Royalty the queen and her family.

Bridgeit

I keep banging on about, but you folks who prefer not have the RF don’t seem to give a hoot about the many many employees who would loose there jobs !

*lose

THE Queen has had her tax bill slashed by thousands of pounds for three Scottish shooting estates after making a successful appeal - The new rateable value (RV) for Balmoral Castle is lower than that of many pubs, shops and restaurants in the area.

www.peeblesshirenews.com/news/19100939.queen-gets-tax-bill-shooting-sports-balmoral-estate-slashed-lower-village-pub/

Thank you for the spelling correction Summerlove,

Thats disgusting Why would she do that as a caring monarch? How do royalists justify this?

Also should read Their jobs, not there jobs. So eager to post I have become sloppy with my grammar.

The dyed-in-the-wool royalists will be amazed to read that I don't think we can blame the Queen for this one. This is down to the bizarre land tax regulations in Scotland. If the Balmoral Estate is acting within the law, I don't see why we should blame it or her.

But we should do something about the land tax rules so everyone has to pay their share. She's not getting the benefit because she's Queen.

nadateturbe In the same way that any business can appeal the RV. Toward the end the article does point out that this is an equal right in any business. Balmoral is privately owned, the estate is run as a business and has broken no laws. This isn't a concession because she's the Queen. It's just normal business. The reason the RV is lower than many businesses in the area is covered in the article. Without Balmoral some of those businesses would be unlikely to exist at all.

Oh, and I'm not a royalist, just a realist.

Grany is just dogwhistling again.

Yes fair enough land tax rules.

As the UK faces what are probably the most challenging economic conditions in its history, the British royal family continues to enjoy the good life, amassing considerable wealth through generations of preferential treatment - necessary, it is claimed, to maintain the ‘honour’ and ‘dignity’ of the institution. Taxpayers fund the most expensive monarchy in Europe - at an estimated cost of over £345 million a year - plus the imposed costs to the economy of royal public holidays that can cost the economy literally billions of pounds. Despite the Jubilee flags and the cheering crowds, can the Windsor family maintain its privileged position in the face of unfolding economic crisis?
But how, precisely, is it financed? What are the 'Duchies' of Cornwall and Lancaster whose 'surpluses' provide over £45 in combined annual incomes for the Queen and the Prince of Wales - and who really owns them? What are the 'Grants-in-aid? Why has 'charity' become such a key promotional tool for the monarchy? Is it now time to regulate the commercial use of the royal 'brand'?

Poorly regulated by our unwritten constitution, members of the royal family have no legally defined roles. Despite potential conflicts of interests that may exist, they are exempt from the rules which apply to others in public life. Royal finance is, for many, a mystery, frequently misunderstood by the very taxpayers who fund this grandiose institution. Is it now time for a simpler, slimmed-down monarchy? And how much would a republic cost?

LIVING OFF THE STATE.

There are eight working royals

Fair play Grany I have to at least admire your determination and it does while away a boring afternoon.

Thing is, do you want agreement or argument? Unlikely to get the first, and don't like the second.

One thing I can guarantee you wont get is the removal of the RF.

You are swimming against the tide Grany, the same group of people are largely the responders on this thread, and 35 posts are yours. This is what the British public responded to the last yougov survey:
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/12/03/how-do-britons-future-royal-family-succession
The fact that the thread about Princess Eugenie’s baby’s name generated more responses in a few hours than this thread did in a day should be telling you something.

What it tells me Casden is that the RF are mostly popular with the over 50s, hence the interest on this site. As time goes by, and the queen’s candle burns down, I think people, especially younger ones, will be less supportive of her successors.

Greeneyedgirl You might well be right, the support for H&M seems to reflect an instinctive and evolving lack of interest in the monarchy as an institution. It appears to be much more about who they are than what they represent now. Personally I suspect the Crown knows it, hence 'stashing the cash' as it were. I don't think they will entirely fade in my lifetime though.

Or is it the indifference of youth? Another way of looking at it is that as people age they become more supportive of the Royal family, which is a completely different thing? Even in younger age groups there’s not a majority for republicanism, or anywhere near it.

