Lyr Add: Royal Wedding (McLean)

Subject: Lyr Add: Royal wedding
From: Jim McLean
Date: 13 May 18 - 07:01 AM

I once was a lady who knew her own mind.
I stood up for women and all of mankind.
But along came Prince Harry to make me his bride
So I knelt down before him and swallowed my pride,
    With a toorali oorali oorali ay.

I won't need to wait for a passport like some,
Prince Harry just whispered a word to his mum
Who spoke to Theresa and they all did their bit,
They Windrushed me a passport so now I'm a Brit.
    With a ....

My wedding will cost just a few hundred grand
For horses, policemen and soldiers so grand.
And some of the public will get an invite,
But bring your own picnic for money is tight.
      With a ....

No tax on our bedrooms, you've paid for our rent,
No mortgage or gas bills, not even a cent.
And soon there'll be babies, one, two maybe three.
I won't have to worry for EVERYTHING'S FREE!
                                       
      With a ....

I'll never be Queen, there're too many up front.
Camellia and Catherine both in the hunt.
So maybe I'll move to a wee Scottish glen
For Scotland will be a Republic by then."
      With a ....

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding
From: GUEST,Gallus Moll (away from home!)
Date: 13 May 18 - 07:20 AM

Thank you Jim....another great piece of social commmentary to add to your brilliant body of work!
Thank goodness for a counter to all the sycophantic sh*te and union jackism sweeping these islands; less up here than where you are, must be difficult ignoring it all down South!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding
From: Jim McLean
Date: 13 May 18 - 07:53 AM

To be honest, BGM, I'm not really aware of much Royal fervour here in North London, Highgate borders. It's mainly the press and TV who are pushing the wedding, I see nothing in the streets but I wouldn't rule out Windsor!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 13 May 18 - 03:25 PM

Good to see that ye cannae keep a guid songwriter doon, Jim!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 14 May 18 - 02:24 AM

Nice one Jim.

Dave H

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 16 May 18 - 02:19 PM

Like it!!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Pat Cooksey.
Date: 17 May 18 - 05:20 AM

Nice one Jim.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 17 May 18 - 07:06 AM

Not bad, except for "Prince Harry just whispered a word to his mum".

Tricky: she's been dead for some while. His grandmother however ...

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 May 18 - 08:06 AM

pedant.


Dave H

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Richard Mellish
Date: 17 May 18 - 08:55 AM

I can delight in being a pedant sometimes, but I don't count as pendantry pointing out that Prince Harry's mother is long (sadly) deceased.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 17 May 18 - 10:55 AM

Richard, thanks, your 'dead right' of course!!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 17 May 18 - 11:30 AM

Just change Prince Charles for Harry in verse 2.
Thanks again Richard.

I once was a lady who knew her own mind.
I stood up for women and all of mankind.
But along came Prince Harry to make me his bride
So I knelt down before him and swallowed my pride,
    With a toorali oorali oorali ay.

I won't need to wait for a passport like some,
Prince Charles just whispered a word to his mum
Who spoke to Theresa and they all did their bit,
They Windrushed me a passport so now I'm a Brit.
    With a ....

My wedding will cost just a few hundred grand
For horses, policemen and soldiers so grand.
And some of the public will get an invite,
But bring your own picnic for money is tight.
      With a ....

No tax on our bedrooms, you've paid for our rent,
No mortgage or gas bills, not even a cent.
And soon there'll be babies, one, two maybe three.
I won't have to worry for EVERYTHING'S FREE!
                                       
      With a ....

I'll never be Queen, there're too many up front.
Camellia and Catherine both in the hunt.
So maybe I'll move to a wee Scottish glen
For Scotland will be a Republic by then."
      With a ....

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jos
Date: 17 May 18 - 11:54 AM

... or keep 'Prince Harry' and change 'mum' to 'gran'.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 17 May 18 - 11:55 AM

Gran doesn't rhyme with some, Jos.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jos
Date: 17 May 18 - 12:04 PM

OK, Prince Charles it is.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 17 May 18 - 01:15 PM

is it Camellia --- of Camilla?

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jos
Date: 17 May 18 - 01:31 PM

Should be Camilla.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Pete MacGregor
Date: 17 May 18 - 02:56 PM

Sorry , I can't get beyond

Ah! ça ira, ça ira, ça ira
les aristocrates à la lanterne!

