Charles III gets North Westerners money!

nadateturbe

*There are people of enormous wealth who have done, and are doing, far more damage to the UK than poor King Charles*
Irrelevant.

As the republican supporters are always boring on and on about the monarch being a waste of money, too rich, and head of a damaging class system I think my comment was entirely relevant.

I have yet to be persuaded that the monarchy in any significantly damages the UK.

Nadadeturbe wrote:-

" There are people of enormous wealth who have done, and are doing, far more damage to the UK than poor King Charles
Irrelevant. "

I guess so. However it's hard for ordinary people to understand the comparative incomes of the very rich whether they are commoners or landed aristocrats, especially as the very rich, aristocrats and commoners , keep these facts as secret as they can.

The royal family seems to work hard and efficiently , especially the late Queen, King Charles, and Princess Anne, and Prince William seems to be shaping up well.

The problem with the established elite , commoners and aristocrats, is inherited money together with subsequent complex investments tainted by big oil, cigarettes, and other nasty stuff. Inherited great wealth should be go to the state for the public good such as getting cancer care up to the same high standard as for instance Denmark's.

nadateturbe

On whether the Royal Family is good value for money, 75% of the over-65s believe they are, but only 34% of 18 to 24-year-olds feel the same. And while 80% of the over-65s want Britain to stay as a monarchy, that falls to 37% for the 18 to 24-year-olds.4 Sept 2023
www.bbc.co.uk › news
Generations sharply divided over keeping monarchy - BBC News

Perhaps it is more that younger generations are just not interested, as they were when they didn't bother to turn up to vote in the EU referendum, then complained vociferously when they didn't agree with the result.
Many of them probably have a complete lack of understanding and have given no thought to the ramifications of a Constitutional Monarchy -v- a Republic.

People are more revolutionary when they are young, they kick against the establishment as they always have, and become more conservative as they age. The current young revolutionaries will fall into the same pattern I’m sure.

Their views may change as they get older. I don’t remember being particularly interested in the RF when I was young. I recall the Queen’s Silver Jubilee being a good opportunity to do some decorating!

Germanshepherdsmum

Their views may change as they get older. I don’t remember being particularly interested in the RF when I was young. I recall the Queen’s Silver Jubilee being a good opportunity to do some decorating!

We had a street party, a good excuse!
DD won the fancy dress competition

Spot on, Casdon. My views today are light years away from those of my youth.

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?

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

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

Yes

All the young people I know are interested.

MaisieD boringly true.

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.

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?

Who made that argument?

Glorianny-it’s there in her post!

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.

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.

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

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?

Clickbait.

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.

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 . . .

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.

My suggestion was a compromise.

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