Charles III gets North Westerners money!

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,!!)

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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!

Germanshepherdsmum

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.

That's exactly what I said GSM. The late queen though undoubtedly used her representatives to change legislation. That isn't exactly what a constitutional monarchy is supposed to do, and certainly isn't what the RF has been sold to the general public as. The perceived view is that the monarch takes no part in government but is simply a figurehead.

It's not only that the RF is too rich or too feudal that is wrong. There must be a ruling elite in every society however
each ruling elite must be controlled by modernised laws . We really do need proportional representation to modernise the law.

It isn’t what you said Glorianny. You talked about interfering in Acts of Parliament. That doesn’t happen. Nor is legislation changed. There may be consultation at draft Bill stage - and not only with representatives of the monarchy. Your ‘perceived view’ is incorrect.

nadateturbe

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

Where is that reasoning? At the moment all I have seen is attacks on the King and our late Queen. They could no more have control over the position they were born into than a Jew or a person of colour can control being born with their heritage. It is pure prejudice. Royal or none-royal the Head of State is still a human being and all human beings are flawed.

This does not mean we cannot change our constitution if someone could put forward reasoned argument as to why changing it would be better for the country. If you want to convince others you need to make an arguement on constitutional basis, not the attack the person in a Daily Mail style slanging fest.

Telling people things "will be better that if ..." which are later discovered to have no basis in evidence is surely a lesson we should have learned from Brexit, Covid, Rwanda, etc., does not improve the country.

There has been plenty of reasoning, not just in this post. Republicans are entitled to their views without being abused. Republicans don't hate members of the RF, it's the system they object to

Nadateturbe,I agree.

nadateturbe

There has been plenty of reasoning, not just in this post. Republicans are entitled to their views without being abused. Republicans don't hate members of the RF, it's the system they object to

I think you'll find some Republicans do hate members of the RF, calling them parasites and worse. It is very much personal at times, not just the system that is criticised. Have you ever read any posts by grany or paddyanne on this and other threads?

Germanshepherdsmum

It isn’t what you said Glorianny. You talked about interfering in Acts of Parliament. That doesn’t happen. Nor is legislation changed. There may be consultation at draft Bill stage - and not only with representatives of the monarchy. Your ‘perceived view’ is incorrect.

Well it certainly isn't the uninvolved, simply a figurehead, constitutional monarchy it is sold as.
Does it really matter when the intervention happens? It shouldn't happen at all.

nadateturbe

There has been plenty of reasoning, not just in this post. Republicans are entitled to their views without being abused. Republicans don't hate members of the RF, it's the system they object to

No, there have been personal attacks on the King and the late Queen and a lot I've talk about them being rich.

If I have missed something please point me to the in depth discussion on how to change our form of democracy and our laws to pander to what was last measured in polling* as 26% of voters.

*YouGov September 04, 2023

Perhaps you should study constitutional law, as I have, rather than talking about ‘what it is sold as’. And yes, the stage at which consultation - not intervention - happens is significant. It is up to Parliament to agree or decline to pass a Bill.

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

It isn’t what you said Glorianny. You talked about interfering in Acts of Parliament. That doesn’t happen. Nor is legislation changed. There may be consultation at draft Bill stage - and not only with representatives of the monarchy. Your ‘perceived view’ is incorrect.

Well it certainly isn't the uninvolved, simply a figurehead, constitutional monarchy it is sold as.
Does it really matter when the intervention happens? It shouldn't happen at all.

Twisting words again Glorianny. Consultation and intervention are not the same thing as I'm sure you knew, even as you wrote it.

Parliament is supreme although I can certainly think of ways to ensure it remains that way that have nothing to do with Heads of State.

I'm not going to waste time repeating what previous threads have discussed in depth..
Criticising the wealth of the RF is not hate. I don't hate any of them.

I enjoy watching Heir Hunters on TV. Professional heir hunters search through a published list of people who have died intestate with unknown relatives and a substantial estate. They then search for relatives and help them to claim the estate. The programme gets quite exciting and intense at times. It also shows that efforts are made to trace family before money is taken by the Crown.

Caleo

It's not only that the RF is too rich or too feudal that is wrong. There must be a ruling elite in every society however
each ruling elite must be controlled by modernised laws . We really do need proportional representation to modernise the law.

I used to support PR, then l saw the effects in Israel and Scotland.

GrannyRose15

I enjoy watching Heir Hunters on TV. Professional heir hunters search through a published list of people who have died intestate with unknown relatives and a substantial estate. They then search for relatives and help them to claim the estate. The programme gets quite exciting and intense at times. It also shows that efforts are made to trace family before money is taken by the Crown.

Heir hunters charge a tidy sum for uniting any money with the rightful heir, I'm not sure of the morality of those earnings.

The relatives wouldn’t otherwise know about the inheritance and I’m sure the heir hunters spend a lot of time trying to trace relatives but reaching a dead end, so I don’t consider their charges are ‘immoral’. Everyone has to earn a living.

Germanshepherdsmum

The relatives wouldn’t otherwise know about the inheritance and I’m sure the heir hunters spend a lot of time trying to trace relatives but reaching a dead end, so I don’t consider their charges are ‘immoral’. Everyone has to earn a living.

Tes, there is that aspect. It’s better than the people who keep telling me that they’ll investigate to see if I am owed some tax.
I know they’ll take a percentage, but on small letters, they also say that I’ll only get some money if I’m owed more than their % cut.