We're being too nice to these parasites.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 May 18 - 03:11 PM

Should be Carmilla, as in, ' Carmilla ' by Sheridan Le Fanu, [ Bram Stokers nephew ]

Dave H

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 17 May 18 - 04:15 PM

It should be Camilla but I'm not very good at Royal names!! I tend to call them by any old name.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 17 May 18 - 05:08 PM

Good to see this is provoking more interest as the day approaches!
Though you haven't specified a tune, Jim, it seems to me it fits to "Threshing Machine/Sweet Betsy from Pike".
And just to be completely topical, how about an additional verse re Meghan's Dad's various machinations? Might fit after v2?
"I hoped that my Dad might walk me down the aisle,
But he's let loose the cameras on his new wedding style,
He said it was all done in best of intent,
But now he's in hospital getting his stent.
Toora-loo, etc"

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 18 May 18 - 04:09 AM

Tattie Bogle, the tune is Villikins and his Dinah, also know to Scots as "The Wee Magic Stane" and to others as "A Soldier and a Sailer".
As to extra verses, good on ye, but I try to stick to the "truth" (?) and reports about Mr Markle are all hear say based on a PR machine. Who knows, maybe he isn't sick at all.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST
Date: 19 May 18 - 09:42 AM

Watched it and the music was superb.

Had a bit of a chuckle though considering the other big events of the day considering Wills being Patron of the FA. Brought to mind a verse of a Glasgow song I think is called "The Wedding". It starts:

"There's a weddin' in a wee church
Tae the side o' Glasgae Greem
Tween a lassie and a sodjer hame on leave
And there's roses and carnations
and white lilies for the bride
and her faither's got the shotgun up his sleeve


One of the verses goes

Will ye tak this wummin tae be
Yer lawful wedded wife
Tae stand by her until the bitter end
Ah for God's sake get a move on
And get this bloody ower
And we'll maybe get a pint afore the game.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: goatfell
Date: 19 May 18 - 11:40 AM

Great song

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 19 May 18 - 12:42 PM

Not wishing to venture below the line but to answer the following question which might be a bit confusing for a Yank put by keberoxu:

Subject: RE: BS: of dukes and duchesses
From: keberoxu
Date: 19 May 18 - 12:00 PM

Now all we need is a Duke of Lancaster
and they can re-enact
the War of the Roses.

No need there already is a Duke of Lancaster - She's commonly referred to as The Queen.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 19 May 18 - 03:01 PM

Thanks for the tune info, Jim!
As for "the truth" - who knows?!
Glad to see some other posts on this thread have apparently been removed!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,bradfordian
Date: 21 May 18 - 01:09 PM

Taken the liberty of a couple of minor alterations now the event is past tense.
Also replaced republic in last verse for independent because Megs would otherwise have no chance of being a queen. That ok Jim?

Royal wedding (Jim McLean)

I once was a lady who knew her own mind.
I stood up for women and all of mankind.
But along came Prince Harry to make me his bride
So I knelt down before him and swallowed my pride,
    With a toorali oorali oorali ay.

I didn’t have to wait for a passport like some,
Prince Charles just whispered a word to his mum
Who spoke to Theresa and they all did their bit,
They Windrushed me a passport so now I'm a Brit.
    With a toorali oorali oorali ay.

My wedding it cost just a few hundred grand
For horses, policemen and soldiers so grand.
And some of the public they got an invite,
But brought their own picnic for money is tight.
      With a toorali oorali oorali ay.

No tax on our bedrooms, you pay for our rent,
No mortgage or gas bills, not even a cent.
And soon there'll be babies, one, two maybe three.
I won't have to worry for EVERYTHING'S FREE!
With a toorali oorali oorali ay

I'll never be Queen, there're too many up front.
Camilla and Catherine, both in the hunt.
So maybe I'll move to a wee Scottish glen
For Scotland will be independent by then."
      With a toorali oorali oorali ay.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 22 May 18 - 03:54 AM

Hi Bradfordian, both words rely on wishes to come true. I'm a Republican and one relies on the other. Either word suits me but Republican is a stronger commitment as far as I am concerned. There may be Independence voters who are not Republicans but they wouldn't like the song anyway.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: banjoman
Date: 22 May 18 - 05:11 AM

It sickens me that we are now getting re-runs of the wedding and no doubt today will be headlined as the first public duty of the "Newlyweds" hosting a garden party at Buck House which I presume we are all paying for.
A great song which fits my sentiments thanks

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 22 May 18 - 06:02 AM

I went through the following exercise with another song on the "Folk History" thread - Errors, misinformation and inaccuracies detailed in italics. I know it the song was written and intended as a bit of a dig but it does show how "folk history" cannot be relied upon, not that this little ditty will have any legs at all - instantly, and thankfully, forgettable.

Jim McLean's Wedding Song

I once was a lady who knew her own mind.
I stood up for women and all of mankind.
But along came Prince Harry to make me his bride
So I knelt down before him and swallowed my pride,
    With a toorali oorali oorali ay.

I won't need to wait for a passport like some,
Prince Charles just whispered a word to his mum
Who spoke to Theresa and they all did their bit,
They Windrushed me a passport so now I'm a Brit.
    With a ....

