Are the Royal Family losing their touch?

"Cromwell believed that ‘pointless’ enjoyment was a sin while sports and entertainment were banned - theatres and inns were also closed. Plain dress was also enforced."
"One of the most extreme examples of Cromwell’s Puritan rule was that Christmas was banned. He wanted Christmas to be a purely religious celebration in which people contemplated the birth of Jesus. Puritans viewed with consternation eating and drinking on Christmas day. Festive food was removed from the streets which meant that the smell of a roasting goose could also bring trouble, while decorations, too, were banned."

However, Cromwell himself did not live a life of rigid self-control. He enjoyed music, hunting and bowls. He even allowed entertainment at his daughter’s wedding.

My husband's group has agreed to play at a celebration. Two of then are republicans. I think it's hypocritical

Not much gas changed since then.

Oh has..
Not gas!

You really don't want me to make a cake ?

No, not humble. Not me. Not in front of la famille Windsor, anyway.

You're not really trying to explain Puritanism to a Scot are you? We're not keen on sex standing up in case it leads to dancing. ?

And no football. Takes you away from the archery practice.

And no football

You have to be kidding surely ⚽️
(Yes, I know you are)

Rangers?

nadateturbe

My husband's group has agreed to play at a celebration. Two of then are republicans. I think it's hypocritical

We're having French baguettes
?

Callistemon21

^And no football^

You have to be kidding surely ⚽️
(Yes, I know you are)

Rangers?

James I. The real James I, 14 hundred and something. No football (or more authentically, futeball)

Ah, got it.
Should I have known that?

I was thinking about tonight's match

I'm trying not to think about it. Penalties ?

You learn something new every day!

An extract of the Act said: “It is ordained and the decreed that the lords and barons both spiritual and temporal should organise archery displays four times in the year.

“^And that football and golf should be utterly condemned and stopped. And that a pair of targets should be made up at all parish churches and shooting should be practised each Sunday^ ...
^And concerning football and golf, we ordain that [those found playing these games] be punished by the local barons and, failing them, by the King’s officers.^”

Golf too.

Any fule knows that banning something makes people want to do it even more.
Just imagine trying to ban football or golf nowadays.

volver

I'm trying not to think about it. Penalties ?

Oh, was it?
I missed it (being out at a Neighbourhood Get-together party planning meeting)

I think there was a spot of trouble disagreement once before about cake baking. So I’m saying nothing at all, a bit like the ladybird. She said nothing at all if I remember correctly (What the Ladybird Heard by Julia Donaldson.)

Prince Charles and his wife Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall in Canada from May 17, as part of a three-day royal tour. Speaking on GB News, Royal expert Rafe Heydel-Mankoo discussed Charles and Camilla's short tour and how this is a "slap in the face" to the British monarchy.

Speaking on GB News, Mr Heydel-Mankoo said: "I think on the back of the visit to the Caribbean of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Earl and Countess of Wessex, and also given what we've seen in Canada over the past year or two in regards to the treatment of the indigenous people, we've seen the toppling of statues of Kings and Queens of Canada, setting alight of churches by indigenous people, I think there's going to be a certain degree of trepidation".

Mr Heydel-Manko said the short visit is a "case of the current liberal government in Canada not being very keen on the monarchy"

Royal book for schools

To clarify:

• Wales has a new school curriculum
• A historian whose work informs the curriculum read the book
• The historian concluded the book was incompatible with the new curriculum
• End of story

It’s would be deeply contradictory to hand out a curriculum-informing history book on one hand, and a book about a monarch with a dose of longevity that undermines the curriculum’s teachings on the other.

"...because they represent something that a lot of people object to. Not Britain, but elitism, unearned wealth, limits on democracy and hereditary privilege. At a time when millions are suffering from the cost-of-living crisis, they also represent a deeply unequal and unfair society. We live in a country that leaves many destitute while rewarding one family with hundreds of millions of pounds, two-dozen luxury homes and a fleet of private jets, helicopters and even their own train. And why? For no reason than that their ancestors stole power and land from everyone else.

Not everyone is facing a cost of living crisis

Sovereign grant has increased by 55% since 2012

And is £85 million can only go up not down

The basic pension for a single person was £5,587.40 in April 2012. It is £7,376.20 in April of 2022. Just saying.

