Royal George

[IC1967]

Sorry Billy, modified my original post, I always get mixed up between my left and right!!

You need to be very careful when modifying posts when Billy is around. It is something he gravely disapproves of.

[IDM]

The propaganda machine around the royal family has obviously done a very good job on you, Jucyberry, rtid88 and your kind. Wise up and smell the coffee. You are being taken for mugs.

Hang on, just because I hold a different opinion means I've been taken for a mug?  f**k right off!

Have you ever met any of the royal family?

And, remember the other thread on the police?  You clearly support the police wholeheartedly, but who do they see as their figurehead and swear an allegiance to?  The armed forces too?

To avoid any confusion, I will tell you that this is HM the Queen.  Now, these days the police and miliitary hierarchy do not take orders directly from the sovereign, they answer ultimately to the government.  The monarch as I said before is a figurehead, with no real power.

My point is Glyn, that the royal family is associated with all these attractions - take away the royalty now and you lose that link that all the history stuff has to the present day.

It doesn't seem to have hurt the Palace of Versailles...

You miss my point - that being that the attractiveness to foreigners of UK royal related historical places is enhanced because we still retain our monarchy.  Take the Tower and the crown jewels - they aren't just historical artefacts, they are still being used.  I know we will probably never agree on the value of the royalty, ad that's OK, but I think IC1967 is wrong to throw his accusatory labels about - something I don't see the majority of other posters who disagree doing.

[IC1967]

Hang on, just because I hold a different opinion means I've been taken for a mug?  f*** right off!

Have you ever met any of the royal family?

And, remember the other thread on the police?  You clearly support the police wholeheartedly, but who do they see as their figurehead and swear an allegiance to?  The armed forces too?

To avoid any confusion, I will tell you that this is HM the Queen.  Now, these days the police and miliitary hierarchy do not take orders directly from the sovereign, they answer ultimately to the government.  The monarch as I said before is a figurehead, with no real power.

You have been taken for a mug and it's far worse than I thought. The propaganda machine has done a right number on you. I haven't 'met' any of the royal family. The queen could come knocking on my door and I'd tell her to clear off. It makes me want to puke when I see all the sycophants who see it as the highlight of their lives if she so much as goes near them when she goes on walkabout.

The fact that the police and armed forces swear allegiance to the queen doesn't mean a thing. Again the propaganda has got to you. Swearing allegiance is purely ceremonial and you have no choice in the matter.

You seem quite happy that 0.6% of the population (the aristocratic elite) own 69% of the land. 69% ffs. Get a grip man. Tell that to your children when they can't afford to buy a house because the aristocracy won't allow housebuilding on their land. Land which has been inherited not worked for. This pathetic system is only allowed to continue because mugs like you fawn at every utterance of the royals. The royals are the head of this aristocratic monster and the head needs chopping off so the rest of the house of cards can fall down.

Off with their heads!

[IDM]

Completely off track again!

I have not acted sycophantly to royalty I just hold the opinion that there is a net economic benefit to their continued presence.  This is the only point I am trying to argue on this thread.

I have not said I like or dislike the family as individuals, in fact I have said I am indifferent to them.

I have welcomed other posters' opinions and their right to disagree, but you have repeatedly (and unsurprisingly given your track record on here) gone off on tangents and made accusations as to my beliefs etc.
I have disagreed (quite happy) with Glyn on the royalty issues on this thread, but he has not responded with unfounded allegations as you have. 

Shows a lot about you, doesn't it? 

I have also repeatedly said that I know that the monarchy has no real power, and I agree that the role in respect of the police etc is ceremonial, but how does that make me a mug?  I am not a victim of anyone's propaganda, especially not yours!

How the f**k you can conclude that I am "happy" about the land ownership issue that YOU brought up, I have no idea, as I have made no comment whatsoever on that debate.  Please don't draw conclusions on what you think that I think, when I have not given any evidence for you to make such inferences. 

How you can call posters on here "lefites" (even when those allegations are your opinions, unfounded on facts) when you state such a strong opinion on land ownership, which is quite a leftie view?  Now as far as I am concerned you can have whatever opinion you want on each issue, but to call folks one way then spout off similar, makes you a f**king hypocrite.

[IC1967]

Here's what you said, 'As for all the stuff about class divisions, that really went away after the 2nd world war, and the following decades'.

