Moderator: Edi
Rye wrote:Don't say that, not even in jest.HemlockGrey wrote:We could always topple the Royal Family and put Dubya on the throne. Isn't he distantly related?
He could always choose a different name when he becomes king. No reason he has to be Charles III.Stuart Mackey wrote: Unless Charlie says he will not be king, he will be king the moment his mum drops dead, dats da rule. I have to say I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.
Do you think his parents suspected something about him when he was born and chose the name Charles for some reason?InnerBrat wrote: No, he just doesn't want to be Charles III. Charleses get beheaded.
InnerBrat wrote:It's happened before:
George VI was Prince Albert.
George VII will have been Prince Charles.
How does George Foreman and his seven sons named George fit into this royal liniage thing? Charles would be better off keeping his name Charles because he could be King Charles in Charge I and show all those other silly European royals that he's 'in charge'. Now if they play Duke of Earl at the coronation, that would be peachey. I had a dog named Duke once, and i knew this guy named Earl....fat bastard, but both of them served far more purpose in life than a bunch of inbred stuffy self centered twits with castles and crowns and Jaguars and shit. How the hell can their lifestyle be justifed with all of the budget strife in healthcare and social services in the UK? Surely you'd get just as many tourists to visit the castles and whatnot without all the stuffy royals around?InnerBrat wrote:No, he just doesn't want to be Charles III. Charleses get beheaded.2000AD wrote:Is this some weird precedent just to confuse people?InnerBrat wrote:If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.
It's happened before:
George VI was Prince Albert.
George VII will have been Prince Charles.
That post made not a lot of sense, but:Col. Crackpot wrote:How does George Foreman and his seven sons named George fit into this royal liniage thing? Charles would be better off keeping his name Charles because he could be King Charles in Charge I and show all those other silly European royals that he's 'in charge'. Now if they play Duke of Earl at the coronation, that would be peachey. I had a dog named Duke once, and i knew this guy named Earl....fat bastard, but both of them served far more purpose in life than a bunch of inbred stuffy self centered twits with castles and crowns and Jaguars and shit. How the hell can their lifestyle be justifed with all of the budget strife in healthcare and social services in the UK? Surely you'd get just as many tourists to visit the castles and whatnot without all the stuffy royals around?
old OLD money. How much of it came from robbing the poor peasants 500 years ago? How much of it came from pillaging Ireland, India etc hundreds of years ago. I think much of that would be considered blood money. Regardless of wheter or not there were royals, there would still be flocks of tourists visiting Buckingham Palace and all of the other historical royal lands. I'm sorry, but it just strikes me as silly that people can be considered this elite high class and entitled to great wealth just because some god supposedly deemed them 'royal blood'.Innerbrat wrote:The Windsor family owe a Hell of a lot of land and have OLD money, on which they pay taxes. As the Royal family, all income that thpse lands generate (eg through tourists visiting the "castles and whatnot") goes straight to the Government.
If we were to depose the Windsors, they would still own that land, and they could use the revenue to expand their private income.
So...Col. Crackpot wrote:old OLD money. How much of it came from robbing the poor peasants 500 years ago? How much of it came from pillaging Ireland, India etc hundreds of years ago. I think much of that would be considered blood money. Regardless of wheter or not there were royals, there would still be flocks of tourists visiting Buckingham Palace and all of the other historical royal lands. I'm sorry, but it just strikes me as silly that people can be considered this elite high class and entitled to great wealth just because some god supposedly deemed them 'royal blood'.
nothing much you can do i guess. i just find the concept of 'royalty' in this day and age absurd, thats all.InnerBrat wrote:So...Col. Crackpot wrote:old OLD money. How much of it came from robbing the poor peasants 500 years ago? How much of it came from pillaging Ireland, India etc hundreds of years ago. I think much of that would be considered blood money. Regardless of wheter or not there were royals, there would still be flocks of tourists visiting Buckingham Palace and all of the other historical royal lands. I'm sorry, but it just strikes me as silly that people can be considered this elite high class and entitled to great wealth just because some god supposedly deemed them 'royal blood'.
What exactly do you want to do? Let them run off with their money and land and not pay the Government the revenue it generates?
Or claim the land back for the people it was stolen from all those generations ago, a la Mugabe?
There are many millionaries, landowners and bussinessmen in the E.U, and we don't make them all kings so that we can have a piece of their income. If the Windsors became ordinary citizens, they'd still pay taxes, create jobs, etc. The monuments, palaces, etc would still attract millions of tourists. It wouldn't be the end of british economy.InnerBrat wrote: So...
What exactly do you want to do? Let them run off with their money and land and not pay the Government the revenue it generates?
Or claim the land back for the people it was stolen from all those generations ago, a la Mugabe?
Her grandsons are also very wealthy in thier own right.BoredShirtless wrote:The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.Superman wrote:Do they have more money than Bill Gates?
