On borrowed time - the royals

the Duchy must be brought under public control and used for the benefit of everyone.

I'm not telling anyone where I've hidden my Duchy honey, (on special offer from Waitrose) in case it gets confiscated.

nanna8

There certainly shouldn’t be any poverty at all in Cornwall with all that Monet floating around. Oh, I forgot ,it isn’t distributed but kept in one already rich person’s pocket.

It is second homes which are the problem in Cornwall, nanna8, not The Duchy.

Thank you Grany. Good post.
Charles was given special exemptions to prevent tenants buying.
The Duchy was set up to provide an income for the son of Edward III. It should be returned to the nation.

When the Queen dies, there will be such an outpouring of grief from our nationwide ‘pearly kings and queens’, that all the sympathy will automatically transfer to PC and his family. We will be blindly dragged along, even those now harbouring doubts about the heir to the throne.
My gripe (amongst others) is the hidden and obscene wealth the family possess. We as subjects have no idea of the scale of this, apart from the extortionate amount we are told about for yearly upkeep. And why did I have to pay through my nose (or my ears as my Italian friend says?) to trot round a section of Buck House?
Mary Robinson proved to be an excellent President in Ireland and I’m sure it won’t be too hard, out of our whole population, to find one decent person to do the job at a fraction of the price.
In the meantime, I’m vastly enjoying this soap opera, but that does not mean it makes practical sense at this stage of our history.

jacqrose

GranyRose15 We the people would get the person we vote for, just as we do in a general election. PC and William could put themselves up for it if they wanted to.

Don't be daft. That's not how it would work at all and you know it. There would be career politicians jostling into position from the moment they became parish councillors. They would all have the backing of a political party otherwise no-one could afford to run.
Police and crime commissioners were supposed to be non-political at the start but that very soon became a party race like all other elections.

But...they never had the right to buy in the first place, all that happened was that nothing changed. Nothing was taken away and nothing improved.

If y'all are going to report this stuff, report it honestly. A bunch of naive people bought leasehold properties on PC s land. More fool them.

NellG

But...they never had the right to buy in the first place, all that happened was that nothing changed. Nothing was taken away and nothing improved.

If y'all are going to report this stuff, report it honestly. A bunch of naive people bought leasehold properties on PC s land. More fool them.

I I thought leasehold law elsewhere had changed? Lots of things change - why should the Duchy be excluded from change? Divine right of kings?

I was commenting on the article someone posted a link to earlier. PCs involvement had been misrepresented. I don't have a dog in the race so I'm not invested in whether it should or shouldn't apply to the Duchy.

Alegrias: thank you for your response. These were great answers and I am learning a lot from reading them.

GrannyRose15 Why are you so against having a choice?

Making me laugh on here at how many are saying what a great job QE has done!!!! What great job exactly??
Probably most of these posters were amongst those back in those days/years following the death of Diana roundly condemning the same person.

I am, proudly, a live-long republican. Back in the past I twice refused an invite to attend so-called Garden Parties at Buck House.

This family is one of the richest in the world, and yet we, stupid suckers, still give them so much more money each year. Do not play the 'bring in tourists' card, it has been shown again and again (on here and elsewhere) as being totally false. None of the royal palaces appear anywhere amongst top-listed places that tourists visit, and our tourist industry would not be any the less if there was no RF/

However, I must admit that I find far more ludicrous is the House of Lords, which is at its largest at present than ever before. How on earth can we even consider we are are any sort of democracy when we are governed by a totally un-elected and untouchable second house, and an unelected and totally untouchable Head of State?

Oh Fran I think I ❤️ you xxxxxxxxx

I am one poster who certainly didn’t condemn the Queen following the death of Diana .

If an elected official had inserted into legislation a clause which gave them some financial benefit there would be huge cries of "corruption". But apparently the RF can do it and no one says a word. I'm starting to understand exactly what Royal privilege means. What I don't understand is why on earth anyone supports it.

Surely legislation has to be voted on by the HoC. No-one can secretly insert something. The whole of the HoC and the HoL would have to be complicit.What is this "secret" law, and at what point in the legislation process was it inserted?

Good question Elegran

Elegran

Surely legislation has to be voted on by the HoC. No-one can secretly insert something. The whole of the HoC and the HoL would have to be complicit.What is this "secret" law, and at what point in the legislation process was it inserted?