I disagree profoundly. To show my disagreement I informed you that the aristocratic elite (0.6% of the population) own 69% of the land. Your rather strange response was that this doesn't make them 'better' people. So due to your lack of a coherent response I stated that you seem quite happy with this arrangement. Feel free to enlighten us if this is not the case.

I have stated that I am an extreme right winger. However if the lefties occasionally get something right I'm not going to disagree just for the sake of it. I only disagree with lefties on 99% of things.

Indifference is not an option. You are for them if you are not against them.

[IDM]

Here's what you said, 'As for all the stuff about class divisions, that really went away after the 2nd world war, and the following decades'.  I was referring to peoples' attitudes in general - you don't get folks (in general) doffing their caps to the toffs, you don't have young girls looking for a career in "service".  That was the gist of my point.

I disagree profoundly. To show my disagreement I informed you that the aristocratic elite (0.6% of the population) own 69% of the land. Your rather strange response was that this doesn't make them 'better' people. So due to your lack of a coherent response I stated that you seem quite happy with this arrangement. Feel free to enlighten us if this is not the case. I was making no comment about land ownership at all, just that being rich and a landowner does not make anyone "better" than the average working man or woman - again, nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of distribution of wealth of which I have made no comment whatsoever, so how can you dare to interpret what my opinion may be????

I have stated that I am an extreme right winger. However if the lefties occasionally get something right I'm not going to disagree just for the sake of it. I only disagree with lefties on 99% of things. you can agree and disagree with what you like, but to call folks on here lefties with no real evidence, then to offer left wing views of your own that you do try and justify, is IMHO hypocritical

Indifference is not an option. You are for them if you are not against them.  Yes it is! It is my right to have whatever opinion I want.  I am indifferent to the individual royals - I do not know them personally even though I have met one of them, briefly, once, so I can only judge by their public personas, to which I am wholly indifferent.  I believe having the royalty is good for the country - isn't that ultimately what we were debating anyway? and I stand by that opinion.  I repeat, others may disagree which is perfectly OK.  Others, however, do not draw the same un-evidenced conclusions as you, nor do they bring up tangents such as land ownership.

Whether the other posters and readers to this forum agree or disagree with what you say, it is fairly obvious that you constantly try and twist things, what other folks say, and give twisted interpretations of what you think others believe.

Are you an MP by any chance?

[IC1967]

I was referring to peoples' attitudes in general - you don't get folks (in general) doffing their caps to the toffs, you don't have young girls looking for a career in "service".  That was the gist of my point.

To say class division is a thing of the past is wildly inaccurate. The lack of doffing caps and going into service is not proof. I produced compelling evidence that there is still an aristocratic elite. I proved this by showing that unbelievably they own 69% of the land. My evidence that there is still class division stands up to scrutiny much better than your spurious 'better', 'doffing caps', 'going into service' reasons as proof.

It is my contention that it is much more difficult to get this land back while ever we have a royal family as this institutionalises aristocracy and class division into our society. You and other royalists are allowing this reprehensible state of affairs either by your indifference or whole hearted support for royalty. You and others that feel this way need to engage brain and wake up and smell the coffee.

[IC1967]

I was making no comment about land ownership at all, just that being rich and a landowner does not make anyone "better" than the average working man or woman - again, nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of distribution of wealth of which I have made no comment whatsoever, so how can you dare to interpret what my opinion may be????

I made the comment about land ownership to prove to you that there is still class division as this land is owned by the aristocratic elite which is headed by the royal family. I interpret your opinion because you seem reticent to state what it is even when asked to do so. Come on man. Get off the fence and let us know what you really think. It's very difficult debating with someone that vacillates so much.

[Wild Rover]

Not so sure that owning land shows "Aristocratic Elite", after all, is the Church ( whatever denomination ) not the largest land owner in UK.

[IC1967]

you can agree and disagree with what you like, but to call folks on here lefties with no real evidence, then to offer left wing views of your own that you do try and justify, is IMHO hypocritical

No real evidence? Get a grip man. It's obvious to any right minded person that this forum is dominated by lefties. I'm 99% extreme right wing and 1% leftie. It's not as black and white as you would have us believe.

[Filo]

House many houses do you own Mick?