My wedding will cost just a few hundred grand
For horses, policemen and soldiers so grand.
And some of the public will get an invite,
But bring your own picnic for money is tight.
      With a ....

No tax on our bedrooms, you've paid for our rent,
No mortgage or gas bills, not even a cent.
And soon there'll be babies, one, two maybe three.
I won't have to worry for EVERYTHING'S FREE!
                                       
      With a ....

I'll never be Queen, there're too many up front.
Camellia and Catherine both in the hunt.
So maybe I'll move to a wee Scottish glen
For Scotland will be a Republic by then."
      With a ....

Not really much left of the song that reflects reality, but that was never the intention of the composer of this little ditty.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 22 May 18 - 11:02 AM

I think GUEST:Observer is in denial.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 22 May 18 - 12:51 PM

Don't think so Jim. Do you want me to take you through them?

1: So I knelt down before him and swallowed my pride

Never happened pure invention and judging by what she said at her speech at the wedding she has clearly declared her intentions.

2: Second Verse
I won't need to wait for a passport like some,
Prince Charles just whispered a word to his mum
Who spoke to Theresa and they all did their bit,
They Windrushed me a passport so now I'm a Brit.

Meghan Markle's application was handled exactly like any other. The BBC did a report on the process the application process was begun in January 2017 - but never mind Jim never let details or the truth interfere with your attempt at humour.

3: Third Verse:
My wedding will cost just a few hundred grand
For horses, policemen and soldiers so grand.
And some of the public will get an invite,
But bring your own picnic for money is tight.

There have only been largely uniformed guestimates of what people think the wedding has cost - none of the costs guessed at have been confirmed by anyone. The major cost centres around security and ignores the fact that all the police and armed forces personnel present would all have been paid whether they were in Windsor or not. The traditional costs for a wedding were met by Prince Charles (Meghan Markle apparently bought her own dress). All 1,200 guests invited to view the wedding from inside the lower ward of Windsor Castle were given a "goodie bag" with a drink and something to eat - some are currently on sale on e-bay for £1,000 according to today's newspapers. Of the figures being bandied about wedding cost £32 million income over £100 million.

4: Fourth Verse:
No tax on our bedrooms, you've paid for our rent,
No mortgage or gas bills, not even a cent.
And soon there'll be babies, one, two maybe three.
I won't have to worry for EVERYTHING'S FREE!

This may come as a great shock to you Jim but, oddly enough, the vast majority of people in the UK do not pay tax on their bedrooms (IIRC you have to be in receipt of housing benefit before that applies). No taxpayer pays a penny for any property either owned by the Royal family, or the Crown Estate. As the entire Royal Family pay tax I dare say they also pay their household bills and everything is as free for them as it is for any other citizen. The total expenses incurred by the entire Royal Family are paid for from the incomes from The Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall (Very transparent, reported annually and fully audited - look them up). Once all those expenses have been met the profits from the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are fully taxed and contribute hundreds of millions to the Treasury each year.

5: For Scotland will be a Republic by then."

Dream on - if the SNP went for a second Independence Referendum today, they would suffer a greater defeat than they did in 2014. So far the SNP have failed Scotland miserably a fact that has not escaped the notice of the electorate of Scotland. On Brexit here is an example of the SNP idiocy: Scotland's trade with the rest of the UK is worth just over £50bn, Scotland's trade with the EU is worth £12.4bn - Guess which one the SNP feel is more important to Scotland? You got it the SNP opt for trade with the EU as being more important.

All the above easily checked.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 23 May 18 - 03:44 AM

RE: Point 3 in my last post.

According to Jim McLean's whinge.

And some of the public will get an invite,
But bring your own picnic for money is tight.

The truth of the matter:

" All 1,200 guests invited to view the wedding from inside the lower ward of Windsor Castle were given a "goodie bag" with a drink and something to eat - some are currently on sale on e-bay for £1,000 according to today's newspapers."

Yertis:

Goodie Bag Sale

Not bad eh Jim? Front row seats for a view of the arrivals plus a £21,400 bonus on top - care to write a verse about that?

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:20 AM

Dear GUEST:Observer, I think in this age of food banks, rough sleepers, homeless society it was a breath of fresh air to spend £30 million on a royal wedding between a couple of millionaires. I reckon the royal family, including Prince Charles, paid for some of it with their own money and I'm glad we gave them that money in the first place.
I suggest you write your own song in praise of that dysfunctional, extremely wealthy family supported by us who "let them eat goody bags" is seen as a magnanimous gesture.
The lies told by the Unionists in the last Scottish Indy referendum have been exposed. "Stay in the Union and we'll keep you in the EU" (?) and as far as Brexit goes Theresa May and her supporters argue that Scotland voted to stay in the UK and that vote should be respected. Scotland also voted to remain in the EU but that vote can be ignored. We shall be independent and my wish is to be a republic also.
I await your song (or ditty).

