Prince William just inherited a 685-year-old estate worth $1 billion

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/17/2022 at 8:56 PM, RayC said:

That might be true? However, I find it hard to believe that tourists visit the UK because they think that they are going to bump into the head of state on their travels.

What on earth are you on about? The things they came to see are such as the palaces, the changing of the guard etc.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/17/2022 at 10:32 PM, jak2002003 said:

Did they pay inheritance tax?

 

Born into wealth, unelected and very entitled, and above the law....while huge percentage of the country living on poverty struggling to pay for their heating or food......sure they 'deserve it'. ????‍????

Inheritance tax IMO is a vile money grab by politicians, and unsupported by the population, but regardless, IMO the Crown and it's property belong to the people, so why would they be taxed on it?

[phetphet]

13 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Just give the castles back to the state. Charge double admission fees give all funds to poor.

 

Let Royals keep $10m. Put them in upmarket apartments.

The state already owns all the castles. I believe the late Queen only owned Balmoral and Sandringham personally.

[transam]

15 hours ago, RayC said:

You are incorrect. Edward VIII did get it. He was king and had all the constitution power that goes with that position.

 

The fact that an undesirable individual who - but for his choice of spouse! - can be elevated to a position of influence in the first place should be a cause for concern.

 

What more evidence is needed to debunk this ridiculous idea that some individuals - simply  because  of their birthright - will make more capable leaders.

Does a UK King or Queen "lead", I thought Parliament did that.....????

Who "Leads" in Russia or China, I thought a bloke.....????

[baboon]

^^

Can somebody interpret the above gibberish for me? Thanks in advance. 

[jak2002003]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Inheritance tax IMO is a vile money grab by politicians, and unsupported by the population, but regardless, IMO the Crown and it's property belong to the people, so why would they be taxed on it?

Yeah, right.  They belong to us?  So why can't we go and live in them or sell them?  

 

They belong to is but we can't have them lol. 

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Yeah, right.  They belong to us?  So why can't we go and live in them or sell them?  

 

They belong to is but we can't have them lol. 

You should put your case to the PM to live in Number 10 with her. After all, the citizens own that house too.

If not there you might have more success with the Palace of Westminster.

[RayC]

4 hours ago, transam said:

Does a UK King or Queen "lead", I thought Parliament did that.....????

Who "Leads" in Russia or China, I thought a bloke.....????

I don't know why you have brought the concept of leadership into the conversation?

 

My point is - and has been throughout - that in the UK an unelected monarch holds a position of constitutional power where they can exert influence. Imo they shouldn't.

 

You're right. The head of government in both Russia and China is a bloke. The presidents of both France and Germany are blokes. The PM of New Zealand is a woman ..... So what?

Edited September 19, 2022 by RayC
Clarity

[RayC]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What on earth are you on about? The things they came to see are such as the palaces, the changing of the guard etc.

I was exaggerating for effect. I didn't think that anyone would take my comment about tourists coming here believing that they would meet the monarch literally. Clearly, I was wrong.

 

Of course, tourists come to the UK to see the palaces, changing of the guard, etc,  just as they would if the monarchy was abolished. I'm not proposing that the UK adopt some sort of Khmer Rouge Year zero policy, merely that they are stripped of their constituental power and that doing so would have little effect (in itself) on tourism.

[transam]

3 hours ago, baboon said:

^^

Can somebody interpret the above gibberish for me? Thanks in advance. 

I can, what don't you understand...?

I could do it pictures if you like...????

[transam]

1 hour ago, RayC said:

I don't know why you have brought the concept of leadership into the conversation?

 

My point is - and has been throughout - that in the UK an unelected monarch holds a position of constitutional power where they can exert influence. Imo they shouldn't.

 

You're right. The head of government in both Russia and China is a bloke. The presidents of both France and Germany are blokes. The PM of New Zealand is a woman ..... So what?

Up to you, I have no interest in your type, but I will always be here for you.....????

 

Here is lefty Labour MP that agrees with you, he is that "sensible" he brought it up at the time of Queen's funeral...????