[IC1967]

Not so sure that owning land shows "Aristocratic Elite", after all, is the Church ( whatever denomination ) not the largest land owner in UK.

No it isn't. I refer you to my previous post which shows the evidence for my claim.

[IC1967]

House many houses do you own Mick?

 

Not as many as prince Charles. The difference is that I worked and saved the money to buy my properties. Charlie just inherited his.

[IDM]

Yet again you are labelling me, and drawing conclusions.

About land ownership, I have not made any claims as to the rights or wrongs of it, my point is about people's attitudes not how much land they own...  Therefore I see no reason to engage in a debate about land ownership itself.  And as I don't give an opinion on that, please don't draw conclusions based upon your suppositions.

You also have a habit of claiming your opinions as proofs, when I just offer an opinion and don't claim any proof.  Where I offer no opinion, that proves nothing!

you can agree and disagree with what you like, but to call folks on here lefties with no real evidence, then to offer left wing views of your own that you do try and justify, is IMHO hypocritical

No real evidence? Get a grip man. It's obvious to any right minded person that this forum is dominated by lefties. I'm 99% extreme right wing and 1% leftie. It's not as black and white as you would have us believe.

Oh and by the way, you are happy to justify your own partially leftie stance, yet you have no idea how much of a left wing/right wing stance others have in the totality of their opinions, you just judge folks on individual opinions ie in the police thread.

[IDM]

https://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofThePrinceofWales.aspx

Seen as IC1967 brought up Prince Charles, here are some quotes:

The Prince of Wales's life and work are funded predominantly by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince of Wales does not receive money from the Civil List, but the Grants-in-Aid paid to The Queen's Household are used, in part, to support His Royal Highness's official activities.

Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).

His Royal Highness receives the annual net surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall and chooses to use a large proportion of the income to meet the cost of his public and charitable work.

The Prince also uses part of the income to meet the costs of his private life and those of his wife, The Duchess of Cornwall, and his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.

The Duchy is tax exempt, but The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays income tax at the highest rate on his taxable income from it.

And before you reply with some twisted interpretation of my post, please note that I have drawn no conclusion from the above link and quotes, nor agreed or disagreed, just provided the information for others to read and make their own opinions....

[Filo]

House many houses do you own Mick?

 

Not as many as prince Charles. The difference is that I worked and saved the money to buy my properties. Charlie just inherited his.

What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?

[IC1967]

Yes it is! It is my right to have whatever opinion I want.  I am indifferent to the individual royals - I do not know them personally even though I have met one of them, briefly, once, so I can only judge by their public personas, to which I am wholly indifferent.  I believe having the royalty is good for the country - isn't that ultimately what we were debating anyway? and I stand by that opinion.  I repeat, others may disagree which is perfectly OK.  Others, however, do not draw the same un-evidenced conclusions as you, nor do they bring up tangents such as land ownership.

Being indifferent is not having an opinion. You may believe having a royal family is good for the country so it is my job to prove to you that they are not. I have done this extremely well but unfortunately you are still indifferent. I have produced evidence. It is you that is going off at a tangent with your doffing caps statement and the like. I'm amazed you think 0.6% of the population owning 69% of the land is not evidence of an aristocratic elite and class division that leaves your argument in tatters.

[IC1967]

What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?

I will sell them before I die and spend all the money trying to keep the economy going. No way will my children inherit. I want them to stand on their own two feet and make their own way in life.

[IDM]

Yes it is! It is my right to have whatever opinion I want.  I am indifferent to the individual royals - I do not know them personally even though I have met one of them, briefly, once, so I can only judge by their public personas, to which I am wholly indifferent.  I believe having the royalty is good for the country - isn't that ultimately what we were debating anyway? and I stand by that opinion.  I repeat, others may disagree which is perfectly OK.  Others, however, do not draw the same un-evidenced conclusions as you, nor do they bring up tangents such as land ownership.

Being indifferent is not having an opinion. You may believe having a royal family is good for the country so it is my job to prove to you that they are not. I have done this extremely well but unfortunately you are still indifferent. I have produced evidence. It is you that is going off at a tangent with your doffing caps statement and the like. I'm amazed you think 0.6% of the population owning 69% of the land is not evidence of an aristocratic elite and class division that leaves your argument in tatters.

