King Charles’ Coronation: Yay, Nay or Meh? 👑

What us out of context is that you quoted something selective that didn't tell the whole story.

This is why we can't have a proper modern country. 😏

I'm not twisting anything.

I was adding part of the newspaper report below that which you quoted, the part which you omitted.
It gives a balance.

I'm a fairly pragmatic Royalist, I don't rage or rant for or against having a monarchy.

Papers show that civil servants believed the property would continue to be part of the “grace and favour” estate and be paid for by the royal household after it was handed over to the sovereign. However, instead they became part of the Queen's estate.

Andy Wightman, a Scottish land reform expert and former Scottish Green party MSP, said the house seemed to have been a publicly owned asset used to help the royal family’s employees or people associated with the royal family. He argued this was a public benefit. He said: “Since the property is now being rented out on a commercial basis as part of the king’s personal property portfolio, this historic understanding no longer has any validity. The king should pay a market price for the property to the government.”

Will you twist anything to pretend it was all above board because the Queen was involved?

Somebody gave the Queen a house in 1954. Everyone involved decided it was in public ownership. The Royal Household took over the maintenance in the 90s. Not the Queen, but the Royal Household. It somehow became the Queen's private property. The King now rents it out and claims the income as his own, personal money.

At what point will the willing subjects start questioning the fact that they bend the rules to suit themselves?

Germanshepherdsmum

It was given to the Queen in her capacity of monarch. It was a private gift, not a gift from a visiting dignitary. It belongs to the monarch for the time being.

Rather than pay for renovations and upkeep, the government handed over the responsibility of the house to Buckingham Palace.

Following on from what Andy Wightman said, it is reported:

A palace spokesperson said: “In the 1990s, at the request of the Department of the Environment, the property was handed back to the queen who took on the responsibility for its maintenance and upkeep privately.”

Annie RF, Charles whatever, amounts to the same thing, they all a choice of all the palaces, castles grand houses. Up the Republic.

Grany the royal family do not own Sandringham and Balmoral, unless the queen willed them to be shared by the family, I assume they are now owned by Charles.

Oh for goodness sake GSM

I'm sure you could make a good case, seeing as you were a high flying lawyer and all that. But the property was in public ownership, there was some jiggery pokery and suddenly Charles is renting it out and putting the profits into his own bank account.

Caesar's wife should be above suspicion and all that.

^ I don't want to see the coronation on TV but will look out only for protesters along the way probably on twitter.^
So . . . Like other posters on GN Grany, you will only look out for parts of the Coronation that you will enjoy.
You’re part of the majority!👏👏👏

It was put into the government’s control, not ownership, volver.

The RF own two properties Balmoral and Sandringham and quite big properties with vast amount of land. There are at least 20 palaces and castles grand homes RF use rent free or heavily subsidised by tax payer. Now we learn that Charles has jewellery, art, stamps and race horses ect lots recieved as state gifts so not theirs, somehow became their private property. We have learned a lot from the Gauardian heir investigative
journalism including King's Consent, he has a say in laws Charles exempt from and that benefit him financially. Charles is now a billionaire, no inheritance tax, money from two Duchies he and Wills both pocket by £40 million a year, money which should go to the treasury. He could pay for his own parade of £100 million plus photo of him for schools cost us £8 million. Glad there will be protesters. I don't want to see the coronation on TV but will look out only for protesters along the way probably on twitter. Time this whole farce was ended.

Government papers uncovered by the Guardian show that for decades the property was treated as a state-owned building and used as “grace and favour” homes for dignitaries and employees of the royal household.

the house was treated as an official gift when it was put into the government’s control in 1954.

Andy Wightman, a Scottish land reform expert and former Scottish Green party MSP, said the house seemed to have been a publicly owned asset

Then miraculously, it has become their private property again.

When it comes to land ownership law in Scotland, I wouldn't argue with Andy Wightman.

It was given to the Queen in her capacity of monarch. It was a private gift, not a gift from a visiting dignitary. It belongs to the monarch for the time being.

I don't even know the date of the coronation, so I guess I'm a "nay".

7 years old?

Where did I get that from? 🫢

Germanshepherdsmum

Pray enlighten us volver. It’s a house given to the Queen in 1953 by a private donor, converted into two flats. Not given to the State.

The house was given to the Queen when she was 7 years old and was regarded as an official gift. Official gifts are not the private property of the member of the royal family who receives them. Neither the King nor the Queen then “bought” the houses for their personal estates.

But the houses are now being rented out commercially as part of the Kings personal property portfolio.

Make of that what you will.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/18/king-charles-renting-out-edinburgh-property-given-to-mother-in-role-as-queen

Wonder how many of the ‘over 1000 protesters’ will be there because they have a day off work to celebrate the coronation.

Pray enlighten us volver. It’s a house given to the Queen in 1953 by a private donor, converted into two flats. Not given to the State.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s the property of the monarch for the time being, and therefore passed from the Queen to Charles. They can use it as they wish.

Nope.

Wrong.

Grany

Over 1000 protesters will be along King Charles coronation route I will be looking out for that. If BBC pan out they will be heard.

I just knew you’d be watching the coronation Grany. Those of us who are genuinely disinterested won’t, whilst you boost the viewing figures. Irony.

It’s the property of the monarch for the time being, and therefore passed from the Queen to Charles. They can use it as they wish.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s not a public property Grany. It’s a property which was given to the monarch. It wasn’t given to the State. Successive monarchs can do whatever they want with it, just as you could if it was given to you.

The palace’s policy on official gifts states that they “are not the private property of the member of the royal family who receives them.”

So not the Queen's property then. Just that her son fancied making some money out of it.

I assume that this is the property in Moray Place?

It’s not a public property Grany. It’s a property which was given to the monarch. It wasn’t given to the State. Successive monarchs can do whatever they want with it, just as you could if it was given to you.

Over 1000 protesters will be along King Charles coronation route I will be looking out for that. If BBC pan out they will be heard.

Callistemon

The quote marks was the quote from the Guardian. It begs asking the question or statement Is this corruption.
Plain facts nothing to do with propaganda you can agree that renting a public property for profit is right or wrong your choice but people should know.

Propaganda is what Volver said it is in reply to you.

Callistemon21

Grany

Thank you volver people do use quotes from newspapers as talking points for discussion especially on politic news thread

Is this corruption

"An elegant Edinburgh property that was given to Queen Elizabeth II in her role as sovereign, and for more than 40 years was managed by the UK government, is being privately rented out by the king for a profit."

From the Guardian, quote

I can see the difference between a quote from the Guardian and propaganda from Republic.

An elegant Edinburgh property that was given to Queen Elizabeth II in her role as sovereign, and for more than 40 years was managed by the UK government, is being privately rented out by the king for a profit.

Is a direct quote from the Guardian, a mainstream newspaper.

Adding Is this corruption as if this was printed in the Guardian is wrong as it is Republic or one of its supporters putting a spin on what was reported in the Guardian.

And a quote from the DM that is intentionally inflammatory and skewed, but has launched a completely disgusting thread blaming children for fleeing war and terror?

Can you see the difference in that?

That's propaganda.