StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rye wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:We could always topple the Royal Family and put Dubya on the throne. Isn't he distantly related?

Don't say that, not even in jest.

Aw c'mon. The longest we could get stuck with him is 8 years but if he was King you could enjoy him for a lifetime. You know he'd provide lots of entertainment while not being able to mess things up too badly.

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.

He could always choose a different name when he becomes king. No reason he has to be Charles III.

InnerBrat wrote: No, he just doesn't want to be Charles III. Charleses get beheaded.

Do you think his parents suspected something about him when he was born and chose the name Charles for some reason?

InnerBrat wrote:It's happened before:
George VI was Prince Albert.
George VII will have been Prince Charles.

I'm glad you knew the specifics because I was pretty sure that the name changing thing had happened relatively recently (last hundred years or so) but I couldn't remember the details.

InnerBrat wrote:

2000AD wrote:

InnerBrat wrote:If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.

Is this some weird precedent just to confuse people?

No, he just doesn't want to be Charles III. Charleses get beheaded.

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?

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?

That post made not a lot of sense, but:

OK, lets' scratch the revenue the Royal family bring in throuhg international interest. Let's ignore the hoards of tourists outside Buck Pal trying to grab a glimpse of Liz and Phil or the hoardes of international visitors in Sept 1997 or at royal Weddings or the internationals who buy into publicity like this and generate national income through media interest.

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.

We make more money from the Royals than they cost us, and quite frankly, if the worst they can do is have butt sex or smoke pot every now and then, then I'm happy to take that money.

I have to side with Innerbrat on this one

If the royals where suddenly 'non-royal', they would have a hell of a lot of money and freedom to expand on there finance base (I do not believe they can do so now).

They could literally become finical power houses that would make the major players on the world scence look like nothing.

Besides that, it's not like they have any power.

Charle's was making fudge? Big deal. Is this a surprise? Look at Camilia vs Lady Diana. Diana was a babe, Camilia could scare a Hutt

You figure it out

Do they have more money than Bill Gates?

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.

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'.

Superman wrote:Do they have more money than Bill Gates?

The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.

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'.

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?

InnerBrat wrote:

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'.

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?

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...
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.

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.

BoredShirtless wrote:

Superman wrote:Do they have more money than Bill Gates?

The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.

Her grandsons are also very wealthy in thier own right.

Darth Wong wrote: England, Wales, it's all the same.

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!

*ducks and runs away*

"All the more fun" they'll say.

InnerBrat wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: I would prefer William to be king..the thought of King Charles 3 does not have good connotations history wise.

If Charles ascends, he will likely take his grandfather's name become King George VII.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.
Perhaps all federal land in the USA shouldbe returned to the Native Indians?

As to money from Ireland..common practice of the day, and most of that was tax, and some would level the same accusation at the US now.
As to India, money from there whent to the East India Company as tax trade income ,after the British government took over the EIC, money accrued to the government of India to finance the British Raj, it most emphatically did not accrue to the Monarch personally or even the British government.

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.

False analogy, they are not Kings never will be and the state already gets some of their income in the tax take.

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.

It wouldnt end the British economy, but thats also irrelivant.

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.

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.

BoredShirtless wrote:

Superman wrote:Do they have more money than Bill Gates?

The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.

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.

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.

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?

Stuart Mackey wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote:

Superman wrote:Do they have more money than Bill Gates?

The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.

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.

I see a joke in there somewhere....

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

BoredShirtless wrote: The Queen has around 20 billion if you include her family jewels. Bill has about 31 billion.

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.

I see a joke in there somewhere....

Charlie has no jewels?

Gandalf wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

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.

I see a joke in there somewhere....

Charlie has no jewels?

No, that the Queens crown jewls are the property of the sta..bahh.. stupid Australain...

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Charlie has no jewels?

No, that the Queens crown jewls are the property of the sta..bahh.. stupid Australain...

The Queen's Crown Jewels?

That joke would only really work if she was a king, which she isn't.

InnerBrat wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Charlie has no jewels?

No, that the Queens crown jewls are the property of the sta..bahh.. stupid Australain...

The Queen's Crown Jewels?

That joke would only really work if she was a king, which she isn't.

Hey, Maggie Thatcher sure had balls, so anything is possible