famous 'red boxes'. All of these papers have to be read and, where necessary, approved and signed.

A series of official meetings or 'audiences' will often follow. The Queen will see a number of important people.

These include overseas ambassadors and high commissioners, newly appointed British ambassadors, senior members of the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces on their appointment and retirement, and English bishops and judges on their appointment.

Each meeting usually lasts 10 to 20 minutes, and usually The Queen and her visitor meet alone.

The Queen may also meet a number of people who have won prizes or awards in a variety of fields such as literature or science, to present them individually with their prize.

If there is an Investiture - a ceremony for the presentation of honours and decorations - it begins at 11.00am and lasts just over an hour. The Queen usually meets around 100 people at each Investiture to present Orders, decorations and medals.

The Queen will often lunch privately. Every few months, she and The Duke of Edinburgh will invite a dozen guests from a wide variety of backgrounds to an informal lunch. Occasionally, the guest list may consist of far fewer people, such as a newly appointed or retiring Governor-General and their guest.

If The Queen is spending the morning on engagements away from her desk and other commitments, she will visit up to three venues before lunch, either alone or jointly with The Duke of Edinburgh.

On a regional visit, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh lunch with a wide variety of people in places ranging from town halls to hospitals.

Typical Afternoon:
In the afternoons, The Queen often goes out on public engagements.

Such visits require meticulous planning beforehand to meet the hosts' requirements.

And The Queen prepares for each visit by briefing herself on whom she will be meeting and what she will be seeing and doing.

Royal engagements are carefully selected by The Queen from a large number of invitations sent to her each year, often by the Lord-Lieutenants (The Queen's representatives in counties throughout the United Kingdom).

This helps to ensure the widest possible spread and to make effective use of The Queen's time.

If the engagement is outside London, her journeys are often by air using a helicopter or an RAF aircraft.

The Queen carries out around 430 engagements (including audiences) a year, to meet people, open events and buildings, unveil plaques and make speeches.

Such engagements can include visits to schools, hospitals, factories, military units, art galleries, sheltered accommodation for elderly people, hostels for the homeless, local community schemes in inner city areas, and other British and Commonwealth organisations.

The Queen regularly goes out for the whole day to a particular region or city. If the visit is a busy one, or if it lasts more than a day, then The Queen will travel overnight on the Royal Train.

The Duke of Edinburgh will often accompany The Queen on such visits; when this happens, they will carry out some engagements jointly and others separately to ensure that the maximum number of people and organisations can be visited.

The Queen may end the afternoon seeing a number of Government ministers in a meeting of the Privy Council.

Typical Evening:
The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.

Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).

This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.

At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings, written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always reads this the same evening.

On some evenings, The Queen may attend a film première, a variety of concert performances in aid of a charitable cause, or a reception linked to organisations of which she is Patron.

The Queen also regularly hosts official receptions at Buckingham Palace (usually with other members of the Royal Family), such as those for the Diplomatic Corps and The Queen's Award for Industry.

Her Majesty may also hold receptions ahead of overseas visits. In 2007, prior to attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a reception at Buckingham Palace for Commonwealth Africans living and working in the United Kingdom.

Other receptions mark the work of particular groups in the community, such as those recently given for members of the British design and music worlds.

The Queen has numerous private interests, which can coincide with her public work, to complete her working day.

Her Majesty also attends the Derby and the Summer Race Meeting at Ascot, a Royal occasion. As a keen owner and breeder of racehorses, she often sees her horses run at other meetings.

As owner of private estates at Balmoral and Sandringham, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh oversee the management of the estates which are run on a commercial basis. She takes a close interest in all aspects of estate life, particularly in the tenant farmers and employees who live and work on the estates.

Through her public and private work, The Queen is well-briefed and well-known. She has met many more people from all walks of life both in this country and overseas than her predecessors.

This takes time and effort. Often, one of the last lights on in the Palace at night is The Queen finishing her 'red box' of official papers.

Every Day Steve - Don't know about you - I wouldn't have as a gift.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 02:04 PM

Thank you Teribus, for saving me a lot of work.

I was about halfway through researching that when you posted it.

It deals with one of the most important anti Monarchist lies.

The other classic of ignorance and dishonesty is the inbreeding and stupidity claim.

The RAF simply do not hand over the controls of any £20 million aircraft to stupid youngsters, no matter who their families may be.

