Charles III gets North Westerners money!

Tamayra

I agree it’s disgraceful
The Royals need to be left in the Middle Ages where they belong along with the feudal system

Yep!

It's not prejudice if it's based on reason.

Arguement is there to convince others Glorianny. You do not convince me that we have a problem with this area of our constitution, only that you don't like it. Why then should I really research what I'm not interested in?

If someone comes up with a viable alternative I would be interested in reading about it. However I am not interested in yet another culture war and that is all this appears to be. If I have time to worry at the moment it will be because our cash strapped council is trying to put parking charges in place in our small market town. That's an immediate problem and one I may be able to add some weight to.

I don't think you understand that you cannot make others agree with your point of view. I simply don't share your prejudices.

Maybe you should research the process by which a Bill becomes an Act of Parliament Glorianny. There are, and have been for many years, certainly before the late Queen came to the throne, Acts of Parliament which do not bind the Crown. There is a consultation with the monarch’s representatives in the case of proposed legislation and any changes which they wish to see are dealt with at Bill stage, before the Bill is passed by Parliament.

DaisyAnneReturns

^It's called an analogy^

Your comment about burglars may have been an attempt at an analogy Glorianny. If so it was a very poor one and did nothing to clarify (the intention of an analogy) the suggestion you made it your first paragraph.

No one had argued that it's OK for one family to manipulate and use their position, to influence legislation and create laws which enrich them personally. That is just a twisted retort to those who simply don't have your extremist views about the monarchy or don't think, as Maizie put it that the monarchy in any significantly damages the UK.

You are not arguing Glorianny. What you are doing and do again and again is attack the person because you don’t have an arguement against their view. It's Brexit all over again with the simplistic extreme. Leave the EU and all will be magically well, and, in this case, get rid of the constitutional monarchy and all will be magically well.

We certainly have many complex problems in this country but that surely tells you it will take more than dog whistle phrases and personal attacks to solve them - or have the last 13 years taught you nothing?

If you don't know that the late queen interfered in acts of parliament in order to have better tax conditions and little HR or environmental regulations for the RF and their properties. DAR then you should really research them.
The charities which are said to benefit from the money gained by the Duchy of Lancaster were not established until the late 1990s and early 2000, almost 80 years after the 1925 act enshrining the right in law. And as I said a commercial enterprise now earning around £20 million a year apparently needs a charity to maintain its historic properties. Surely such maintenance should come out of its profits?

I think the "aging into political Conservatism" theory has been shown not to be true any longer, Casdon.

People do, in the main, become more personally conservative in their habits as they live on pensions not increasing earnings. This is often out of need. I would guess those who once thought the Tory's stood for such habits would now feel they couldn't be further from them.

It's called an analogy

Your comment about burglars may have been an attempt at an analogy Glorianny. If so it was a very poor one and did nothing to clarify (the intention of an analogy) the suggestion you made it your first paragraph.

No one had argued that it's OK for one family to manipulate and use their position, to influence legislation and create laws which enrich them personally. That is just a twisted retort to those who simply don't have your extremist views about the monarchy or don't think, as Maizie put it that the monarchy in any significantly damages the UK.

You are not arguing Glorianny. What you are doing and do again and again is attack the person because you don’t have an arguement against their view. It's Brexit all over again with the simplistic extreme. Leave the EU and all will be magically well, and, in this case, get rid of the constitutional monarchy and all will be magically well.

We certainly have many complex problems in this country but that surely tells you it will take more than dog whistle phrases and personal attacks to solve them - or have the last 13 years taught you nothing?

