Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 07:07 AM

Or Tena pants

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:59 AM

A prequisite of attending the funeral must be an extremely strong bladder!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:43 AM

The tea and butties at the end is the best bit of a funeral. You can take off your jacket, rip off your tie and undo your top button. What a relief. The last one I went to had a coffee bubbler in the corner. I drew off a cup and it tasted like rat poison. Good butties though. Egg mayo are my favourite. You have to wonder how long they've been sitting there, then decide to take the risk. The catering sausage rolls and mini-pasties should be avoided at all costs. Hope this helps.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:24 AM

Are the co-op doing the funeral and boiled ham sandwiches?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:16 AM

She won't be under the sod for hours yet. I think I'll go and sit in the beautiful autumn sunshine, which is what we denizens of Cornwall have got. Give me a shout when they're all in the village hall for tea and butties.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:11 AM

I got up at 5am for this. Lovely.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 06:02 AM

This is a global funeral, of a fine stateswoman who was respected by the whole world!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Sep 22 - 03:34 AM

Just Google anti monarchy arrests, Nigel.

Yes, I know you will say that they were not arrested for their views but for disturbing the peace etc. If you believe that, then I have a good investment deal for you. Just send me your bank details for a small deposit...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 10:27 PM

I am setting an alarm for crack-o-dawn. This is huge.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:01 PM

Nigel, it's late and I'm not very well just now. See you tomorrow!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 07:41 PM

Well some people have actually been arrested for expressing their republican views this past week! Good to know that you welcome such views being expressed, but such a welcome wasn't afforded to one or two people who held up anodyne little placards, or the protesters at the St Mirren/Celtic match...

No, I'm not alright with that.
Do you have details?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:56 PM

Incidentally, Nigel,

"You are, of course, welcome to your republican view."

Well some people have actually been arrested for expressing their republican views this past week! Good to know that you welcome such views being expressed, but such a welcome wasn't afforded to one or two people who held up anodyne little placards, or the protesters at the St Mirren/Celtic match...

You OK with that? Personally, I tend to keep my anti-royal views under wraps with my friends and family at a time like this, and I've decided that it's a sensible approach for me. But just you wait until next week...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:48 PM

How long will you give me, Nigel? :-)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:41 PM

Steve.
You are, of course, welcome to your republican view.
What happens from now on will show either that you're right, or that you have completely misunderstood the monarch (King Charles)

If time proves you to be wrong, you are welcome to retract your views.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:35 PM

Steve Shaw has been up front this last week and a bit spouting more bollocks than would be considered humanly possible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:13 PM

Charlie has been upfront this last week-and-a-bit, what with getting out of his roller at Buckingham Palace to kiss the crowds, etc., and keeping the charmless Camilla close to hand. We'll see a lot more of his upfrontery tomorrow and whenever he gets crowned. But he has the massive problem of not being his mother. He's shot his mouth off far too often about conducting symphonies in front of his bedroom mirror, his wacky adherence to homeopathy, his hypocritical "environmentalism," his desire to be Camilla's tampon and his ignorant interventions on architecture. Not to speak of his despicable and dishonest treatment of the gullible Diana. The Queen had none of that baggage and the monarchy was safe in her hands. His lack of charm and charisma, allied to all that baggage, is a threat to the monarchy. Give it a few weeks and I'm predicting an awkward fallow period for the monarchy, and he's hardly the man to not put his foot in it...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 04:52 PM

Big Al, The Mouse that Roared comes to mind. It's decades since I last watched it, so if it doesn't fit, never mind. :)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 04:18 PM

Have you seen Prince Edward's uniform?
Its like something from Ruritania.

Fuck knows what the world must be thinking about us. 'Over the top' is way back in the rearview mirror. And I'm not just talking about 'the establishment'. One's fellow citizens.....

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 03:25 PM

Would one of those ants be from Ant and Dec?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:47 PM

Strip me naked, smother my privates in honey and bring on the dancing ants rather than force me to watch either!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:41 PM

”I think everyone should be obligated to watch Love Island.”

For me, if it was a choice between Love Island and HM QE2’s funeral, the latter would win hands down.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:34 PM

Crown Estate

"The Crown Estate as a whole dates back from the time of the Norman Conquest.

In 1760, George III reached an agreement with the Government over the Estate. The Crown Lands would be managed on behalf of the Government and the surplus revenue would go to the Treasury. In return, the King would receive a fixed annual payment, which was called the Civil List. With effect from 1 April 2012, the Civil List was incorporated into a new system of funding referred to as the Sovereign Grant.