Entry to Cranwell is not restricted to the upper classes. It is restricted to those with the highest intelligence, aptitude and determination to succeed, and its graduates are as likely to come from the Old Kent Road as from the Shires.

All of the members of the Royal Family entering the military have qualified and all have passed out at the lowest rank for the job, e.g. Pilot Officer William Wales (future King of England), who flies Sea King rescue helicopters, is paid as a pilot officer and lives in a cottage which his wife manages without full time staff, just as every other wife whose husband works at the Anglesey base.

Check out the others and it's the same story.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 02:13 PM

I hae often disagreed with Teribus, but I give him a big 'thank you' for the summary of the estates and their profitability. I have read most of that at some time or other, but it would take me quite an effort to dig it out and summarize as well as he has done.

In addition to that side of the coin, is the tremendous pride that the Crown provides to many people, evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of ordinary folk around the Commonwealth who celebrated.

I am originally an America, now a Canadian. The British democracy is flawed, like the American and Canadian (and it seems the Australian), but it gives most people a reasonably good life, and the flaws have much to do with our own current convictions, right or wrong, when we enter the voting booth, and nothing to do with a constitutional monarchy.

(I liked Charles' intervention. Looks like he will make an interesting King.)

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: number 6
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 02:14 PM

Hell's Angels MC (that's the motorcycle club) have raised thousands for charities ... giving donations to social causes are a helpful public relations tool ... a common ploy characteristic of various organized crime organizations and unscrupulous corporations.

biLL ... just thought I'd throw that one into this thread ... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 02:34 PM

The post by number six has little applicability to this thread, but with regard to organized crime, if you can't prosecute successfully, take their donations, with thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 02:51 PM

Teribus ~~ Re: Dress Uniforms ~~ Yes, thank you. But the gold shoulder boards ref'd to used never [did they?] to carry the equivalent Army rank. Is this an innovation; if so, it seems to me to fight the RN element of the ceremonial uniform.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 04:37 PM

MtheMG

The shoulderboards for OF-10; OF-9; OF-8 & OF-7 are completely different for Navy and Army Dress Uniforms - Most similar at first glance are those for OF-10 all the rest are very different the Naval ones being much more elaborate.

OF-10 Admiral of the Fleet:
The Crown is clearly above the Wreath with crossed Batons and the tips of the wreath are almost closed. These emblems also appear "inboard" i.e. at the neck end of the shoulderboard

OF-10 Field Marshall:
The Crown is positioned in between the open tips of the Wreath with the crossed Batons and the emblems are located at the jacket sleeve end of the shoulderboard.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 05:19 PM

Thank you ~~ most helpful and informative.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 05:23 PM

Don ~~ Is Prince William still a Pilot Officer? He was wearing a Flight Lieutenant's insignia on Monday. Prince Harry appeared now to be a Captain. But they did indeed start off at lowest commissioned rank, like any other newly passed-out officer.


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:11 PM

And this Crown Estate malarkey and the Duchy of Cornwall: by what right do these inbred pillocks come to own all these riches? There is nothing more powerful than owning land, yet no-one on the planet ever made a single acre of land (though I suppose you could make half a case for building dykes to reclaim land from the sea...) If you own vast tracts of land, it's almost certainly because your ancestors enclosed it to keep the riffraff out. Stole it, in other words, then got rich by becoming squires, landlords and tithe-takers.

For the sake of accuracy: The Queen's official expenditure decreased by 5.3% from £33.9 million in 2009/10 to £32.1 million in 2010/11 according to the royal public finances annual report.

Do look it up!

As for Her Maj's workload, she spends months every year relaxing on vast estates out of the public gaze, and always has done. Go through your list again and cross off the "jobs" that wouldn't exactly cause the world to collapse around our ears if she just dropped them. Gosh, these monarchists are the finest on the planet when it comes to suspension of critical thought! Except for believers in God, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:20 PM

ditto-thanks tiberius for the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,petecockermouth
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:28 PM

this conversation is getting incredibly bizarre. pips on shoulders-angels on the end of a pin. who cares? with what they own and the privilege that comes with it i would expect them to do a bit of 'work' - we all know many people who work harder in difficult jobs with nothing like the rewards and recognition they deserve. no-one would begrudge the royal family a well-appointed council house for their public service but no-one -no matter who they are - deserves the property and adulation they get. it's what they represent that matters - a decrepit and unjust system, where we are subjects not free citizens. and when did a member of that family ever have the wit or conscience to speak up for ordinary people having a hard time under a system that sustains them and their friends in a life of luxury? just look at the gang of dictators and fantasists invited to the royal party...

