View Full Version : William & Kate
chocolatechip
03-Dec-12, 18:50
Its nice to hear a bit of good news for a change. Wills and Kate expecting their first baby :)
Yes,its good new indeed,delighted for them both :)
Since when did somebody you don't know getting pregnant be news worthy?
Why not start a thread for every one of the 2000 odd pregnancies that happen every day?
Dark cloud of doom rears his ugly head again
Since when did somebody you don't know getting pregnant be news worthy?
Why not start a thread for every one of the 2000 odd pregnancies that happen every day?
Its nice to hear a bit of good news for a change. Wills and Kate expecting their first baby :)
Ah yes, deep joy for us all during these hard times.
An incredibly wealthy young couple have managed to take the first step into parent-hood; I bet the nanny's already chosen.
That's certainly better than all the news about the Government cutting benefits for the disabled; gives one a warm cuddly glow!
chocolatechip
03-Dec-12, 19:45
this is a positive thread!!! All you hear is doom & gloom on the news so lets be POSITIVE
Its nice to hear a bit of good news for a change. Wills and Kate expecting their first baby :)
I am happy for them
totally agree with you chocolatechip but this will be hijacked by the agents of doom,its all ready started by alrock,hes not a happy man
this is a positive thread!!! All you hear is doom & gloom on the news so lets be POSITIVE
Hold the presses, over-priveleged family conceive a child, just like any other family on the planet. Cue 9 months of tabloid hysteria and speculation. My mrs wasn't given a hospital bed when she had morning sickness.
M Swanson
03-Dec-12, 19:49
Its nice to hear a bit of good news for a change. Wills and Kate expecting their first baby :)
Yes, it's fantastic news. Let the celebrations begin. :)
rich62_uk
03-Dec-12, 19:59
Some not many suffer so badly from morning sickness they need to go to hospital, she is very thin in the first place which wouldnt help.
this is a positive thread!!! All you hear is doom & gloom on the news so lets be POSITIVE
How is that news more positive than the news of any punter who proclaims pregnancy?
I am here to proclaim that I am going to be a great-granny (like the Queen) on 12th February 2013 (or thereabouts)..and my great-grandchild is not going to be born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth, a crown on his/her head and is not going to be expecting that the taxpayer will keep him/her in the manner to which his/her parents have been accustomed. So who is going to be drooling sycophantically over the fact that my grand-daughter is pregnant? Nobody? I thought not!
I've never quite understood the penchant for celebrity which exists in the UK today...and in the end threads/posts about a monarchy, and their adherents are about as interesting as the fact that Katie Price has had five boob jobs.
George Brims
03-Dec-12, 20:08
...their adherents are about as interesting as the fact that Katie Price has had five boob jobs.
I find it very disturbing that is an odd number of boobs.
Hey ho! Here we go again. More monarchical mayhem as another potential mouth with a silver spoon inserted from birth is helped on its way to life's rich tapestry by the taxpayer. Is it too much to ask that in the 21st century this bit of news be treated with thunderous mediocrity?
I do not wish anything but good health to the participants in what is going to be overdrive news pap for the next god knows how long.
M Swanson
03-Dec-12, 20:21
How is that news more positive than the news of any punter who proclaims pregnancy?
I am here to proclaim that I am going to be a great-granny (like the Queen) on 12th February 2013 (or thereabouts)..and my great-grandchild is not going to be born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth, a crown on his/her head and is not going to be expecting that the taxpayer will keep him/her in the manner to which his/her parents have been accustomed. So who is going to be drooling sycophantically over the fact that my grand-daughter is pregnant? Nobody? I thought not!
I've never quite understood the penchant for celebrity which exists in the UK today...and in the end threads/posts about a monarchy, and their adherents are about as interesting as the fact that Katie Price has had five boob jobs.
Ooh! er! OQ. What is this contribution from the "taxpayer" to Prince William, his wife and as yet unborn baby? I know William receives a salary for his important job as a helicopter pilot and receives expenses to cover his Royal engagements, but I must admit, I'm not aware of anything else that is drawn from the nations' pot. Perhaps you could clarify, please?