The Crown Estate is not the personal property of the Monarch. It cannot be sold by the Monarch, nor do any profits from it go to the Sovereign.

The Crown Estate is managed by an independent organisation, headed by a Board, and any profit from the Estate is paid every year to the Treasury for the benefit of all UK taxpayers. The Treasury is effectively the principle Government stakeholder and is kept informed of the estate’s overall business plans and strategies.

The Estates portfolio has a value of over £7.3 billion, from beef farms in the north of Scotland to Portland stone mining in Dorset. Windsor Great Park is the only Royal Park managed by the Crown Estate. All other parks are administered by the Royal Parks Agency."

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Acorn4
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:21 PM

I think everyone should be obligated to watch Love Island. Sorry. just trying to lighten the mood a bit.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:05 PM

Was that Ant as in Ant and Dec?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 02:04 PM

I don't know, I just quoted it! And I'm no fan of "obligated" either! I suppose a couple of [sics] might have been in order...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Manitas_at_home
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:55 PM

Obligated?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:38 PM

Steve,
So what's happening on Wednesday?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:37 PM

Now, if there was a clause that stated that income from the Royal estates was to be used to fund, for instance, the NHS, then your statement about the public purse may be true. As it happens though, it is misleading because that income is used ...

"entirely to support The Queen’s work as Head of State.

Dave, you may wish to re-read it.
I read it that the 15% (or 25%) goes to cover those purposes (i.e. entirely to support The Queen's work), the remaining 75% or 85% goes to the Treasury (i.e. us) and becomes part of the general fund which does cover government spending, including the NHS.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:33 PM

”The former boxer Carl Froch and the TV personality Ant Middleton both think that the whole nation should be forced to watch the funeral. Responding to a tweet from Nigel Farage declaring that Wednesday was "as solemn as anything you could ever see", Middleton said: "Every Brit in the UK (children included) should be obligated to watch the Queen's funeral as it will forever be a huge part of British history and further education!"

Hmmmm…echoes of 1930s Germany?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:28 PM

The former boxer Carl Froch and the TV personality Ant Middleton both think that the whole nation should be forced to watch the funeral. Responding to a tweet from Nigel Farage declaring that Wednesday was "as solemn as anything you could ever see", Middleton said: "Every Brit in the UK (children included) should be obligated to watch the Queen's funeral as it will forever be a huge part of British history and further education!"


Bwahahaha!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 01:12 PM

And, looking back at the history of the monarchy, Nigel, how do you suppose they came upon the Crown Estates? (No need to mention the slave trade, of course...)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 12:22 PM

They are not giving "us" anything, Nigel. The treasury decides what to do with it. Including increasing the percentage given to the Royals from 15 to 25 to pay for improvements to Buck House. Now, if there was a clause that stated that income from the Royal estates was to be used to fund, for instance, the NHS, then your statement about the public purse may be true. As it happens though, it is misleading because that income is used ...

"entirely to support The Queen’s work as Head of State.

This means that the money goes towards a number of resources which enable Her Majesty to carry out her official duties. These include: Royal travel for official engagements in the UK and overseas; the maintenance of Royal residencies which are used for formal entertaining and ceremonial events; funding for the work of The Duke of Edinburgh which supports and complements that of The Queen and salaries for employees of the Royal Household who support and administrate the work of Her Majesty as Head of State." (Source https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 12:09 PM

we will still be giving the royals almost ninety million a year to keep them in the manner to which they're accustomed
We will be giving them back only a part of what they are giving us by surrendering the income from the Crown Estates. This results in a net benefit to the public purse to allow money to pay for nurses etc.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 12:04 PM

"I imagine the long coverage of the ceremony will get a bit boring."

Well I for one will never find out.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Senoufou
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:54 AM

Husband and I have decided we won't be watching the Queen's funeral tomorrow on TV. He's kindly offered to come over and mow my two lawns, clear the gutters of roof moss and help to cut back all the perennials that are 'over', weather permitting. Then, he says, he'll drive me out to the coast (probably Sheringham) and we'll enjoy a little stroll along the promenade. Everything is closed all day (and I understand this is respectful) but we'd like to have a little outing.
I imagine the long coverage of the ceremony will get a bit boring.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:51 AM

So, Nigel, apart from the cost of all the last week's ceremonials, the funeral and the upcoming coronation, and the fact that Charles pays the taxes he wants to pay, and that he alone is exempt from inheritance tax (which would have been in the hundreds of millions) and we will still be giving the royals almost ninety million a year to keep them in the manner to which they're accustomed, a sum that King Chuckiebum doesn't want reduced, he's said...
In the meantime, millions of working people won't get paid tomorrow through no choice of their own, the kids will lose their schooling, operations and hospital appointments will be cancelled in their thousands and the nurses will still be going to their struggling food banks, though they may have to wait until Tuesday...