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 23 May 18 - 05:58 AM

Jim, why you persist in the lies and total misrepresentations I have not got the foggiest clue. Do you rely on such to provide the rather shaky base for your nationalist republicanism?

1. Please tell me when, there were no food banks (In one form or another), no rough sleepers, no homeless. Now what the Royal Family does for charities both domestic and international is well known and recognised, through their patronage they help raise hundreds of millions each year - what do you do Jim?

2. Please tell us all where it is confirmed that the wedding cost £30 million? In my post I went to great length to state that all figures reported were unconfirmed guestimates. As I also stated in building that guestimate the cost of the police and armed forces presence was included - those costs would have to have been paid irrespective of what was going on that week-end, so they are false costs.

3. Please tell us what money you, or any other tax-payer, gives to the Royal Family? Where the money comes from that pays for them is clearly stated in Hansard and in the audited accounts of The Crown Estate, The Duchy of Lancaster and The Duchy of Cornwall. Before members of the Royal Family pay their income tax the profit generated by those three property and asset management portfolio contributes hundreds of millions of pounds to the Exchequer - my guess is they all pay a great deal more in tax than you do Jim.

4. I do not think the Unionists did say Stay in the Union and we'll keep you in the EU, although I do note that you qualified that with a question mark. What the Unionists most definitely did point out to the Scottish electorate in the campaign before the Independence Referendum was the fact, backed up by both the President of the EU Commission and by the President of the EU, that if Scotland voted for independence it would find itself out of the EU, see the difference songsmith?. On the other-hand in the run up to the Independence Referendum, Alex Salmond lied to the Scottish electorate by persistently making the claim that Scotland would retain it's membership. With respect to any IndyRef2 I see the SNP no longer try to maintain or cling to this fallacy.

I feel no need to write songs about the Royal Family, I see that you for some reason do, all based on falsehood and motivated by hatred, envy and spite.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 23 May 18 - 06:47 AM

So, GUEST: Onserver, I still await your ditty defending the Royal family. I couldn't disagree more with you and have made my position clear. The facts are simple: a disfunctional wealthy family living off the backs of taxpayers, only there because of history rather than personal endeavour. Totally undemocratic where the unelected head of state is praised for keeping her mouth shut.
This is the song thread section so move your complaints to the section below or write me a song.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Johnny J
Date: 23 May 18 - 07:33 AM

Jim and everyone else is entitled to write a song even if some of us don't agree with its sentiments.

Also, we are all entitled to comment and disagree where we see fit. Whether or not this should be above or below "the line" here, I don't know? We're discussing a song though and it's sometimes difficult to separate everything between here and "General Discussions".

My view re the Royal Family, for what it's worth, is that a majority of people seem to want to retain The Monarchy and are obviously content to pay a proportion of their taxes towards this end. Many of them may be less happy with having to contribute to many other things including even things such as welfare, health, etc which we here would also consider to be very important. However, we live in a democracy and can make our views known in the ballot box providing that politicians give a lead. None of the major parties have been prepared to stand on a Republican "ticket" so far. They realise that such a move wouldn't get a lot of support.

As for who is paying for what, The Royal Family already have their own money and wealth. How they acquired it in the first place, of course, is also a contentious issue. However, what we pay for today is in terms of remuneration and expenses for duties they may perform and their security etc which is not the same thing as "keeping them" which is often implied. A subtle difference.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 23 May 18 - 07:39 AM

Of course you disagree with me Mr. McLean - you deal in lies and misrepresentation, I prefer the truth and the real world

From the thread below the line:

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Wedding
From: Howard Jones
Date: 23 May 18 - 04:50 AM

The £30m figure is pure speculation, and includes the private costs which were paid by the Royal Family from their personal funds. The taxpayer paid only for security - the costs have not been published but for William and Kate's wedding were £6.35m BBC News   This is roughly the same as what it costs the Met to police football matches in London (they were able to recover only 5% of the costs) over which no one bats an eye.

The Sovereign Grant is paid for out of the profits of the Crown Estate, which in 2016/17 yielded £328.8m to the Treasury. In the same year the Sovereign Grant was £42.8m. It is due to nearly double, but that is due to the exceptional costs of carrying out essential repair work to Buckingham Palace (which belongs to the state, not to the Queen, and the work would need doing whether it is to house the head of state or turned into a hostel for the homeless). There are additional security costs in addition to the Sovereign Grant of around £100m but the total costs are still less than the overall return from the Crown Estate.

My point is that this costs the ordinary taxpayer nothing, and there is more than enough surplus from the Crown Estate income to cover the occasional exceptional cost of something like a royal wedding. That's without the tourist income the royal family attracts, estimated at around £550m. There may be very good reasons for preferring something different over a monarchy, but the cost should not be one of them.