Congratulations to you, the family and your grand-daughter on your expected new arrival. I always love to hear such good news! Make love, not war, I say! :)
George Brims - Indeed it is very "disturbing." :lol::lol:
Ooh! er! OQ. What is this contribution from the "taxpayer" to Prince William, his wife and as yet unborn baby? I know William receives a salary for his important job as a helicopter pilot and receives expenses to cover his Royal engagements, but I must admit, I'm not aware of anything else that is drawn from the nations' pot. Perhaps you could clarify, please?
Hmmm, where to start....
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4406689/.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15606713
http://www.showbizspy.com/article/219147/prince-william-and-kate-middletons-wedding-to-cost-20-million.html
There's 3 examples just from a quick Google search....
Besides, it's not just about the money, even if they didn't cost us a penny I'd still stand by my original statement...
"Since when did somebody you don't know getting pregnant be news worthy?
Why not start a thread for every one of the 2000 odd pregnancies that happen every day?"
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4406689/.html)
Money well spent i say,if i was them i would have spent alot more,after all its the scroungers that have no intentions of working that are the real drain on this country
Hmmm, where to start....
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4406689/.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15606713
http://www.showbizspy.com/article/219147/prince-william-and-kate-middletons-wedding-to-cost-20-million.html
There's 3 examples just from a quick Google search....
Besides, it's not just about the money, even if they didn't cost us a penny I'd still stand by my original statement...
"Since when did somebody you don't know getting pregnant be news worthy?
Why not start a thread for every one of the 2000 odd pregnancies that happen every day?"
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4406689/.html)
I will never fail to be amazed at the brainwashed idiots who get excited about very rich privileged royals whose forefathers were the biggest gangsters and murderers,that took everything from these idiots ancestors.They still do to a large extent,but they do not need to steal and kill any more as they have it all!
M Swanson
03-Dec-12, 21:05
Hmmm, where to start....
There's 3 examples just from a quick Google search....
Besides, it's not just about the money, even if they didn't cost us a penny I'd still stand by my original statement...
"Since when did somebody you don't know getting pregnant be news worthy?
Why not start a thread for every one of the 2000 odd pregnancies that happen every day?"
(http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4406689/.html)
Thanks for the links, but of course, none of them answered the question I asked. I had to laugh at the BBC's effort, though! They made a song and dance about the cost to taxpayers for home improvements, but then stated the estimated cost was unknown. That tickled me! :D If you reread my post, I did state that William and Catherine received expenses for Royal engagements and quite right too, imo! I was asking specifically for any payments from the taxpayer, over and above this. Perhaps OQ can help?
As for the reference to William and Catherine's wedding, they paid for it themselves. It wasn't them who insisted on such stringent, costly security measures, but as we're discussing our future King and Queen, I'm grateful that somebody did. I never resented my contribution of 50p a year to pay for the Royal Family. Darn good value, but then I don't envy anyone anything.
Well, I don't know OQ's grand-daughter, but I'm pleased as punch that the family are to be blessed with a new addition! I love good news and joyful occasions. ;)
piratelassie
03-Dec-12, 21:46
Could not agree more, well said.
I will never fail to be amazed at the brainwashed idiots who get excited about very rich privileged royals whose forefathers were the biggest gangsters and murderers,that took everything from these idiots ancestors.They still do to a large extent,but they do not need to steal and kill any more as they have it all!
I will never fail to be amazed at the brainwashed idiots who get excited about very rich privileged royals whose forefathers were the biggest gangsters and murderers,that took everything from these idiots ancestors.They still do to a large extent,but they do not need to steal and kill any more as they have it all!
And Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg Gotha and her offspring are not even British.
Ooh! er! OQ. What is this contribution from the "taxpayer" to Prince William, his wife and as yet unborn baby? I know William receives a salary for his important job as a helicopter pilot and receives expenses to cover his Royal engagements, but I must admit, I'm not aware of anything else that is drawn from the nations' pot. Perhaps you could clarify, please?