I didn't know about the Duchy of Lancaster.
Until 1993 income from this was tax free.
I feel sad that people think this is OK. Surely we should pay the RF a reasonable income and everything they own from this kind oc inheritance should revert to the state. I'm no expert so maybe my view is simplistic.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

An interesting read, an excerpt....
As the Lancaster inheritance, the estate dates to 1265, whenHenry IIIgranted his younger son,Edmund Crouchback, lands forfeited bySimon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester.[citation needed]In 1266, the estates ofRobert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby,[16]another protagonist in theSecond Barons' War, were added. In 1267 the estate was granted as the County, Honour and Castle of Lancaster. In 1284 Edmund was given theManor of Savoyby his mother,Eleanor of Provence, the niece of the original grantee,Peter II, Count of Savoy. Edward III raised Lancashire into acounty palatinein 1351,[citation needed]and the holder,Henry of Grosmont, Edmund's grandson, was created Duke of Lancaster.[citation needed]After his death a charter of 1362 conferred the dukedom on his son-in-lawJohn of Gaunt, Earl of Lancaster, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten for ever.

Our future monarch.

www.hellomagazine.com/homes/20220526141278/prince-charles-duchess-camilla-royal-homes-portfolio/

nadateturbe

I didn't know about the Duchy of Lancaster.
Until 1993 income from this was tax free.
I feel sad that people think this is OK. Surely we should pay the RF a reasonable income and everything they own from this kind oc inheritance should revert to the state. I'm no expert so maybe my view is simplistic.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster

An interesting read, an excerpt....
As the Lancaster inheritance, the estate dates to 1265, whenHenry IIIgranted his younger son,Edmund Crouchback, lands forfeited bySimon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester.[citation needed]In 1266, the estates ofRobert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby,[16]another protagonist in theSecond Barons' War, were added. In 1267 the estate was granted as the County, Honour and Castle of Lancaster. In 1284 Edmund was given theManor of Savoyby his mother,Eleanor of Provence, the niece of the original grantee,Peter II, Count of Savoy. Edward III raised Lancashire into acounty palatinein 1351,[citation needed]and the holder,Henry of Grosmont, Edmund's grandson, was created Duke of Lancaster.[citation needed]After his death a charter of 1362 conferred the dukedom on his son-in-lawJohn of Gaunt, Earl of Lancaster, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten for ever.

Yes agree
nadateturbe The queen and Charles between them get £43 million from two duchies and £85 million plus Security ect that are not included in their financial report. Yes definitely agree the RF should be put on a budget a public body getting paid public money.

Debate Should we put the royal family on a budget?

www.1828.org.uk/2022/07/07/debate-should-we-put-the-royal-family-on-a-budget/

It’s incredible the twists and turns people will go through to avoid the obvious conclusion, that we need an effective, accountable head of state. Apparently instead we must protect our head of state from criticism. Absolute nonsense. #AbolishTheMonarchy

thetimes.co.uk/article/our-system-of-conventions-won-out-this-time-but-if-johnson-had-been-mad-as-well-as-bad-the-whole-edifice-could-have-fallen-bgsc5mszn

Thanks Grany. I'll read those soon. Been watching tennis.
I don't see how anyone cannot be disturbed by the details of how the monarchy acquired so much.

nadateturbe

Thanks Grany. I'll read those soon. Been watching tennis.
I don't see how anyone cannot be disturbed by the details of how the monarchy acquired so much.

And 16 million people living below the poverty line by 2023

From a Guardian article.

Newly discovered documents show government yielded to heir’s demands amid fears of a constitutional crisis

Prince Charles exploited a controversial procedure to compel government ministers to secretly change a proposed law to benefit his landed estate, according to documents uncovered by the Guardian.

Official papers unearthed in the National Archives reveal ministers in John Major’s governmentyielded to his demands amid fears that resisting the heir to the throne could spark a constitutional crisis.

For anyone interested this is the article.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/28/prince-charles-pressured-ministers-change-law-queen-consent.

maddyone

The basic pension for a single person was £5,587.40 in April 2012. It is £7,376.20 in April of 2022. Just saying.

I think you’ll find Maddy that the basic single state pension in April 2022 (assuming 35 years contributions non contracted out etc) is £9650 which makes it around a 70% increase on your 2012 figure (which I haven’t checked by the way)

Anyone without full contributions could be entitled to Pension Credit which brings their lesser entitlement to around £9500 pa.