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:39 PM

""Don ~~ Is Prince William still a Pilot Officer? He was wearing a Flight Lieutenant's insignia on Monday. Prince Harry appeared now to be a Captain. But they did indeed start off at lowest commissioned rank, like any other newly passed-out officer.""

You may well be right Mike, as I haven't checked, but the point is that they are earning their rank, just as any other officer candidate does after graduating at the lowest rank, not being handed it on a plate because of their royal connections.

The army, Navy and Air Force are not going to promote a dunce to a position in which he can kill other personnel.

The number of pilots who can even qualify to fly military helicopters is very small indeed. It requires very specific skills which are uncommon.

It should be obvious to the meanest intellect that the only royals who are accorded ranks for which they may not be fully qualified are the Monarch and the Consort, along with a few of the highest ranking peers.

The ranks accorded are honorary and do not involve commanding military personnel, as should also be blindingly obvious.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:45 PM

I love the way that "profitability" of stolen royal estates is used as a argument in favour of the monarchy. Anyone like to make a case for Rachmann-style landlordism (or, indeed, the landlordism of today in London that routinely puts up rents to take the whole of the tenant's housing benefit)? Very profitable! What about the vast profits made by banks that won't lend money to small businesses? I'm certain that the monarchy makes healthy profits from its historical ill-gotten gains, but what sort of justification is that? I once read, in an idle moment in Morrisons, the label of a pack of premium Duchy Originals bangers (the dearest sausages on the shelf). Not a single bloody ingredient came from anywhere near the Duchy!

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:46 PM

There ya go. No matter she does all she does and "shakes hands" with politicians and royalty (yes, there is royalty in other countries) the world over and provides all she does in her service, she is shat upon.

"with what they own"??? With what she owns, she could just say fuck you, I shant bother doing my duty in looking after affairs that affect you. Like I said earlier, watch the TV program... read a wee bit... understand the history... the present... the future.

Hey, I'd pick her first to be on my team.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 07:57 PM

Don. It is as plain as the nose on yer fizzog that the royal chappies are fast-tracked into the military and that this is done for public relations reasons, not because they have fightin' and heroism coursing through their blue-blooded veins. You will note that not a single royal ever comes home in a body bag, or even with a cut finger, and they never will. This is because they are accorded full protection whilst they are "out there." "Front-line" has a very elastic definition when it comes to them. Just think. All those royal lads will, one day, have to look suitably sombre in front of the Cenotaph. Whatever else happens, they must be seen to be sporting a pound or two of medals and the last thing they want is The Guardian telling the truth about how fake they are. The royals in the forces have nothing to do with swashbuckling bravery and everything to do with the ancient tradition of putting royals in uniform in order to delude the rest of us into thinking how brave and "one of us" they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 08:02 PM

- i shant bother doing my duty in affairs that affect you- what on earth does this mean? i thought the point is that she is an inconsequential figurehead in terms of politics. i suppose you mean having dinner with the king of saudi arabia affects me-but how?

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jun 12 - 08:42 PM

I didn't realize they were going to play the Jubilee concert in US television last night, but ABC aired it. I researched it and find they replaying it on Saturday night, for any in the US who wanted to watch it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:12 AM

How do they have what they have? Not just the Royal Family but the "Aristocracy" in general - because at some point down the line they earned it, either by service, duty, appointment or by straight forward purchase.

Doubt that Steve?? Then go and research a little thing called the "Feudal System" which a long, long time ago provided the only form of "protection" there was. The Lord of the Manor did not only have all the perks, he also had the duty of physically protecting and looking after those who lived on the land given into his charge. If he was sensible he did look after them, and generally most did, unlike the aristocracy in France and look what happened to them.

I do not envy anyone any possession as you and petecockermouth seem to. It is a pointless and extremely negative thing to engage in and like some who have already mentioned it on this thread I am at the end of my life where I find I need less and less, not more and more.

Does our Head of State work hard - Yes a great deal harder than you have ever had to, and almost a lifetime past the date she would have retired had she been a private citizen. What does the current Monarch represent? An unbroken line and link with our nation's history that reaches back almost 1000 years.