Congratulations to you, the family and your grand-daughter on your expected new arrival. I always love to hear such good news! Make love, not war, I say! :)
George Brims - Indeed it is very "disturbing." :lol::lol:
Thing is that the Royal family can CHOOSE to suck off the public teat. They don't have to.....but they can if they choose. Among the Queens children. Anne and Edward have chosen not to go the "I and every offspring I produce are entitled to everything the taxpayer can be shafted to provide because we and our kids are princes and princesses" route, while Charles and Andrew go the "we are important , and every fruit of our loins is as important as we are so you have to pay for us" route.
Contributions from the taxpayer for Wills and Kate? It appears that Prince Charles’s Clarence House office — which also pays for Wills, Kate and Prince Harry — show funding for the future king rose by 11 per cent in the past 12 months. But hey, tourism income for the UK justifies the fact that we are boosting Will's income over and above what he earns.
The figures published yesterday reveal Charles’s income from grants-in-aid and government departments (ie taxpayer's money) rose from £1,962,000 to £2,194,000, up by £232,000, during 2011/12. His private income from the Duchy of Cornwall rose by three per cent to £18.3million.
His official outgoings also rose 5.4 per cent to more than £12million, paid from both government grants and income from his estate.
Now maybe I do logic to the level of a newly invented mental problem that some pharmaceutical company has convinced the sheeple exists as an excuse to absolve them from any responsibility for their actions if they don't take, daily, at great expense, the drugs which will make them conform to expectations......but the figures illustrate that Charlie-baby is as rich as Croesus without our, the taxpayer, input. At what stage is our Royal family going to feel rich enough not to have to take money out of the pockets of the disabled, etc.....and come to the conclusion that they have taken the p!ss more than long enough and the fact that the world schmoozes them to a sick-making degree is worth not asking us to pay through the nose, while they accumulate money in bank accounts?
changilass
03-Dec-12, 23:41
I think its lovely news.
When bubba escapes, will this be the first time that there will have been 3 generations of heir in waiting?
They are speculating about twins on the news just now, I wonder which one the doc would pluck out first if she had a section and there was one of each lol
Everyone moans that all we get is bad news, when something nice happens, even more moaners come out the bliddy woodwork.
M Swanson
03-Dec-12, 23:43
Contributions from the taxpayer for Wills and Kate? It appears that Prince Charles’s Clarence House office — which also pays for Wills, Kate and Prince Harry — show funding for the future king rose by 11 per cent in the past 12 months. But hey, tourism income for the UK justifies the fact that we are boosting Will's income over and above what he earns.
The figures published yesterday reveal Charles’s income from grants-in-aid and government departments (ie taxpayer's money) rose from £1,962,000 to £2,194,000, up by £232,000, during 2011/12. His private income from the Duchy of Cornwall rose by three per cent to £18.3million.
His official outgoings also rose 5.4 per cent to more than £12million, paid from both government grants and income from his estate.
Well, I'm afraid that despite the information contained in this reply, you still haven't been able to tell us how much, (excluding his expenses), Prince William receives from the taxpayer. Maybe it isn't anything? All I know is that the Queen and Prince Phillip are the only members of the Royal Family who receive payments from the privy purse. HM finances her own family, from her own income and good for her.
Just a couple of points to add here, if I may OQ. Whilst I'm grateful for the financial statements regarding Prince Charles, (although the thread isn't about him, or my question), I think it a little remiss that you didn't mention that he voluntarily pays tax at the highest rate. I certainly don't think £4.5M a year is to be sniffed at. Very healthy for the Treasury coffers, I would think. Also, it's worth mentioning that Prince Charles raised £131M by attending 670 official engagements, which must have made a great deal of difference to a great many people. Credit where it's due surely. ;)
Personally, I am convinced that the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William and Harry, to name but a few, are good value for money. The Queen alone generates a fortune for Britain and at 52p a year per capita I don't think we're paying her enough! :D
Well I'm happy for any young couple who are starting a family whatever their position,:D. William and Kate have been together a long time now and I wish them well. Like you and I, this young couple didn't ask to be born into their families, royal or otherwise.
Since we're fast approaching Christmas - the season of bonhomie and good will to all men (and women) - I'm saddened and disappointed to witness so much hatred and anger emanating from so many Orgers. I see envy and spite to support big chips on some people's shoulders, but then some people aren't happy unless their having a whinge and blaming everyone but themselves for their miserable existance,[disgust].