 

But I am not surprised, I hope Labour voters can see the idiots manning their benches... ????

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-mp-clive-lewis-breaks-102006040.html

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2022 by transam

[puchooay]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

I was exaggerating for effect. I didn't think that anyone would take my comment about tourists coming here believing that they would meet the monarch literally. Clearly, I was wrong.

 

Of course, tourists come to the UK to see the palaces, changing of the guard, etc,  just as they would if the monarchy was abolished. I'm not proposing that the UK adopt some sort of Khmer Rouge Year zero policy, merely that they are stripped of their constituental power and that doing so would have little effect (in itself) on tourism.

You were saying nothing of the sort. You are back tracking. Let's face it, thr monarchy never really use their constitutional powers anyway.

[RayC]

2 hours ago, transam said:

Up to you,

I'm not sure what is 'up to me'  but thanks anyway

 

2 hours ago, transam said:

 

I have no interest in your type,

In that case there's a simple solution: Don't engage with 'my type' on this forum.

 

2 hours ago, transam said:

 

but I will always be here for you.....????

That's very generous of you (especially as you have no interest in 'my type',  however, your needs are clearly much greater than mine so look after yourself firstly. If I can help in any way, let me know ????‍⚕️

 

2 hours ago, transam said:

 

Here is lefty Labour MP that agrees with you, he is that "sensible" he brought it up at the time of Queen's funeral...????

 

But I am not surprised, I hope Labour voters can see the idiots manning their benches... ????

 

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/labour-mp-clive-lewis-breaks-102006040.html

 

Seems a rather limited criterion for defining idiocy, but I agree that it's not the most astute piece of timing. 

[RayC]

16 minutes ago, puchooay said:

You were saying nothing of the sort.

My search for the omnipotent being ends! You clearly know what I meant better than I do.

 

16 minutes ago, puchooay said:

You are back tracking.

I am doing nothing of the sort.  I have been consistent in my argument throughout.

 

Frankly, I'm fed up repeating myself. If you are that bothered, all I can suggest you do is re-read my posts. If you find any inconsistencies in them, point them out.

 

16 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Let's face it, thr monarchy never really use their constitutional powers anyway.

Weekly audiences with the PM would suggest otherwise 

[puchooay]

53 minutes ago, RayC said:

1 hour ago, puchooay said:

Let's face it, thr monarchy never really use their constitutional powers anyway.

Weekly audiences with the PM would suggest otherwise 

That's funny. Even funnier is that you think those audiences are nothing more than tradition. 

 

I'd like you to share with us your experiences of the monarch over ruling any government decisions

Edited September 19, 2022 by puchooay

[RayC]

16 minutes ago, puchooay said:

That's funny. Even funnier is that you think those audiences are nothing more than tradition. 

 

I'd like you to share with us your experiences of the monarch over ruling any government decisions

That's the whole point. They may be something more than simply tradition. The monarch may try to influence the PM's decisions.

 

Yes, that is all conjecture on my part. But if that's not the case, why hold these meetings? I would have thought that the PM has enough to do without being obliged to troop off to Buck Palace every week. The PM's office can easily update the monarch's secretariat on current events if necessary.

[puchooay]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

 But if that's not the case, why hold these meetings?

Tradition. Plus the Queen enjoyed the meetings. She said so herself.

[RayC]

54 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Tradition. Plus the Queen enjoyed the meetings. She said so herself.

If that's the case, then I can't see the point. Surely the PM has enough on his/her plate without attending non-essential meetings?

[puchooay]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

If that's the case, then I can't see the point. Surely the PM has enough on his/her plate without attending non-essential meetings?

Oh dear. No pleasing some people.

[stevenl]

9 hours ago, puchooay said:

Tradition. Plus the Queen enjoyed the meetings. She said so herself.

So both pm and queen were spending 3 hours a week out if their busy schedules because it is so cute.

Nonsense.

[phetphet]

19 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Yeah, right.  They belong to us?  So why can't we go and live in them or sell them?  

