Raging Royalists

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
I know most of you won't give two-thirds of a flying **** but Jacob Rees-Mogg is perhaps the most knowledgeable person in the House of Commons with regards to the Monarchy and their finances.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=anb7BKIujtI

This is also informative: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/queens-finances-explained-you-need-3753404

Basically, the Queen's personal wealth is around £330 million and she can spend that on anything she wants, though she'll probably leave most for Charlie and other royals along with some charities. She voluntarily pays income tax on her personal wealth. She also owns the Duchy of Lancaster and voluntarily pays income tax on the revenue from this land even though she is exempt; she cannot do what she wants with the Duchy even though she receives all profits (around £12.5 million). The Sovereign Support Grant is what we pay in taxes (around £38 million). The Crown Estates are worth around £8.1 billion and before George III signed over this to Parliament, the Monarch owned this personally but he/she had to pay the salaries of public servants (the Civil List). George III got in debt and so signed it over in return for a specific amount judged by Parliament.
 
Last edited:
BIG JOCK KNEW! said:
What a complete an utter spastic.

Which "civilised" countries do you mean? North Korea? Russia? China? The various tyrannical despot hell holes throughout the world?

The most civilised place in the world is still Europe and you get more monarchies here than anywhere else.

Stick to making a **** of yourself, Russ. I might hang around here more often.
Click to expand...

Just piss off, no one's interested.
 
Bret Dilkington said:
Well, I'm actually in favour of elective constitutional monarchy where the monarch has some executive power in a non-partisan system with no political parties. At the moment, I'm satisfied with hereditary constitutional monarchy but I would like to see the other 'minor' royals cut off completely.
Click to expand...

I don't believe in power being granted on the basis of birthright. I don't believe in God so I certainly am not in favour of someone being granted power by God.
 
The only thing the monarchy stands for in 2015 is the unceasing imbalance between the classes that is inherent to British society.

Hereditary titles should have been left in the 20th Century, i.e the past, where they obviously belong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DevAdvocate
DevAdvocate said:
I don't believe in power being granted on the basis of birthright. I don't believe in God so I certainly am not in favour of someone being granted power by God.
Click to expand...

I agree. Pre-Christian Europeans like Germanic, Slavic and Celtic peoples used to elect their kings and chieftains for life. If they were poor leaders, they deposed and killed them and elected a new king. Germanic kingship in particular had three major roles for the king - high priest, high judge and military commander. I'm an agnostic so obviously I'm against religious aspect of the monarchy but I'm not passionately anti-hereditary privilege.
 
Bret Dilkington said:
I agree. Pre-Christian Europeans like Germanic, Slavic and Celtic peoples used to elect their kings and chieftains for life. If they were poor leaders, they deposed and killed them and elected a new king. Germanic kingship in particular had three major roles for the king - high priest, high judge and military commander. I'm an agnostic so obviously I'm against religious aspect of the monarchy but I'm not passionately anti-hereditary privilege.
Click to expand...

You probably guessed I am <laugh>
 
DevAdvocate said:
You probably guessed I am <laugh>
Click to expand...

That's fine, even if I don't agree with it. I think hierarchy is natural in humans just like other animals but obviously we've taken it to the extreme. All societies and civilisations have or have had hierarchy, hereditary or not. I think the injustice of the Monarchy in Britain is amplified because of the rising poverty. The Danes, Norwegians and Swedes are overwhelmingly and overtly monarchist but there's more social mobility in Scandinavia and the Scandinavian royals don't represent the rigid class system like ours do.
 
Pond Life said:
Bit of a sweeping statement, Bret. Which Germanic kingships are you alluding to?
Click to expand...

Pre-Christian Germanic kingship. The Frankish and Anglo-Saxon system of governance was markedly different and more autocratic than their Norse cousins. Frankish, Lombardic, Visigothic and Anglo-Saxon kingship was influenced by Christianity and so Roman methods governance were introduced as well.
 
Bret Dilkington said:
Pre-Christian Germanic kingship. The Frankish and Anglo-Saxon system of governance was markedly different and more autocratic than their Norse cousins. Frankish, Lombardic, Visigothic and Anglo-Saxon kingship was influenced by Christianity and so Roman methods governance were introduced as well.
Click to expand...

But do you not consider all Europeans Kingships, past and present, to be ordained by the power of the ding(sic)?

After all, a King can only be as strong as his people.

Just ask the early rulers of the Lemovii.
 
Slightly off-topic but <laugh>

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-332722197

Rwanda's President Paul Kagame has launched a scathing verbal attack on the UK government after the arrest of his intelligence chief.

In his first comments since the arrest, Mr Kagame said it was a continuation of "colonialism" and accused the British of "arrogance and contempt".
Click to expand...

He is accused of ordering massacres in the wake of the 1994 Rwanda genocide.

The president said that the British authorities "must have mistaken [Gen Karake] for an illegal immigrant. The way they treat illegal immigrants is the way they treat all of us".
Click to expand...


Aye all the illegal immigrants here are arrested under a EAW and charged with human rights abuses. <rofl>
 
Pond Life said:
But do you not consider all Europeans Kingships, past and present, to be ordained by the power of the ding(sic)?

After all, a King can only be as strong as his people.

Just ask the early rulers of the Lemovii.
Click to expand...

By 'ding' I assume you mean the assembly used by various Germanic peoples? Yeah, pre-Christian Germanic kingship was elective and all free men could vote for the royal candidates at the assembly. Officially, the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were elective but the Witenagemot more often than not elected the reigning king's son as successor. It was the Normans who introduced feudalism and made the monarchy absolutely hereditary. Norse culture had kings, jarls, karls (free peasants) and thralls (slaves) and sons could inherit their father's power and wealth but there was much more social mobility in Iron Age and Viking Age Scandinavia than Christian Europe. Even so, despite being ordained by God, Christian rulers had to have the support of the nobility and the serfs, though the serfs didn't have a voice in post-Norman England. The current Monarchy in Britain is legitimised by Parliament's consent and they represent us in a representative democracy. If the people want a republic, they will vote for a republican party offering a referendum on the Monarchy or its immediate abolition through Parliament.
 
This thread has become argumentative and educational. A first for GC <laugh>

However, I suspect Ponder and Bret are the same person. The chances of two people knowing all that useless ****e are pretty low <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: VenomPD and Deleted 1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back