Thing is that the Royal family can CHOOSE to suck off the public teat. They don't have to.....but they can if they choose. Among the Queens children. Anne and Edward have chosen not to go the "I and every offspring I produce are entitled to everything the taxpayer can be shafted to provide because we and our kids are princes and princesses" route, while Charles and Andrew go the "we are important , and every fruit of our loins is as important as we are so you have to pay for us" route.
Contributions from the taxpayer for Wills and Kate? It appears that Prince Charles’s Clarence House office — which also pays for Wills, Kate and Prince Harry — show funding for the future king rose by 11 per cent in the past 12 months. But hey, tourism income for the UK justifies the fact that we are boosting Will's income over and above what he earns.
The figures published yesterday reveal Charles’s income from grants-in-aid and government departments (ie taxpayer's money) rose from £1,962,000 to £2,194,000, up by £232,000, during 2011/12. His private income from the Duchy of Cornwall rose by three per cent to £18.3million.
His official outgoings also rose 5.4 per cent to more than £12million, paid from both government grants and income from his estate.
Now maybe I do logic to the level of a newly invented mental problem that some pharmaceutical company has convinced the sheeple exists as an excuse to absolve them from any responsibility for their actions if they don't take, daily, at great expense, the drugs which will make them conform to expectations......but the figures illustrate that Charlie-baby is as rich as Croesus without our, the taxpayer, input. At what stage is our Royal family going to feel rich enough not to have to take money out of the pockets of the disabled, etc.....and come to the conclusion that they have taken the p!ss more than long enough and the fact that the world schmoozes them to a sick-making degree is worth not asking us to pay through the nose, while they accumulate money in bank accounts?
Remind us again, on the cost 'o Eck's jaunt to the Ryder Cup!!!! What good did that do, even the animated movie he promoted has been panned and cost Disney a fortune
Half pint
04-Dec-12, 01:49
I think they are a lovely couple and can't wait for the birth of a new prince or queen. I wonder if there will be a royal event?? I can't get enough of royalty. The last time I met prince Charles I said hi to him. So exciting!
sassylass
04-Dec-12, 03:00
I find it very disturbing that is an odd number of boobs.
[lol] leave it to you, that was my chuckle for the day.
so true,but i think the moaners will not be finished yet
Well I'm happy for any young couple who are starting a family whatever their position,:D. William and Kate have been together a long time now and I wish them well. Like you and I, this young couple didn't ask to be born into their families, royal or otherwise.
Since we're fast approaching Christmas - the season of bonhomie and good will to all men (and women) - I'm saddened and disappointed to witness so much hatred and anger emanating from so many Orgers. I see envy and spite to support big chips on some people's shoulders, but then some people aren't happy unless their having a whinge and blaming everyone but themselves for their miserable existance,[disgust].
How is that news more positive than the news of any punter who proclaims pregnancy?
I am here to proclaim that I am going to be a great-granny (like the Queen) on 12th February 2013 (or thereabouts)..and my great-grandchild is not going to be born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth, a crown on his/her head and is not going to be expecting that the taxpayer will keep him/her in the manner to which his/her parents have been accustomed. So who is going to be drooling sycophantically over the fact that my grand-daughter is pregnant? Nobody? I thought not!
I've never quite understood the penchant for celebrity which exists in the UK today...and in the end threads/posts about a monarchy, and their adherents are about as interesting as the fact that Katie Price has had five boob jobs.
Congratulations Oddquinn. I feel like you about the (royal) news but a great many in The UK are very interested so we will have to suck it up! :lol:
The Music Monster
04-Dec-12, 10:19
I will never fail to be amazed at the brainwashed idiots who get excited about very rich privileged royals whose forefathers were the biggest gangsters and murderers,that took everything from these idiots ancestors.They still do to a large extent,but they do not need to steal and kill any more as they have it all!
Since becoming interested in genealogy I've discovered that my forefathers were also murderers and oppressors - and those being oppressed and murdered too! Please don't judge ME by THEM!
I'm pleased for any family having a new arrival, and I am very excited about the new Windsor baby.