Noticed you dodged the questions I asked you

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 04:33 AM

He does dodge questions that don't suit him Teribus. Sometimes he even admits it ~ "That is a question for another day," he responded to my, imo, perfectly reasonable question as to why it is OK for him to 'own' a pair of socks or a pussycat or a car or a house, but it is immoral/unacceptable/villainous for the Queen to 'own' any land or property; so at what point of Hegelian shift from quantative to qualitative does ownership of property, or anything else, acquire the above-mentioned negative attributes?

I daresay I shall wait a while for answers, as he {& pete & all the pathetic leftipoos} get ever more desperate in attempts to find defences for their fatuities, which have little appeal to most posters on this thread, or, as we know, to 80% of respondents to a recent survey.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 04:39 AM

the royal chappies are fast-tracked into the military and that this is done for public relations reasons

This is not true Steve.
If they were no good, there would be too many people who knew about it to conceal it.

Have you forgotten that Prince Edward tried and failed to make it into the Marines?
He was not up to it, the others were.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 05:22 AM

"How do they have what they have? Not just the Royal Family but the "Aristocracy" in general - because at some point down the line they earned it, either by service, duty, appointment or by straight forward purchase."

Or stole it: William the Bastard gifting our land to his henchmen, or the theft that occurred during the highland clearances, plantation of Ulster, or the acts of enclosure.

All appalling acts of theft, and the aristocracy and the monarchy were involved in all of these, and have benefited. The idea that they are some benign force for good that deserve our undying respect is a fallacy. The Normans were an occupying force that laid waste to vast tracks of this country.

"What does the current Monarch represent? An unbroken line and link with our nation's history that reaches back almost 1000 years."

Luckily, the ordinary people of these islands represent and unbroken link with our nation's history that reaches back 14,000 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 05:56 AM

I don't dodge questions "that don't suit me". I post at considerable length on all manner of topics, but what I don't tend to do is jump through your hoops. If you persist in asking the same tendentious question then your motives for asking are highly suspect and my chances of coming out of your booby-trap unscathed are minimal. This is the internet and I'll debate, or not debate, exactly what I want to, thanks, you arrogant prick.

However. I have nothing against ownership, even ownership of land. But when it comes to the latter in particular, there are questions to be asked, and they are all predicated on the stubborn fact that no-one ever made the land. So I'm perfectly entitled to ask someone who owns more than his apparent fair share of land how he came by it. Invariably, the answer is that either he or his ancestors ultimately took it by force. Apparent fair share? Let's put it something like this. In a town, I think it's right that a householder should own the land that his house (and modest garden) stands on. If he's a tenant, he should have far greater rights to stay put than he has now and he should not pay ground rent. He has to pay rent on his house, but someone made the house, unlike the land it stands on, and charging rent is fair in principle. How you came by the houses you charge rent on is another issue, of course. In the country, your fair share is the land you can work yourself or with your family or as a small business that you can control yourself without armies of overseers. That might be ten acres of the best land or five hundred acres of hill farm, or half an acre on an industrial estate. One of the worst things that ever happened to this country was the acquisition of vast tracts of land by people who are not farmers. They are the biggest vandals on the planet. They eradicate wildlife, demolish biodiversity, pollute land and water, throw people out of the countryside (so that schools, pubs and post offices have to close down) and turn the countryside into charmless, sterile prairie (you'll find these very people leading the singing of Land Of Hope And Glory at big royal ceremonies, without a trace of irony, of course). Mostly, the income they generate comes from farming and tourism, both trades which are thankless, seasonal and grossly underpaid (farming used to be far more enjoyable, I imagine, when skills were involved, but these days the most "enjoyable" thing you get to do is to drive a massive combine wearing ear-defenders all day while breathing in lethal dust from polluted fields, or hooking up five hundred cows' tits to automated milking machines). The latest rich-bloke fad is to take advantage of the ridiculously lax planning laws (which always favour the wealthy landowner in any case) in order to erect ugly, useless wind turbines willy-nilly all over the countryside. Well you would, wouldn't you, if you get £50,000 per annum per turbine, each with a footprint of just a few square metres of your land! People who own vast areas of land have no interest in working that land usefully and productively for the greater good of the country, and neither have their soul-destroyed tenants, who have no personal investment in the land they work. The big land-owner's one interest is in being a landlord, which means doing nothing whilst other people generate wealth that you then take great chunks of. The principle is that you take all the wealth that the land, and the tenant, produces, except for the small amount that your tenants need to subsist, and, if the tenancy laws make your tenants a wee bit insecure into the bargain, well that's all to the better. Welcome to the real world of the filthy rich, the bit that hides behind the pageantry. But people have to own land, not just be tenants, even though they didn't make it. If you own your fair share of land you have a personal investment in it and will, unlike the big landlords, use it wisely and to its maximum capacity, and you leave it in a fit state to be passed on. The only argument is what constitutes your fair share. That's not an easy one, but one thing's for sure: owning tens of thousands of acres, most of which you never even get to set foot on, is plain wrong. You might never even shake hands with some of the people who generate all your wealth for you. Bad for the country and bad for the landowner, not to speak of his tenants. Don't go from what I say. Just have a look round.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 06:27 AM