God save the King and God help the rest of us...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:26 AM

Stanron:
Quite right. The income was signed over to the public purse by HM Elizabeth II for her lifetime, and Charles III has already promised to do the same.
As Steve's quote from the Guardian states: Public finance for the royal household is paid as a fixed proportion of profits of the crown estate
So if the Royal household get more it is because the public purse is getting even more more.

The Guardian seems to be correct in its statement while leaving out important points which would make the above clear. (Just to answer Steve's Show me that it's wrong then. No, it's not wrong, just misleading)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 11:22 AM

Apropos of Bonzo's "tiny minority," this was in a piece in the Observer ("Young republicans speak out"):

"According to polling last year by YouGov, up to a quarter of all adults want an elected head of state, up from a fifth in 2019. But among young people, the figure is higher, with 41% of 18 to 24-year-olds wanting an elected head of state and 31% saying they would like to see the monarchy continue. The trend is mirrored in analysis by the National Centre for Social Research, which shows support for the monarchy is declining among younger age groups."

Hardly a tiny minority then! The article is worth a read, by the way.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Stanron
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 10:47 AM

Does not all the income from Royal Estates go directly to the Treasury before any Royal Grants are issued?

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Rain Dog
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 10:44 AM

More to the point Bonzo, show us this Constitution that you speak of.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:41 AM

Show me that it's wrong, then.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:38 AM

The guardian trash must be right!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:35 AM

From the Guardian website today.

The royal family stands to benefit from a huge windfall from the boom in offshore energy, potentially sparking a debate about funding the monarchy.

The Treasury has confirmed that an official review of the sovereign grant, which stands at £86.3m a year, is ongoing and is expected to come into effect from April next year. Officials say they want to ensure the funding is at “appropriate” levels.

Public finance for the royal household is paid as a fixed proportion of profits of the crown estate, the organisation that manages the crown’s public lands, including coastal and marine assets. These profits are now expected to rise significantly because of the drive by energy companies to harness wind power.

A Whitehall source said: “The review will take account of significant extra revenues that the crown estate expects to receive from the next phase of offshore wind developments – forecast to be several hundred million pounds each year while these projects are in development.”

The crown estate owns virtually all of the seabed around the UK to a distance of 12 nautical miles. The value of its marine portfolio is now worth £5bn, driven largely by demand for seabed leases for windfarms.

To them that have, it shall be given... (Matthew 13:12)

(Yes, yes, Bible scholars, I know...)

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 08:26 AM

Well if I'm in a tiny minority, the viewing figures tomorrow will be forty-odd million, the number of adults of voting age in this country (and, as loads of kids will also be watching, I'm bending over backwards here to allow you to prove that you're right!). Let's see, eh?

I'm sure that those nurses, and the millions facing near-destitution this coming winter who rely on the struggling food banks, won't mind if we splurge a few hundred million on the pomp and ceremonials, the policing, the reception for foreign dignitaries (not to speak of the cost of looking after them) and all the rest of this hoo-ha. After all, we do need to do it in order to prop up the ailing monarchy with the current charlatan at the helm...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Raggytash
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 07:40 AM

"You are in a microscopic tiny minority!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Not true Bonzo and more to the point you know it to be untrue.

About 30% of the population are not monarchists and that percentage is growing.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:55 AM

No, a very necessary traditional part of our Constitution, which, if you don't like it, bugger off. You are in a microscopic tiny minority!!!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 06:25 AM

Well I could have been saying that about Chelsea and Liverpool and their supporters, but, unfortunately, I won't be able to because the match has been postponed due to an upcoming huge, overblown and astronomically-expensive ceremony that been designed by the establishment to maintain the status quo regarding the monarchy.

In the meantime, I heard on BH on Radio 4 about nurses having to use food banks...

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 18 Sep 22 - 04:25 AM

Well done Glasgow Rangers and supporters.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 05:01 PM

Michael Rosen. Sorry about the typo. He's an absolutely lovely, thoughtful, sensitive and gentle man.

Subject: RE: Queen Elizabeth II / King Charles
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 17 Sep 22 - 04:29 PM

yes very nice poem