Young people will support Harry and Megan because they are
seen as celebrities . I don’t see any other member of the family
as celebrities , not William and Kate even though the same age,

Casdon Could well be, I've certainly become more accepting of them/the institution as I've aged. It's hard to say really, the younger generation don't have the same kind of markers that fire up patriotism in the same way we did. Their parent's are unlikely to have fought in a war on the scale of WW2 for just one example. Their hardships may not lead them to identify with the symbolism of monarchy in a similar, supportive way. I don't know, I'm just pondering ( so I don't have to watch football! ?). I just suspect that our RF will go the same way as some of the European monarchy - there, but for aesthetic purposes only. Not sure I'll be alive to find out! ?

I read John Humphrys' article in the Mail, and totally agreed with what he wrote, but what was revealing was the list of comments underneath, most of them agreeing with him , and expressing disgust at H & M's behaviour, particularly Harry's.

Not bothered.

eazybee It's likely the readers of the Mail are of an older age group too - less inclined to understand the unquestioning entitlement of younger generations. It's extremely hard for many of us to grasp why their decision didn't favour duty and tradition, consequently it looks selfish and petty to those of us who grew up with duty and obligation running through us. To us it is. To them, they just want to be happy and that doesn't include 'giving' much to an institution that one of them can't comprehend and the other resents as being a the root of his mother's death. It's sad in many ways, but young people see it as their world now, with their rules.

Actually many of us who would get rid of the RF don't bother to keep posting our views again and again because we know you dedicated monarchists aren't going to change. So we tend to post our views and then leave things alone. It doesn''t mean that we support theRF.
I would think there are3 groups, 1 supporting, 1 against and 1 who couldn't give a damn.

I read some of Humphrey's article in the DM but lost the will to continue. I enjoyed him on the Today prog for years. I just can’t get agitated about the RF. I’ve drifted away from being committed to ending the monarchy. It’s partly influenced by recognition that the Queen dedicated her life to being what she believed the monarch should be and do. We may not always agree with her choices, especially in her role as mother, but she’s done her bit. Can’t help admiring that commitment.

So far as H and M go, my view hasn’t changed. I wish them well in their lives together. I feel it’s a shame he can’t continue eg with the Royal Marines but accept that’s a decision made. I hear Princess Anne is likely to step in. She will be a great replacement. H and M have lives to lead, a living to earn - good luck to them.

Who’s a dedicated monarchist trisher? Putting alternative points of view across doesn’t typecast posters like that as far as I’m aware?

Casdon

You are swimming against the tide Grany, the same group of people are largely the responders on this thread, and 35 posts are yours. This is what the British public responded to the last yougov survey:
yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/12/03/how-do-britons-future-royal-family-succession
The fact that the thread about Princess Eugenie’s baby’s name generated more responses in a few hours than this thread did in a day should be telling you something.

I didn't say anyone in particular was a dedicated monarchist Casdon however the assertion that Grany is somehow isolated is wrong. As is the assumption thathe posts on the Eugenie thread are actually abou the baby. They are mostly about the name and a boy who wouldn't eat soup!

I stand by what I said - Grany has been trying hard to keep her post going, and thee are a limited number of contributors supporting what she is asserting. I didn’t say she was isolated, I said she was swimming against the tide, which is not the same thing. If the yougov survey is right, she is. because the majority of people support the monarchy. I like to see the facts from both sides of the argument and make my own mind up, that doesn’t make me a dedicated monarchist - nor does it necessarily make anybody else who puts forward any other alternative perspective one either.

It’s only been up for a few hours, so best to wait until tomorrow to judge whether you think the majority of people on the Eugenie baby thread are pro or anti the monarchy, you can usually tell by the tone of the debate can’t you?

Actually many of us who would get rid of the RF don't bother to keep posting our views again and again because we know you dedicated monarchists aren't going to change. So we tend to post our views and then leave things alone. It doesn''t mean that we support the RF.
Exactly. Decided my time was better spent painting ? . But Grany is not alone.