A reply. Thank you. Agree, predictably, with few of the points made; but at least you have made them and endeavoured, at last, to answer some of the questions raised by me in all my arrogant-prickery*, and by others. Haven't defined the point I asked about where ownership of property becomes perverse; but I appreciate you have addressed the problem in general terms and up to a point.

~M·aka·You·arrogant·prick~


*[How charming! I thought it was you who objected above to personal abuse: but perhaps it was, as Mark Twain said of Homer, not you, but another man of the same name living at the same time?]

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 06:48 AM

Seems to me most people in this world are meek & self-respecting in their humility and are quite happy with their lot in life - the simple pleasures of life, love, community and sharing. I dare say say this has been the way of the peasant / working classes since long before the Harrying of the North and long after Peterloo or The Miners Strike and other regrettable occasions in British History when the brutality of the state stamped all over them if only to let them know who's boss.

Envy has nothing to do with it. God knows all we ever wanted was a simple life, but our lot was always to be ruled over by power-crazed idiots simply because we lacked brutish ambition and the machinery of capital, war, law, authority, education, industry etc. etc. to put it into effect, much less the inclination to rampage, rape and burn people into cowering submission. That's your fuedal legacy right there; it's made the UK the great & noble nation that it is today.

This is worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/krugman-the-austerity-agenda.html?_r=3&smid=fb-share

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:02 AM

Spot on Suibhne.

I did volunteer to help with the jubilee celebrations in our village despite not being a monarchist. This was because I believe that real, living communities are a good thing for both the people that live in them and wider society, and many people from across the board came together for a couple of days, and I wanted to do my small part for the good of my community.

Mind you, I didn't toast Brenda, and I didn't sing that godawful national anthem, or wear the butcher's apron in any shape or form. I did drinks lots of rather good cider. I quietly gave a thought to Wistanley and my ancestors.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:14 AM

Haven't defined the point I asked about where ownership of property becomes perverse

Ownership brings out the worst in people; the need to have, whilst others have not. It engenders greed, selfishness, & other more brutish traits of our animal past that never balance out for the common good, but only benefit of the few. But even those of us stuck in negative equity in areas impoverished by a completely unnecessary recession are only home owners because the alternative is unthinkable. But is that any excuse? In the four years we've lived here we've had 5 sets of tenants in the house next door, the landlord of which is just a bloke who happens to own a house - he couldn't give a shit about the comfort & wellbeing of his tenants, or even that of his property. Methinks the situation is hardly untypical in this noble grasping & unpleasant country of ours.

When the only vested interest is capital, humanity goes out of the window. Sad to say certain of the posts here display a similar lack of humanity in the face of what is a very deep concern for our common & collective wellbeing as a nation.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:31 AM

Could anyone tell me the TRUE cost of the Royal Family, not just the monarch and their immediate family but all the Dukes of this and that who get funds from the Government, together with all the on costs, trains, planes, cars, security, buildings, staff, grants for this and that etc etc. I would suggest that the actual cost of supporting a relatively small number of people is far higher than any of us imagine it to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:38 AM

Spot on Suibhne.

I dare say we'd have got involved if we'd been around. We arrived back late on Monday night to a street alive with partying, laughter, fireworks & booming dance music. It felt great - real Folklore! Yes - Wonderful Jubilee Celebrations. I'm forever intrigued & heartened by the good will of the British working classes even when it comes to celebrating the monarchy, even to the point of being wary of how we'd fare as a republic. But whatever my feelings as an Anarchist & Athiest, my loyality to those individual Proletarian Monarchists / Catholics / High & Low Anglicans / Moslems (& even UKIP members) of my acquaintance invariably manifests as a general tolerance rather than outright despair, forever optimistic that we'll get there one day...

