Lyr Add: Royal Wedding (McLean)

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?