So Jim your - The facts are simple: a disfunctional wealthy family living off the backs of taxpayers, only there because of history rather than personal endeavour. - Is a total falsehood:

They do not live off the backs of taxpayers (they are taxpayers themselves, who pay a great deal more in tax than you do Jim)

They are there as Head of State by invitation of the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom and have been since the accession to the throne by King George I in 1714.

Best not talk about "facts" Jim until you find out what a fact is.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 23 May 18 - 11:21 AM

You're full of contradictions, GUEST: Observer, where did/do they earn their wealth? The Crown Estates and various Duchies should belong to the people, the royal family earn nothing. They pay tax on unearned wealth which they shouldn't have in the first place.
I'm still waiting on your song extolling the virtues of us paying vast wages to the Royal throng ... Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward .....

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Gallus Moll (away from home!)
Date: 23 May 18 - 11:40 AM

Dammit i just wrote a huge reply re Johnny J and Observer then couldnt post it!!! Hope i remember when i get to pc....
Jim, keep writing, yer sangs are brill!!!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Johnny J
Date: 23 May 18 - 12:11 PM

I look forward to your reply, GM.

Incidentally, I'm not particularly Pro Monarchy and if a majority wish to dispense with their services that's OK with me. Likewise, if they want to keep them, that's OK too.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 23 May 18 - 03:04 PM

What contradictions? Tell me Jim why should property, investments and assets belonging to others that have been managed by Government appointed managers since 1760, belong to "the people". By what right "should" they own it? The last Labour Government under the leadership of Tony Blair and Gordon tried to to get their hands on it - just as well they didn't - they couldn't even run the country let alone one of the most successful property portfolios in the world. Under management the £3 million debts the Government took over in 1760 was worth over £12 billion in 2016. It is the income from those assets that pays for the Royal Family NOT the taxpayer, so please stop endlessly stating something that is patently not the case.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 23 May 18 - 05:09 PM

The Royal family still don't earn anything, they are living on state handouts as you've just explained. Come on give us a song of praise for the Royal family, or is it impossible?

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 23 May 18 - 06:10 PM

The Royal family still don't earn anything, they are living on state handouts as you've just explained

Another shock to your system Jim. Just as there are vast numbers of people in the UK not being taxed on their bedrooms (You weren't responsible for that appalling and equally misleading and inaccurate Jockinese "humourous" song whingeing about the Bedroom Tax were you?) There are vast numbers of people and organisations who earn from investments and from property - if you are retired Jim and draw a work related pension, that is mostly likely where the company that pays you it gets its money to pay you.

The Crown Estate IS the property of the Sovereign.
For Tax Year 2016/2017 The Crown Estate contributed £328.4 million to the State so I cannot see where your claims about state handouts come from. Over the last ten years The Crown Estate has paid £2.6 Billion to the Treasury.

"Only fools and horses work" - an old cockney saying implying that if you're smart you'll find a way of making a living without resorting to hard graft.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 24 May 18 - 03:57 AM

So, according to you, the monarchy earns nothing from the Crown Estate or the Duchy of Westminster, monies that could go to the NHS or schools, police et cetera. Any pensions I have are the result of the years I worked but all the Royal hangers on haven't earned a penny from honest toil.
I'm still waiting for your song in praise of that lot but here's a wee song I wrote over 50 years ago when the Queen and Duke visited Germany. The first half is to Müss I Denn and that leads into the English Country Garden.

Did ye see Lizzie smile
In yon Anglo-Saxon style
And Phil the Battenberger clicked his heels.
They went steamin' up the Rhine
On wee haufs o' vintage wine,
But nane frame '39
'Twas a bad year for Liebfraumilch.

How many more did we have in '64
Of the English Royal Family?
The Queen she had four
With expenses for a score
Of the English Royal Family.
Margaret is doing her best
Trying to keep up with the rest,
Did she have a little girl or boy?
Did Viscount Linley have a brother?
Does it matter it's another
Of the English Royal family.
    Marina, time to change Marina.

The Duke of Kent believed
That his wife should conceive
For the English Royal family.
So out in Hong Kong
They increased the merry throng
Of the English Royal family.
But up in Scotland, here's the rub,
Guesse who joined the pudding club?
Princess Alexandria!
So princes, Dukes and Peers as well,
Help to increase and to swell
The English Royal family.
       Oysters, don't forget the oysters

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Andymac
Date: 24 May 18 - 05:03 AM

For goodness sake, OBSERVER (aka troll, it seems) has decided to have a go at a well-respected contributor here for writing a song about an event which has been all over the news. Why? What's got their goat? Talk about an OTT reaction.