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 07:46 AM

GUEST ~ Name the Dukes of this and that who get funds from the Civil List. I know of none outside the immediate Royal Family.

"Ownership brings out the worst in people;" Does that include your ownership of your car, Suibhne, or the shirt you are wearing, or the book you have been reading or the CD you have been playing or the DVD you have been watching? If not, I ask again, where does the cut-off point come?

The tenants in the house next to mine appear most contented with their lot; the owner of the property keeps it in good repair and they seem to have a perfectly rational business relationship. It is all to easy to generalise from a particular adverse experience of one's own; but not, I feel bound to add, a sign of a particularly intelligent approach to a general question.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:03 AM

Oh Michael, don't be so tiresome - you know well perfectly well that it all boils down to a question of scale.

Why don't you define the cut-off point between misery and happiness yourself? Do you have millions? If not, are you happy? If so, why are you happy? Etc.

We live in a country where the gap between the richest and the poorest is growing daily - a fact acknowledged by every article about the topic in any of the newspapers - so surely this particular status quo is worth challenging.

In an earlier post I queried the apparent need and greed of someone like R. Murdoch to own all the worlds media. Where is his particular cut-off point, do you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:23 AM

If not, I ask again, where does the cut-off point come?


We all own a few pieces of crap & scraps; they hardly define us or empower us in the same way as wealth, status, property & entire estates and the tied lives beholden thereto. This is why I find Left-Wing takes of Kipling's The Land so laughable. Old Hobden doesn't even own his own caricatured cliché of peasant servility to his feudal Lord & Master. My meagre bits & bobs will soon be gone - obsolete folkloric fodder to be picked over in the car boot sales of future days before ending up in the great landfill that was once our Green & Pleasant Land (Hob - what about that river-bit for filling in with crap?).

The other day my brother posted me a hat box which contains, he says, my recently deceased mother's few worldly trinkets. I think the most valuable things in there are likely to be her old Beatles singles, but it all meant the world to her. I doubt I'll ever open it though - it arrived on what would have been her 81st birthday and went straight in the back of a cupboard. Christ said set not your treasures on earth. As if we have any choice, eh? Our few crappy trinkets & gew-gaws are symbolic of a hope, souvenirs, echoes of meaning and memory, but entirely valueless in and of themselves. Like our car which we hang onto because although it's a good runner, we know it'll go straight for scrap. Same with this computer, or any of the 'property' I 'own'.

Capital binds us by the wasteful idiocy of built-in obsolescence. I guess there's your cut-off point right there, Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 08:54 AM

Oh, Will, don't be so irritable.

I don't accept a specific cutoff point as I thought I had made manifest. So your final question is wilfully otiose ~~

~~ and, er, tiresome!

〠

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Will Fly
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 09:23 AM

Michael, my point is neither lazy nor redundant - to use plain English - but merely reinforces the fact that there is no harm in questioning the growing extremes of poverty and riches in this country and the reasons for it.

To question this growing gap, some definition of what is acceptable and unacceptable in terms of rags and riches is surely appropriate.

If you think such questions are tiresome, then don't discuss them, accept the status quo, and retire to your ivory tower. I prefer not to - even if you do find it tiresome.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 11:32 AM

What is unplain about the perfectly standard word 'otiose', Will?

I suppose I see your main point. But I feel I have caused some of the more foolish lefties to shift from their original entrenched pathetic, long-since confuted "All property is theft" foolishness; which I will admit to having done, in time-honoured quasi-casuistic fashion, by refining the question almost to the point of reductio ad absurdum. Prior to that, foul-mouthed Steve would doubtless have gone on for ever denouncing the ownership of anything, even a packet of chips one had just bought for 90p at a takeaway.

Sorry if you found it tiresome; but imo it wanted doing to bring old Foulmouth to the point of actually admitting "I have nothing against ownership, even ownership of land" (Alleluia!); which he did so graciously & gracefully by denouncing me, after all his resentments expressed above concerning the terms in which he had been addressed, as an "arrogant prick" for simply sticking to my argument and pointing out his evasiveness in response.

What a little charmer he is, to be sure.