Conspiracy theories, Elegran?

I have no idea if trisher is talking about a specific part of any real bill, but of course the whole HoC and HoL don't need to be complicit.

Only a majority of the HoC would have to vote for it, and of course most MPs vote as their Whip tells them to so the Government of the day can push through any law it wants. And the HoL can only ultimately delay Bills, they can't stop them if the HoC really wants to push it through. (Reference: Prorogation....)

I doubt any person in power would include a clause in any Bill that says something like "Give me all the money" but they could certainly influence a government to include something that is to their advantage without being explicit. Of course a President could do that as well, but let's not pretend a Royal would never do it.

Alegrias1

I have no idea if trisher is talking about a specific part of any real bill, but of course the whole HoC and HoL don't need to be complicit.

Only a majority of the HoC would have to vote for it, and of course most MPs vote as their Whip tells them to so the Government of the day can push through any law it wants. And the HoL can only ultimately delay Bills, they can't stop them if the HoC really wants to push it through. (Reference: Prorogation....)

I doubt any person in power would include a clause in any Bill that says something like "Give me all the money" but they could certainly influence a government to include something that is to their advantage without being explicit. Of course a President could do that as well, but let's not pretend a Royal would never do it.

And sometimes what is not legislated for ie the status quo is allowed to continue, tells us even more about where real power lies.And then there’s implementation using legislation to allocate grants to particular constituencies or overriding a local planning decision for a mate. And finally the huge powerful Statutory Instruments which are neither debated nor voted on.

I think a lot of the things imputed to the RF at the moment come under the heading "If you don't like having these people as hereditary heads of state, you are prepared to believe they are capable of anything at all."

All suggestions welcomed, just post on social media and it will whiz around virally and become a meme.

Abandoning disabled relatives in sink institutions? (in a luxury nursing home, and a few generations ago, and not by a direct ancestor, but let's blame the current monarch just the same, and imply that they were thrown out of a palace and into the gutter)

Imprisoning a helpless bride in a palace and confiscating her passport? (so that she doesn't have the hassle of booking her own travel, and so that it isn't lying around her quarters where any nosy maid can have a good gander while she is making the bed)

Not imprisoning a randy (fully adult and answerable for himself) son and calling the police to come and get him?

Interfering clandestinely with legislation to divert state money to her own coffers?

Spending money on the purposes for which it is paid to her? (Money which was granted to the Sovereign for those purposes centuries ago in return for the surrender of he profits from land and property which were at that time privately owned by the then sovereign and gave them their income 85% of those profits now go into the state purse and 15% to the sovereign or the expenses of the job.)

Any further crimes anyone would like to add to the charge sheet?

Murder, anyone? Incest? Smuggling in sturdy peasant male heirs in a warming-pan to replace weak inbred aristocratic ones? Serving up roast peasant at state dinners? (No, that wasn't a mistype for pheasant. If you are going to throw all the wickedness you can think of at the Aunt Sally of the day, cannibalism is a good choice)

Elegran???

I think the objective factual evidence of the way the way the Monarchy ensures it benefits and/ or is not disadvantaged by laws that apply to the rest of us is bad enough on its own. I don’t need other rumours/ gossip about them to despise the institution anymore than I do .

Well said Elegran.

No surprises there suziewoozie

So could we have chapter and verse of this "objective factual evidence of the way the way the Monarchy ensures it benefits and/ or is not disadvantaged by laws that apply to the rest of us is bad enough on its own." then? Not just which laws but how the Monarchy ensured that they are benefitted by them? Who did they bribe, threaten or blackmail into making sure that they were excluded? If there is objective factual evidence then it is avaible for all to see.

Well let’s think of some calumnies thrown at anyone who gainsays them, shall we? Because all this comes under the heading of “They can’t possibly be in the right unless they do exactly as we say”

He's a bit dim, just like his mother.

She's just an actress. She's been planning this for years.

She’s a lying b** who’s only out for what she can get and probably wasn’t even pregnant.

How could they do this to the poor old queen and her ill husband?

Look at her living room, what is she thinking? (That one’s Anne, BTW, just for some light relief…)

The ability to believe the worst about people whose behaviour you don’t approve of goes both ways.