I have always thought and said that when you leave school or when you are 18 then there should be a basic check line. so if you have your temperature, weight blood pressure etc checked so that later there is a base line to check against if you were suddenly ill etc , so it should be important for everyone to make the simplest will. Of course at 18 ish you will not have a lot of money etc to leave. However , as I have personally seen, in the terrible moment when a child is killed in an accident, to add to the grief and sadness no one knows what they wanted or would have chosen to do. Personally, I do not want to be forced into donating organs , I CHOOSE to do so, it is the small gift I can give. So if y ou have stated what you want to happen and if you have beliefs, wishes for your funeral etc then it is so important and such a help in a terrible time. when my husband died his corneas were donated and I received a letter telling me that two people now had sight because of this. It was a small cheering thought in a sad time and he was such a lovely person I knew he wanted to do this. So if we all began working life with this in place the natural thing would be to update it as life went on. That way you ensure your wishes are followed and you remain in charge of what happens. As I have lived my life being in charge of my own financial and health etc ., I have no intention of letting someone else decide after I have died!! So common sense is make a will, but do it properly. Solicitors make more money from sorting out badly written wills which can end up with little left after the charges are paid. More importantly I believe is to have a power of attorney. This is so important if you lose capacity to make decisions, whether this is from something like dementia or a stroke or an accident or whatever. If you do not have this then in such a situation it is a major problem for the person trying to look after your affairs and they can have to justify the simplest thing they may want to buy for your benefit. Of course it is to safeguard against someone misusing your money etc but my friend had to deal with her aunts care and the aunt refused to give any PoA and consequently my friend had to spend a lot of time and also money to have everything she did vetted by the public guardian or whatever they are called now. Every penny had to be accounted for so suppose she wanted to buy a small tv for her aunt in the home she had to still go through all the rigmarole and of course the cheap price or special offers would have gone by the time it was all sorted. So if you care only about the money even, then stay in charge of your own life and make sure you have got both done . (I hasten to add I am not a solicitor nor have any involvment in this apart from intending to remain the stubborn b minded person who will be in charge of my own life as long as I can,!!)

I agree it’s disgraceful
The Royals need to be left in the Middle Ages where they belong along with the feudal system

My suggestion was a compromise.

merlotgran

Does anyone know what happens in other countries if somebody dies intestate?

In Denmark the state gets the money, if anything is left once they have paid the funeral expenses and any debts incurred, by the deceased.

As far as I know, the same applies in every European country.

So make a will, if you have no legal heirs stating who gets anything you have to leave.

In the same way, any land not owned by a person, firm or corporation belongs to the state.

Trying to pretend it is anything else just shows how much the truth hurts.
So why don’t you understand that Glorianny?
Trying to pretend . . .

Mollygo

Who made that argument?

Glorianny-it’s there in her post!

I did, Mollygo.

We should be going after them, not the royal family, who don't harm the UK.

Clickbait.

Does anyone believe that , not only rich landed aristocrats , but also excessively wealthy commoners are ignoramuses who do not know the sources of their wealth?

Does anyone believe the RF and other landed rich aristocrats are ignoramuses who do not know the sources of their wealth?

DaisyAnneReturns

My point is that no one is saying what Glorianny suggests they are.

It is yet another example of people on the extremes of any argument making up "facts" to suit themselves. There are now several names that pop up on GN who only ever argue on the extremes - they don't seem to recognise the word compromise. I now just expect their "truth" to be lies so all they succeed in is not getting any real and relevant truths across.

It's called an analogy. It's a commonly used example in discussions.
Trying to pretend it is anything else just shows how much the truth hurts.
The RF have used their position (which is widely promoted as
being completely uninvolved in legislation) to avoid HR legislation, avoid paying taxes, and to acquire the funds of dead people to fund a commercial organisation which makes profits of over £20 million a year. If it isn't armed robbery it's the legal equivalent.
But some posters try to justify this by saying some people have money and do damage. Maybe they do but they are absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the RF.

My point is that no one is saying what Glorianny suggests they are.

It is yet another example of people on the extremes of any argument making up "facts" to suit themselves. There are now several names that pop up on GN who only ever argue on the extremes - they don't seem to recognise the word compromise. I now just expect their "truth" to be lies so all they succeed in is not getting any real and relevant truths across.

Who made that argument?

Glorianny-it’s there in her post!

Glorianny

So the argument seems to be that because there are some mega rich individuals who do harm, it's OK for one family to manipulate and use their position, to influence legislation and create laws which enrich them personally.
Isn't that a bit like saying an armed hold up is OK because there are a lot of burglars around?

Who made that argument?

nadateturbe

All the young people I know are interested.

A lot of the young folk I know are interested in the RF, probably more than we were, because of all the information on the Internet, whether it’s about the late Queen’s funeral, the coronation, Harry’s actions etc.

I hesitate to say all the young people I know because I know so many young people, and they don’t all discuss the RF.
Of those who do, some support the RF, some think it’s unfair that anybody has that much money (they don’t differentiate between the RF and other incredibly rich people),
and some are indifferent, feeling RF or no RF has no impact on their lives.
When I have asked some of them if they’d rather have a President we could vote for, their attitudes were coloured by what those we already vote for do.

MaisieD boringly true.

All the young people I know are interested.

Isn't that a bit like saying an armed hold up is OK because there are a lot of burglars around

Yes

Remind me when two and two started to add up to five Glorianny?