FFS...

There are two debates there - the benefit of the royal family, and the land ownership issue which you brought up later.

I do not want to engage in a debate on land ownership, isn't that 3 times I have said that now, so you cannot draw a conclusion (about me) on a matter I have not expressed an opinion of!

And who the f**k are you to tell me what I can and can't have an opinion of???  I am indifferent to the royals as people, period.  Get over it.

[IDM]

What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?

I will sell them before I die and spend all the money trying to keep the economy going. No way will my children inherit. I want them to stand on their own two feet and make their own way in life.

And you know when that will be do you?  Like things never happen suddenly?

And although I have disagreed with you strongly on the forum, that does not mean I wish you ill in any way shape or form...

[RedJ]

What will happen to your houses when you curl your toes up?

I will sell them before I die and spend all the money trying to keep the economy going. No way will my children inherit. I want them to stand on their own two feet and make their own way in life.

And you know when that will be do you?

Course he does. Didn't you know he knew absolutely everything?

[IDM]

Course he does. Didn't you know he knew absolutely everything?

Actually, RedJ, now you say that, I clearly see it.

Everything Mick/IC1967 says is wholly 100% factually correct, he is always right when he "interprets" other people's opinions regardless of how much evidence they have posted.

I must bow down to his vastly superior and excellent knowledge of absolutely everything. 

I may as well top myself right now, as life now seems utterly pointless.

[IC1967]

Contrary to popular opinion on this forum I do not think I know everything, I know I know everything. I always give the other person's point of view consideration before deciding I was right all along.

I've got the dying thing sorted. If I should die before getting it all spent it will be left to PETA.

[IC1967]

Everything IC1967 says is wholly 100% factually correct, he is always right when he "interprets" other people's opinions regardless of how much evidence they have posted.

I must bow down to his vastly superior and excellent knowledge of absolutely everything. 

I may as well top myself right now, as life now seems utterly pointless.

What an excellent post. Please re-evaluate your life. It's not as bad as it seems. If everyone had your outlook that I come into contact with there would be a lot of dead bodies about. I don't want that. All I'm trying to do is educate you. A bit of gratitude now and then wouldn't go amiss.

[IDM]

Contrary to popular opinion on this forum I do not think I know everything, I know I know everything.

Totally agree, 100%... Don't know how it took so long for me to realise this.

[Draytonian III]

IC1967 or whatever your name is , I suggest if you don't like this country,you apply for a passport and leave. There are alot more places to live,apart from under your stone,bye bye Bigerty  Bigerty boring person

[IC1967]

Another royalist being taken for a mug. Just because I want rid of the royal family and the return of the land to the masses doesn't mean I don't like the country. Nothing would ever change for the good if we all had your couldn't care less attitude.

[Glyn_Wigley]

https://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofThePrinceofWales.aspx

Seen as IC1967 brought up Prince Charles, here are some quotes:

The Prince of Wales's life and work are funded predominantly by the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince of Wales does not receive money from the Civil List, but the Grants-in-Aid paid to The Queen's Household are used, in part, to support His Royal Highness's official activities.

Under the 1337 charter, as confirmed by subsequent legislation, The Prince of Wales does not own the Duchy's capital assets, and is not entitled to the proceeds or profit on their sale, and only receives the annual income which they generate (which is voluntarily subject to income tax).

His Royal Highness receives the annual net surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall and chooses to use a large proportion of the income to meet the cost of his public and charitable work.

The Prince also uses part of the income to meet the costs of his private life and those of his wife, The Duchess of Cornwall, and his sons, Prince William and Prince Harry.

The Duchy is tax exempt, but The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays income tax at the highest rate on his taxable income from it.

And before you reply with some twisted interpretation of my post, please note that I have drawn no conclusion from the above link and quotes, nor agreed or disagreed, just provided the information for others to read and make their own opinions....

The big point you're missing is that if there were no Duke of Cornwall, the assets of the Ducky of Cornwall would revert to the state. ie They don't belong to Prince Charles - he is taking part of, giving us back some of, our own money.

[IC1967]

It's unbelievable the spurious lengths royal sycophants will go to to defend the indefensible.

[Filo]

It's unbelievable the spurious lengths royal sycophants will go to to defend the indefensible.

It is isn't it?