~M~

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 11:47 AM

You are an arrogant prick, frankly. You appear to revel in the use of self-regarding, arcane vocabulary, and you smeared me with Nazi-esque allusions, remember? When you're not doing that you're being patronising or asking stupid questions. Your personal input into debate is threadbare to say the least. Apart from that, do carry on. Don't trip up over your inflated ego, now.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:01 PM

"Or stole it: William the Bastard gifting our land to his henchmen, or the theft that occurred during the highland clearances, plantation of Ulster, or the acts of enclosure. - Sugarfoot Jack

Duke William of Normandy:
When King Edward died at the beginning of 1066, the lack of a clear heir led to a disputed succession in which several contenders laid claim to the throne of England.

1: Duke William of Normandy's claim to the English throne derived from his familial relationship with the childless King Edward the Confessor. King Æthelred II of England having married Emma, the sister of Richard II, Duke of Normandy in 1002. So William the Bastard was a blood relation to Edward the Confessor.

2: Earl of Wessex Harold Godwinson, brother-in-law to the late King Edward the Confessor. Harold Godwinson was not a blood relation.

3: King Harald III of Norway otherwise known as Harald Hardrada - His claim to the throne was based on an agreement between his predecessor Magnus I of Norway, and the earlier King of England Harthacanute, whereby if either died without heir, the other would inherit both England and Norway. Pretty shakey claim

So as far as the succession went after the death of King Edward the Confessor there was only one claimant who was a blood relative. So nothing was stolen at all although both Harold Godwinson and Harald Hardrada did attempt to steal a Crown. Damned right that the lands of those who opposed William be forfeit and gifted to William's supporters, that was how things worked, serfs and slaves under Saxon Lords became serfs and slaves under Norman Lords so no change there.

Highland Clearances:
I would be interested in knowing when you think that they started, and who it was that started them. The land belonged to the Clan Chief and he dictated who lived on it and by it. The clearances by and large were economic. Around the same time that the "Highland Clearances" were beginning the "Clearances" in the Borders were coming to an end. The new King who jointly sat on the thrones of both Scotland and England wanted to get rid of the trouble-makers in his "middle-shires" which rather neatly leads us on to -

The Plantation of Ulster:
During Elizabeth the First's reign, Chief O'Neil had tried his very best to make Ireland a colony of Spain with himself as its Viceroy. He rebelled against Elizabeth and had to flee. In 1588 there had been the scare with the Armada so mindful that in Ireland trouble might be stirred up by Spain, King James I and VI saw an ideal opportunity to kill two birds with one stone. He moved the trouble makers from the Anglo-Scottish and planted them in Ulster and gave them rebel lands. If there was one thing King James knew about his borderers they would fight like hell to hold what they had been given (After all they had been doing that amongst themselves for over 350 years without a break).

Acts of Enclosure:
These began in the 13th Century and continued through Tudor times and were had their final spurt between 1760 and 1820. In total they affected about 18.5% of the land in the country. Oddly enough Sugarfoot the worst culprits were not the rich landowners, the most rapacious exploiters of the practice were minor land owners and tennant farmers. Had the land not been enclosed the country would have starved, the Agricultural Revolution would not have happened and the Industrial Revolution would have been stunted. Ever heard of a thing called progress?

As to what the Queen "owns" Sandringham and Balmoral were bought and paid for by Prince Albert, he paid the going rate at the time and worked damned hard at building both estates up.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:03 PM

"Tis the royalists on this thread who have reserved for themselves the monopoly over vituperation and insults,"
,..,

Now, remind us, who said that with such self-pitying resentment on 3 june at 0727? Ah diddums.

Pots·&·Kettles. Sticks·&·Stones.

You are a pathetic little loser, Shaw. Can't even be consistent to your own declared self-regarding principles, can you!?

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:05 PM

That's fine. I win.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:09 PM

"Could anyone tell me the TRUE cost of the Royal Family, not just the monarch and their immediate family but all the Dukes of this and that who get funds from the Government - Guest

Only two people get money from the Government - The Queen & Prince Philip.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: Stu
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:18 PM

I have to say T, that seems like a pretty half-hearted attempt to defend the atrocities I listed, that were perpetrated by the aristocracy and the monarchy; more like GCSE-standard propaganda than history.

Justifying the Harrying of the North? Shine on. Suggesting the Enclosure Acts were progress? Blimey.

Subject: RE: BS: Wonderful Jubilee celebrations
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 07 Jun 12 - 12:27 PM

Well, (and I think I may be post number 100!) to get back to the title of this thread, we in our village DID have wonderful Jubilee celebrations, and the children especially were thrilled with the activities on offer and their commemorative medals.