Time to forget the atrocities that were inflicted in the past and look forward to the new generation with hope. I'd bet it's the same in almost all our families' histories.
Jeepers, it's already started. Virtually the whole of the fourth estate and Television have gone gaga over the news.
The official historian - Kate something - was even surmising about the outcome depending on which infant (if twins) might be removed first should there be a need for a c-section.
Prime Minister David Cameron wrote on Twitter that he was "delighted by the news...They will make wonderful parents."
How does he know that? Is it because they will have no financial cares; always have a number of residences to choose from; always have great-granny to babysit so they can go down the pub; able to get the odd weekend away?
The only reason Cameron is delighted is it means he can rush out some bad news and it will be buried away...
Please spare us from this sycophantic drivel!
They are speculating about twins on the news just now, I wonder which one the doc would pluck out first if she had a section and there was one of each lol
That's just splitting heirs.
piratelassie
04-Dec-12, 18:39
Surely this post is a wind up,QUOTE=chocolatechip;992151]Its nice to hear a bit of good news for a change. Wills and Kate expecting their first baby :)[/QUOTE
linnie612
04-Dec-12, 18:45
What makes you think that:confused:
piratelassie
04-Dec-12, 20:06
Bring on the republic.
chocolatechip
04-Dec-12, 21:05
[QUOTE=piratelassie;992464]Surely this post is a wind up
This is not a wind up, like I said this is a postive thread, there is always a few that have a negative view. Its great to hear some news of the good nature.
I know eventually it will drive us nuts hearing about it all the time but all in all lets be postitve.
piratelassie
04-Dec-12, 22:13
Good news for me would be the desolution of the monarchy, a new birth in any family is good news but PLEASE stop all this pathetic fuss.
linnie612
04-Dec-12, 22:21
You probably mean dissolution. Who here has made a pathetic fuss?
piratelassie
04-Dec-12, 23:17
I did mean dissolution, thanks, but the pathetic fuss I refer to is the media coverage which is OTT and posts on the ORG only encourages this tripe. Its 2012 not 18 or1912 and its time to scrap the obcenity.
cptdodger
04-Dec-12, 23:40
I did mean dissolution, thanks, but the pathetic fuss I refer to is the media coverage which is OTT and posts on the ORG only encourages this tripe. Its 2012 not 18 or1912 and its time to scrap the obcenity.
You're right it is 2012, so presumably, you have a remote control which changes channels on your television, so you do not have to watch the media coverage. You do not have to buy newspapers. As for the Org, if you see a thread regarding the Royal Family - easy, do not read it. It is your choice what you read and what you watch.
It is exciting, just like the wedding and I do not begrudge the Royal Family anything. They bring a lot of money into Britain regardless and that is good.
.
I did mean dissolution, thanks, but the pathetic fuss I refer to is the media coverage which is OTT and posts on the ORG only encourages this tripe. Its 2012 not 18 or1912 and its time to scrap the obcenity.
M Swanson
04-Dec-12, 23:48
I understand where you're coming from with the first sentence, but the articles won't stop, because, whether you like it or not, it will sell newspapers. The Royal Family are still insitu in 2012 because of the will of the people. If this was not so, then they would be long gone. William and Kate are loved by many, not just in Britain and the Commonwealth, but worldwide. So many, are eager to tap into the happiest news we've heard for a while and I count myself in their numbers. We all have a switch off button to quietly press if it becomes too much. It's what I do when talentless, nonentities, who masquerade as celebrities, constantly appear in the papers. It's not rocket science, is it? Lighten up Lassie.
cptdodger
04-Dec-12, 23:59
I agree catran. Whether you agree with me or not, Caithness would struggle for tourists if it was'nt for the late Queen Mother. She certainly did not have to place The Castle Of Mey into a trust six years before her death, but she wanted to do something for the benefit of the community, and after reading some of the comments on here, it's a pity she bothered. Prince Charles did'nt have to initiate the Mey Selections brand and make sure they are promoted all over the country. He does'nt even have to come up here every year, but he does.
of course Prince Charles comes here, goes to the Mey Games, spends a day on Stroma now and again to get away from the maddening crowd and hopefully his sons and heirs will follow in his footsteps as he did with the Queen mother, his grannie.