You, sir, will have to be delivered to a welsh fiels one day in a woolen costume in the dead of night. Let's see how much you go on about anal sex after that!Darth Wong wrote: England, Wales, it's all the same.
"All the more fun" they'll say.*ducks and runs away*
Given the lenght of time he will be on the throne{not long given his age}, it will be King Charlie to the rest of us.InnerBrat wrote:If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.Stuart Mackey wrote: I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.
Just so you know, the British taxpayer makes more money out of the Monarchy than they give by virtue of the revenue of the crown lands going to the government in return for the civil list. The crown land revenue is something like three times the civil list or more.Col. Crackpot wrote: How does George Foreman and his seven sons named George fit into this royal liniage thing? Charles would be better off keeping his name Charles because he could be King Charles in Charge I and show all those other silly European royals that he's 'in charge'. Now if they play Duke of Earl at the coronation, that would be peachey. I had a dog named Duke once, and i knew this guy named Earl....fat bastard, but both of them served far more purpose in life than a bunch of inbred stuffy self centered twits with castles and crowns and Jaguars and shit. How the hell can their lifestyle be justifed with all of the budget strife in healthcare and social services in the UK? Surely you'd get just as many tourists to visit the castles and whatnot without all the stuffy royals around?
Land owned by the Royals evolved out of mideval holdings, Henery 8's nationalisation of Church lands, inheritance pluss conquest in the War of the Roses. In this day and age you cannot blame this bunch for the sins of an age where such practice was not a sin but expected as the Monarch was expected to run the nation out of his/her personall pocket, not the publics.Col. Crackpot wrote:old OLD money. How much of it came from robbing the poor peasants 500 years ago? How much of it came from pillaging Ireland, India etc hundreds of years ago. I think much of that would be considered blood money. Regardless of wheter or not there were royals, there would still be flocks of tourists visiting Buckingham Palace and all of the other historical royal lands. snip.Innerbrat wrote:The Windsor family owe a Hell of a lot of land and have OLD money, on which they pay taxes. As the Royal family, all income that thpse lands generate (eg through tourists visiting the "castles and whatnot") goes straight to the Government.
If we were to depose the Windsors, they would still own that land, and they could use the revenue to expand their private income.
False analogy, they are not Kings never will be and the state already gets some of their income in the tax take.Colonel Olrik wrote: There are many millionaries, landowners and bussinessmen in the E.U, and we don't make them all kings so that we can have a piece of their income.
It wouldnt end the British economy, but thats also irrelivant.If the Windsors became ordinary citizens, they'd still pay taxes, create jobs, etc. The monuments, palaces, etc would still attract millions of tourists. It wouldn't be the end of british economy.
To quote Baghot on the British monarchy it is "..a republic with the facade of Monarchy" and more to the point it tends to be a instituion that Britian wants, and the system is such that it does not matter much if the Monarch is a retard, as there are plenty of sane Royals who can be regent, as has happned previously.It's normal to be republican. I, for once, find the all monarchy thing outdated, unfair and most of the times silly. If nothing else, I would want to have the chance to elect the king, damnit! Or else I could end up with some retard who did nothing but be born of a King and that I would have to endure for decades.
I think you will find it is a lot less than that, I dont recall exactly however.BoredShirtless wrote:The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.Superman wrote:Do they have more money than Bill Gates?
That's why, traditionally, when you do such things, you go ahead and kill the royalist bastards. Saves a lot of trouble down the road. I mean, it worked great for France, right?InnerBrat wrote:If we were to depose the Windsors, they would still own that land, and they could use the revenue to expand their private income.
I see a joke in there somewhere....Stuart Mackey wrote:I think you will find it is a lot less than that, I dont recall exactly however.BoredShirtless wrote:The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.Superman wrote:Do they have more money than Bill Gates?
The Crown jewls however are the property of the state not the personal property of the Queen, the same is true of some of the palaces.
Charlie has no jewels?Stuart Mackey wrote:I see a joke in there somewhere....Stuart Mackey wrote:I think you will find it is a lot less than that, I dont recall exactly however.BoredShirtless wrote: The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.
The Crown jewls however are the property of the state not the personal property of the Queen, the same is true of some of the palaces.
No, that the Queens crown jewls are the property of the sta..bahh.. stupid Australain...Gandalf wrote:Charlie has no jewels?Stuart Mackey wrote:I see a joke in there somewhere....Stuart Mackey wrote: I think you will find it is a lot less than that, I dont recall exactly however.
The Crown jewls however are the property of the state not the personal property of the Queen, the same is true of some of the palaces.
The Queen's Crown Jewels?Stuart Mackey wrote:No, that the Queens crown jewls are the property of the sta..bahh.. stupid Australain...Charlie has no jewels?
Hey, Maggie Thatcher sure had balls, so anything is possibleInnerBrat wrote:The Queen's Crown Jewels?Stuart Mackey wrote:No, that the Queens crown jewls are the property of the sta..bahh.. stupid Australain...Charlie has no jewels?
That joke would only really work if she was a king, which she isn't.