As for a dislike of the desire for Scotland to be a republic, tough. It's a perfectly legitimate wish which many hold, just as your wish to maintain the monarchy is. I can disagree with monarchism without descending into personal insult such as "you deal in lies and misrepresentation". Don't claim it's about upholding accuracy, whatever happened to artistic licence?
The exact costs of the wedding may be unknown but we can still declare it a waste of public money at a time of unnecessary austerity.
As for your claim regarding Royal tourism- people come to the UK to see the buildings and experience the history: note that Versailles is the 2nd most popular tourist attraction in France- remind me again what happened to their monarchs?
The tourists don't visit because they might bump into the Queen or someone-there's as much chance of that happening as of me getting a bauble. You're confusing our outdated monarchy with a modern one, such as in Denmark.

I ask again, what has offended our anonymous guest so much that he/she is trying to shut down a discussion about a song?

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 29 May 18 - 04:03 AM

Andymac you asked me a question so I will answer

My post - 23 May 18 - 05:58 AM

Jim, why you persist in the lies and total misrepresentations I have not got the foggiest clue. Do you rely on such to provide the rather shaky base for your nationalist republicanism?

I feel no need to write songs about the Royal Family, I see that you for some reason do, all based on falsehood and motivated by hatred, envy and spite.

Jim McLean states that the taxpayer pays for the Royal Family - that is a lie, that is a misrepresentation, that the British taxpayer DOES NOT pay for the the Royal Family is a fact that can be readily and easily verified by anyone wishing to do so. But because Jim McLean wrote his song, which he, or other republican nationalists may sing, others in their audience less knowledgeable may believe that what they are hearing is fact - that is the way lies and total myths come to be believed. Artistic licence is no excuse, and never has been an excuse, for deliberately peddling lies to achieve a political end. Jim McLean and anybody else can hold any political view they like as far as I am concerned, as long as they do not try to argue, or promote, their case in word or song based upon lies in public that I can read or hear. In that circumstance I am perfectly entitled to take them to task over it - that Andymac is what freedom of speech is all about.

The exact costs of the wedding may be unknown but we can still declare it a waste of public money at a time of unnecessary austerity. - Thank goodness that you have acknowledged at least one fact. When you say "we" who are you claiming to be speaking for? What you are actually voicing is your OWN opinion, which on the day would appear to have been at odds with the hundreds of thousands who turned out to see it and the 1.8 billion people around the world who turned on television sets, i-pads and tablets to watch it.

As for your claim regarding Royal tourism- people come to the UK to see the buildings and experience the history: note that Versailles is the 2nd most popular tourist attraction in France- remind me again what happened to their monarchs?" - I believe the ONLY reference I made regarding "Royal tourism" was to the Burgh of Windsor on the specific day in question. To remind you, hundreds of thousands of people actually traveled to Windsor that day to watch the event. THEY spent THEIR OWN MONEY voluntarily to do so - what do you reckon the average spend per person for the day was Andymac? What do you spend on a day out to an event that you want to attend? (Travel/petrol/parking/food/drink) - right now multiply that by at least 900,000 - then tell me if the local businesses and the UK taxman didn't benefit from it. All available accommodation in the town was booked solid for about a week at vastly inflated prices (Most being taken up by international media organisations) please don't try to tell us that in terms of VAT, income tax the British Taxman didn't come out ahead - to do so would be rather idiotic.

As to differences between our "ancient" monarchy and, according to you, the more "modern" Danish version? Which is better known internationally? Which Heads up the second largest international organisation in the world? Which does more for international charities? Give you a hint it ain't Denmark.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 29 May 18 - 04:37 AM

GUEST:Observer you blew your case when you wrote in your penultimate post:

"Only fools and horses work" - an old cockney saying implying if you're smart you'll find a way of making a living without resorting to hard graft.

This sums up the royal family's position in your own words, QED.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 29 May 18 - 05:35 AM

I believe that the remark you refer to was given as a general statement in response to how the Royal Family make their money, i.e. how are they paid/paid for - short answer income from investments, exactly the same as pays any non-government work related pension that you already receive, or expect to receive when you retire. Another perfect example of people using their wits to make a living concerns two former secondary school maths teachers, who were married to each other. Back in 1990 they decided to put what money they had into property. They concentrated on buy and renovate to let and over the years they acquired a property portfolio that peaked at of over 900 properties (The husband stated that at no time did he actually know exactly how many houses he and his wife owned), only three of the houses they owned were outside the county of Kent. They obviously did not continue to teach, they made more than enough from what they had put their money to work doing. When they decided to give that up their property empire was worth over £70 million. Are you trying to tell me that they were not perfectly entitled to do that? Are you trying to say that what they did is dishonest or illegal?

Now after paying your tax and looking after your family what do you do with the rest of your income Jim, do you donate the bulk of it to charity like the Prince of Wales?

As far as work goes Jim, you could not keep up with the Queen's schedule for one week and she is 92 years old and still working.