 

They belong to is but we can't have them lol. 

For the  same reason we can't go and  live in or sell No.10 Downing Street or Chequers, or many other buildings. They are owned by the State (Chequers was gifted to the State) and used by the elected government of the time. Chequers as the official Residence of the Prime Minister.

 

Just as in the US, the White House is owned by the Federal Government and used by the elected president.

[transam]

20 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Yeah, right.  They belong to us?  So why can't we go and live in them or sell them?  

 

They belong to is but we can't have them lol. 

I really don't think you understand how things work in the Kingdom.

 

............................????........................????

[Rimmer]

Multiple off topic bickering and baiting posts removed

[jak2002003]

3 hours ago, transam said:

I really don't think you understand how things work in the Kingdom.

 

............................????........................????

I think it works like this....unelected, disgustingly rich people, who are above the the law, who's wealth came from invading other countries, killing native people and plundering their wealth.  These people socialise with royalty from Saudi Arabia who are basically evil dictators in a country that chops peoples heads off for not following their religious rules and where women's rights are basically zero. 

 

As for political parties...well the one in power now, they are corrupt, don't care about the general population unless you are a mega rich individual who gives money to them or provides some other dodgy advantage....while they sit back and happily let poorer people become poorer.

 

Think that is about how it works.  

 

The system is not working and wrong.   I do not know what the answer is to improve it, but it's definitely not King Charles!  

 

[puchooay]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

So both pm and queen were spending 3 hours a week out if their busy schedules because it is so cute.

Nonsense.

Are you Rayc in disguise? ????????????

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

I think it works like this....unelected, disgustingly rich people, who are above the the law, who's wealth came from invading other countries, killing native people and plundering their wealth.  These people socialise with royalty from Saudi Arabia who are basically evil dictators in a country that chops peoples heads off for not following their religious rules and where women's rights are basically zero. 

 

As for political parties...well the one in power now, they are corrupt, don't care about the general population unless you are a mega rich individual who gives money to them or provides some other dodgy advantage....while they sit back and happily let poorer people become poorer.

 

Think that is about how it works.  

 

The system is not working and wrong.   I do not know what the answer is to improve it, but it's definitely not King Charles!  

 

Oh dear. If you move any further left you'll fall off the edge.

[transam]

2 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

I think it works like this....unelected, disgustingly rich people, who are above the the law, who's wealth came from invading other countries, killing native people and plundering their wealth.  These people socialise with royalty from Saudi Arabia who are basically evil dictators in a country that chops peoples heads off for not following their religious rules and where women's rights are basically zero. 

 

As for political parties...well the one in power now, they are corrupt, don't care about the general population unless you are a mega rich individual who gives money to them or provides some other dodgy advantage....while they sit back and happily let poorer people become poorer.

 

Think that is about how it works.  

 

The system is not working and wrong.   I do not know what the answer is to improve it, but it's definitely not King Charles!  

 

So you think rich people are disgusting. Nobody can change that, if you are a lefty or communist. 

 

What country do you come from for comparison, just to get your bigger picture.

 

In your world, do soup kitchens take care of you, feel free to enlighten me/us...????

[RayC]

1 hour ago, puchooay said:

Are you Rayc in disguise? ????????????

???? No, sorry to disappoint. Two separate individuals who seem to have similar views about a number of issues.

 

One other thing that we have in common: We have both put forward arguments in this thread that you seem unable to counter????????

[transam]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

???? No, sorry to disappoint. Two separate individuals who seem to have similar views about a number of issues.

 

One other thing that we have in common: We have both put forward arguments in this thread that you seem unable to counter????????

Such as....?  ????

 

[puchooay]

16 minutes ago, RayC said:

???? No, sorry to disappoint. Two separate individuals who seem to have similar views about a number of issues.

 

One other thing that we have in common: We have both put forward arguments in this thread that you seem unable to counter????????

Oh, but I have countered but it is difficult to get across when some suffer from reading difficulties and can only see the bits they want to see and change their own comments like the wind.