I agree catran. Whether you agree with me or not, Caithness would struggle for tourists if it was'nt for the late Queen Mother. She certainly did not have to place The Castle Of Mey into a trust six years before her death, but she wanted to do something for the benefit of the community, and after reading some of the comments on here, it's a pity she bothered. Prince Charles did'nt have to initiate the Mey Selections brand and make sure they are promoted all over the country. He does'nt even have to come up here every year, but he does.
cptdodger
05-Dec-12, 00:32
I'm not knocking him catran, what I am saying is, as his grandmother has now passed away, he does not have to. He never actually stayed in the castle when his grandmother was alive. The fact that the castle is open to the general public brings a lot of money to the area, and that would not have happened without the generosity of the Queen Mother. Things will probably be different when he ascends the throne, because the Castle Of Mey is not an official residence.
piratelassie
05-Dec-12, 00:42
Royalists honestly what are you like.
M Swanson
05-Dec-12, 00:48
Royalists honestly what are you like.
Loyal, loving, respectful and good looking! ;)
piratelassie
05-Dec-12, 01:13
Loyal to who ?
Loyal, loving, respectful and good looking! ;)
You could always watch braveheart or news clips of Mr Salmond to get you all patriotic again
I did mean dissolution, thanks, but the pathetic fuss I refer to is the media coverage which is OTT and posts on the ORG only encourages this tripe. Its 2012 not 18 or1912 and its time to scrap the obcenity.
You could always watch braveheart or news clips of Mr Salmond to get you all patriotic again
It is possible to be patriotic without having to be a subservient royalist. Millions do it every day.
thats nice
It is possible to be patriotic with having to be a subservient royalist. Millions do it every day.
Normally when a woman receiving state benefits gets pregnant, people get really annoyed about it. But you know bread and circuses and all that... celebrate peasants!
M Swanson
05-Dec-12, 10:18
Normally when a woman receiving state benefits gets pregnant, people get really annoyed about it. But you know bread and circuses and all that... celebrate peasants!
Ah! But Kate is married to a man in full-time employment, who works hard and pays taxes; performs ambassadorial duties ... gratis, for the benefit of Britain, (expenses only, of course,) and costs the country nowt more than he's entitled to. Do you see the difference? S'pect you do! Let the party begin. :D
Totally agree.They work very hard for Britain and are great ambassadors for the country
Ah! But Kate is married to a man in full-time employment, who works hard and pays taxes; performs ambassadorial duties ... gratis, for the benefit of Britain, (expenses only, of course,) and costs the country nowt more than he's entitled to. Do you see the difference? S'pect you do! Let the party begin. :D
Good news for me would be the desolution of the monarchy, a new birth in any family is good news but PLEASE stop all this pathetic fuss.
The chip on your shoulder grows bigger with every posting piratelassie.
The pathetic fuss by the media sells newspapers - who buys newspapers?
I don't.
As you say a new birth in any family is good news, so let's just wish them well; and let's remember this baby has no choice as to which family it's born into.
The chip on your shoulder grows bigger with every posting piratelassie.
The pathetic fuss by the media sells newspapers - who buys newspapers?
I don't.
As you say a new birth in any family is good news, so let's just wish them well; and let's remember this baby has no choice as to which family it's born into.
Totally agree with you here Gronnuck, just let us wish the bairn and its parents all the best for the furture.
Ah! But Kate is married to a man in full-time employment, who works hard and pays taxes; performs ambassadorial duties ... gratis, for the benefit of Britain, (expenses only, of course,) and costs the country nowt more than he's entitled to. Do you see the difference? S'pect you do! Let the party begin. :D
Whoosh... something about turkeys voting for Christmas and the emperor having no clothes. Either that or some very well executed satire, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes - reminiscent of Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe%27s_Law) and all that.
Said the master to his students,and all that
Whoosh... something about turkeys voting for Christmas and the emperor having no clothes. Either that or some very well executed satire, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes - reminiscent of Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law) and all that.
M Swanson
05-Dec-12, 16:59
Whoosh... something about turkeys voting for Christmas and the emperor having no clothes. Either that or some very well executed satire, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes - reminiscent of Poe's Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poe's_Law) and all that.