But no matter Jim, you have made it plain for all to see, you will only ever see what you want to see. So maybe it is you who have blown your case. Truth will win out over fiction every time, simply because it can be proven.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 29 May 18 - 05:56 AM

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and disengenious by comparing working folk like teachers to the idle class of royalty, it won't wash. I will not be replying to any more of your trolling, convoluting posts, you have blown your case and no amount of long winded apologies for the Royal family interest me anymore. I'm sure Jacob Rees Mogg would be more appreciative of your correspondence. Cheers.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 29 May 18 - 07:19 AM

Some real facts of life Jim:

Who pays for the Royal family as Head of State - the profits from the income from The Crown Estate - not the taxpayer - the money is not, nor ever was the property of any British taxpayer. As the principle property and capital cannot be touched it is a permanent source of revenue that is sustainable.

Who pays for members of the Royal family (with the exception of the Prince of Wales and his family) - the profits from the income from The Duchy of Lancaster - not the taxpayer - the money is not, nor ever was the property of any British taxpayer. As the principle property and capital cannot be touched it is a permanent source of revenue that is sustainable.

Who pays for the Prince of Wales and members of his family - the profits from the income from The Duchy of Cornwall - not the taxpayer - the money is not, nor ever was the property of any British taxpayer. As the principle property and capital cannot be touched it is a permanent source of revenue that is sustainable.

Do other British citizens and foreigners living in the UK live from income derived directly or indirectly from investments? - Yes, millions of them. Any complaints or funny songs about them Jim?

Like I said Jim you refuse point blank to see or recognise the truth because it contradicts your point of view, and a very twisted ideology that obviously relies on lies and misrepresentations to sustain it - Big difference between you and me - I prefer truth over lies.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 29 May 18 - 07:53 AM

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and disengenious by comparing working folk like teachers to the idle class of royalty, it won't wash.

It "washes" very well Jim. I fail to see any difference at all. The Wilsons, the teachers I mentioned, when they gave up teaching and lived off the profits of their property portfolio (income from the rents they charged), they did exactly what the Government/Exchequer and the Royal family do in relation to the Crown Estate, Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall - no difference at all apart from scale:

Property portfolio worth £X generates £Y in income.
Property portfolio worth £X incurs expenditure £A each year (That £A will include whatever income is derived from those administering and managing the properties).
Profit from Property portfolio = Y - A
Tax income derived will consist of:
Tax from the net profit
Tax from those taking income from the profits or from wages paid for management.

In the case of the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall roughly upwards of £360 million in tax to the Exchequer each year.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Gutcher
Date: 30 May 18 - 03:11 AM

Back in the day, and it is not that far back, in the late 60s. Prince Philip complained long and loud that the royal family could not live on the    mere pittance granted them by Parliament.

Where did the revenues from the Crown Estates go in those days?

Here is all I can remember of a song from that time:---

Sing O Horo, sing O Horee,
The royal family are in penury.

Sing O Horo, sing O Horee,
Wee Anne upon the streets shall be.

The suggestion made was that she would not be spending her time picking up fag ends.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST,Observer
Date: 30 May 18 - 04:07 AM

An observation Gutcher - back in the day in the 1960s you say - that was almost 60 years ago. Of course the income from the Crown Estate existed then and it was paid directly to the Treasury. Parliament then had a debate as to what to grant as the Civil List to fund the role of Head of State. The annual grant covered some expenses associated with the Sovereign performing their official duties, including those for staff salaries, State Visits, public engagements, ceremonial functions and the upkeep of the Royal Households. Now THAT WAS taxpayer's money and only two people were entitled to it The Queen as Head of State and Prince Philip. The amount was generally set for a period of ten years, although it was reviewed annually. The last time the Civil List payment was set was in 1991 and the payment remained static until it was replaced by the Sovereign Grant in 2011. Income from the Duchy of Lancaster paid for all other members of the Royal Family, the income from the Duchy of Cornwall went to the Exchequer as Charles was too young and had not been invested as the Prince of Wales.

The Civil List payment by 2011 was totally inadequate (No other "employee" in the public sector in 2011 had been subjected to a pay freeze lasting 20 years). The Government was faced with a massive hike in the cost of the Civil List payment to cover essential and urgent repair and renovation works to "State" buildings - £365 million for Buckingham Palace alone - so as an alternative that did not waste Parliamentary time each year, they looked to the Queen's model (Costs taken from the Duchy of Lancaster) and replaced the Civil List payment with a percentage of the profits from the Crown Estate currently set at 15%. Unlike the finances of the country under the stewardship of politicians and the civil service, the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall are extremely well run and profitable commercial enterprises. It is a small percentage of those profits that covers the costs of the monarchy NOT the British taxpayer. I once saw a comparison of the costs per year of Heads of State:

UK Constitutional Monarchy - £60 million funded by The Crown Estate;
Elected President of a Republic (France) - £90 million funded by the French taxpayer;
Executive President of the United States of America - £1.5 billion funded by the American taxpayer.

I think that financially the taxpayers of the UK comes out of that rather well.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST
Date: 30 May 18 - 05:56 PM

oh ffs -- have you nuthin' better to do than pontificate, Observer? Spend all yer time cuttin' and pastin' irrelevant cr*p that no-one on this MUSIC and SONG discussion forum has any interest in?
- Many years ago those of us attending Jean Redpath's Ballads and Traditional Song class at Stirling Uni were told by a Scottish History lecturer and writer (interestingly enough an English woman- - an open minded one!)that for the facts of a historical event you went to the history books (well, facts from the point of view of the winner)but for how the people-- ie The People - actually thought / felt about what happened, the emotions, you went to the songs and ballads.
Jim McLean is an excellent recorder and interpreter of recent and some more distant historical events in tis country - and particularly from a Scottish perspective, I have been singing many of his songs for 60+ years (often without realising who the composer was!)
- I take extreme offense at the way you have been slagging off a man whom I hold in high regard.
So -- why don't you take all your cut-and-pasted comments down to your local, have yourself a pint of your weak warm ale and seek a like minded soul who might actually appreciate your ideas- - 'cos I don't think many /any genuine folkies want to waste their online time.
And -
if my comments have crossed the line and this thread gets closed down - great! But please 'Observer', don't join in any more folk music discussions!!!

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: GUEST
Date: 31 May 18 - 02:01 AM

And what are you doing GUEST other than pontificating? I don't know about you but I have learnt a great deal from reading the exchange that mainly came about with questions being put to GUEST Observer to answer. Those answers were given and having checked the points made those answers were correct. To state that the Head of State of the United Kingdom is a paid for by the British taxpayer, and reading the contributions by Jim McLean he definitely thinks that they are, is inaccurate and incorrect. As for the song? It is pure propaganda designed to misinform. You would appear to be firmly of the same political persuasion as Jim McLean - your remark about the Scottish History Lecturer is racist - and you forgot something:

"for the facts of a historical event you went to the history books (well, facts from the point of view of the winner)but for how the people-- ie The People - actually thought / felt about what happened, the emotions, (well the thoughts, feelings and emotions from the point of view of the losers) you went to the songs and ballads."

By your last remark it would appear that you do not subscribe to the principle of free speech, or only subscribe to it when it suits your point of view.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 31 May 18 - 02:51 AM

Sorry, but non-music discussion is open only to registered members. I'm moving this over to the non-music section, because the music part of this thread got left behind long ago.
-Joe Offer, Mudcat Music Editor-

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 31 May 18 - 04:05 AM

Thanks, Joe, a suggestion I made way up the postings.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Gutcher
Date: 31 May 18 - 01:37 PM

Most people would agree with the funding of a head of state. What annoys a large section of the community is the funding of all the hangerson of our present head.
Did Prince Andrew finally manage to get the noses of his two layabout daughters into the trough? I seem to have missed the outcome of that particular ploy due to the fact I only read the headlines in papers of articles dealing with royalty, the whole subject I consider being pap for the masses.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Gutcher
Date: 31 May 18 - 02:55 PM

I was looking forward to an immediate response from Observer---then I remembered you have to be a member to comment on a BS thread.

Joining would probably blow his cover as a member of a covert organization.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 31 May 18 - 03:57 PM

Finally got around to trying to reply- - then couldy find the thread! Shame the first part at least, featuring Jim's song and ability to paint word pictures, bring a smile to our faces after the wall to wall sycophancy and whipping up the masses, - should be returned to the Music and Song part above the line, with all the boring 'facts' / views below?
Ho hum -- -

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 31 May 18 - 07:30 PM

Agree with you Gallus Moll: whatever anyone's views on the Monarchy or Republicanism, it was an amusing song, even if maybe what another songwriter, TP, might have called a "short shelf-life song" after its topicality was passed. As with so many threads this has been monopolised by the same 4 or 5 people who just seem to lose the plot in their determination to out-gun each other, and actually lose sight of the original thrust of the thread.
Jim, I might not agree with all of your sentiments, but I still respect your songwriting.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jim McLean
Date: 01 Jun 18 - 03:53 AM

Thanks, Tattie Bogle. Lots of songs I wrote in the sixties were overtly political and could be described as "agit prop". They don't have a particularly long shelf life because of this but according to a letter I received from Winnie Ewing in 1970, they served their purpose in helping her to be elected.

Subject: RE: Lyr Add: Royal wedding (McLean)
From: Jack Campin
Date: 01 Jun 18 - 06:09 AM

It would be nice to see the song back above the line.

And since non-member pseudonymous twats aren't supposed to post below the line, shouldn't those posts here be removed?