:lol: Is this it? You offer no evidence of anything and seem unable to discredit the facts I wrote! Poe's Law? You're having a laugh ..... right? :D
piratelassie
07-Dec-12, 02:18
Gronnuck, you think I have a chip on my shoulder, regarding the scrounging royals, you bet I have. Its just a pity more of us didnt.
Gronnuck, you think I have a chip on my shoulder, regarding the scrounging royals, you bet I have. Its just a pity more of us didnt.
What about a scrounging first minister, and his jaunts to the US, and parading about in his Rupert Bear breeks
M Swanson
07-Dec-12, 11:19
I don't understand Salmond. Is he really suggesting that Scotland would remain part of the UK, if the vote was for separation? Doesn't he also favour the Queen remaining as the Head of State? I don't get it, as I'm sure many English, Welsh and Irish don't too! Can anyone clarify what all this means, please? :confused
I don't understand Salmond. Is he really suggesting that Scotland would remain part of the UK, if the vote was for separation? Doesn't he also favour the Queen remaining as the Head of State? I don't get it, as I'm sure many English, Welsh and Irish don't too! Can anyone clarify what all this means, please? :confused
It looks very much as if Eck can't make his mind up what he wants. He want's separation but wants to keep the monarchy like many Commonwealth countries. He wants independence but is happy for that independence to be undermined by the EU. He wants Scotland to build Royal Navy warships knowing full well that the Royal Navy has never allowed a foreign country to build its fighting ships. He wants a Defence force for Scotland unaware that the Scottish Regiments are part of the British Army and it's soldiers come from all over the Commonwealth and owe nothing, or very little to Scotland, (I know members of the Scots Guards who have never visited Scotland!). The man, and his party make a lot of noise but when asked a direct question are totally unable to give a direct answer.
Like a lot of thinking Scots I'm fast losing patience with a man who's main claim to fame is his ability to waffle.
I agree totally,how can any right thinking person take this man seriously,his politics and party policies are a joke.
He just wants to be known as the man to take Scotland to independance,i dont think we have to worry,the people of Scotland and the rest of the U.K. can see through him.
It looks very much as if Eck can't make his mind up what he wants. He want's separation but wants to keep the monarchy like many Commonwealth countries. He wants independence but is happy for that independence to be undermined by the EU. He wants Scotland to build Royal Navy warships knowing full well that the Royal Navy has never allowed a foreign country to build its fighting ships. He wants a Defence force for Scotland unaware that the Scottish Regiments are part of the British Army and it's soldiers come from all over the Commonwealth and owe nothing, or very little to Scotland, (I know members of the Scots Guards who have never visited Scotland!). The man, and his party make a lot of noise but when asked a direct question are totally unable to give a direct answer.
Like a lot of thinking Scots I'm fast losing patience with a man who's main claim to fame is his ability to waffle.
johnny north
07-Dec-12, 20:32
Can't understand why in this day and age people are so happy to celebrate the arrival of yet another parasite that will have to be fed, clothed and semi-educated (like the rest of that mob) at the taxpayer's expense
M Swanson
07-Dec-12, 20:33
Very interesting points, thanks Gro. My initial thought, was that Salmond makes things up as he goes along. There seems to be too many contradictions and lack of clarity for me and I wouldn't want to make such a huge and probably irreversible decision based on the conflicting information I've found thus far. I'm particularly concerned with Scotland becoming completely absorbed into the EU and how this would affect independence and democracy. :(
changilass
07-Dec-12, 20:34
What a horrible thing to say about the arrival of any baby, no matter what you think of the parents.
M Swanson
07-Dec-12, 20:37
Can't understand why in this day and age people are so happy to celebrate the arrival of yet another parasite that will have to be fed, clothed and semi-educated (like the rest of that mob) at the taxpayer's expense
I wonder if you'd be good enough to let Orgers know how much the new Royal arrival will cost the taxpayer, please? Or, even William and Kate? It will make interesting reading! Or, not.
I wonder if you'd be good enough to let Orgers know how much the new Royal arrival will cost the taxpayer, please? Or, even William and Kate? It will make interesting reading! Or, not.
For starters the both of them get £175,000 per annum from the Civil List payments just for being the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.
But when you start to add in associated costs (accommodation, security, travel, etc.) that gets dwarfed by millions.
Nigel Shelton
09-Dec-12, 00:53
Can you back up your figures? As far as I am aware the Civil List was replaced in April this year by The Sovereign Grant Act. The monarch receives 15% of the profits from the Crown Estates from which She supports The Royal Household. The Prince of Wales receives His income from the Duchy Of Cornwall.
cptdodger
09-Dec-12, 01:22
For starters the both of them get £175,000 per annum from the Civil List payments just for being the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.
But when you start to add in associated costs (accommodation, security, travel, etc.) that gets dwarfed by millions.
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester do not receive any money from the Civil List. This from the official website of the British Monarchy -
"Other than The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh is the only member of the Royal Family to receive an annual parliamentary allowance to enable him to carry out official public duties.
The Prince of Wales receives the income of the Duchy of Cornwall to meet expenditure incurred by the Household of The Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, the Household of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.
The expenditure incurred by Other Members of the Royal Family in carrying out official public duties is met directly by The Queen."
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester do not receive any money from the Civil List. This from the official website of the British Monarchy -
As it turns out, your ability to use Google is as atrocious as mine.......Nigel Shelton is quite right in his post. The Civil List has been 're-branded' and is no more.
In normal circumstances I suppose the parents of Kate Middleton would be disappointed - they put her through an expensive private school, sent her to an expensive University to a get a none-too-useful degree, then she 'took a year out travelling' (ahem), before getting herself pregnant. Just as well the father is able to provide.
Can you back up your figures? As far as I am aware the Civil List was replaced in April this year by The Sovereign Grant Act. The monarch receives 15% of the profits from the Crown Estates from which She supports The Royal Household. The Prince of Wales receives His income from the Duchy Of Cornwall.
And where did the Queen get the crown estates from, and where did Charlie get the Duchy of Cornwall? Did they buy them with their own money earned through work, or were they handed to them?
cptdodger
09-Dec-12, 12:43
[QUOTE=Slickly;993419]As it turns out, your ability to use Google is as atrocious as mine.......
You do'nt believe me, fine, read it yourself
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofothermembersoftheRoyalFamily .aspx
cptdodger
09-Dec-12, 12:46
And where did the Queen get the crown estates from, and where did Charlie get the Duchy of Cornwall? Did they buy them with their own money earned through work, or were they handed to them?
So what you are saying then is - when a member of your family dies you should not inherit money / property / anything, because you did not work for it or earn it ?
You do'nt believe me, fine, read it yourself
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/FinancialarrangmentsofothermembersoftheRoyalFamily .aspx
I did, previously, and so should you......your link details the settlement made in 2000 that lasted for 10 years.
This is now defunct and was reformed by the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011 which pulled together various sources of taxpayers money to the royal family under one single payment. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/contents/enacted
At least I acknowledged I was wrong.
So what you are saying then is - when a member of your family dies you should not inherit money / property / anything, because you did not work for it or earn it ?
ABSOLUTELY - inheritance at any level in society should be discouraged as it skews the economy and encourages idleness.
So what you are saying then is - when a member of your family dies you should not inherit money / property / anything, because you did not work for it or earn it ?
Should a family inherit the estate of a thief, or should that estate be reclaimed by the country?
cptdodger
09-Dec-12, 12:57
[QUOTE=Flynn;993481]Should a family inherit the estate of a thief.
They do - in every walk of life.
ABSOLUTELY - inheritance at any level in society should be discouraged as it skews the economy and encourages idleness.
Aaaaah the politics of envy.
Some of us, whatever our station in life, work hard all our lives to pass on something to our children in the hope that we can improve their lot and the lot of our grandchildren in some way. If we didn't what would be the point of working, we might as well hand everything back to the taxman or join the Jeremy Kyle set.
I'm not really bothered by what the Royal Family earns in grants or passes on in inheritance. They do a job and are the one constant in our ever changing world.
If we didn't have a monarch as our Head of State what would be the alternative? A grasping politician bending rules to suit themselves and their party?
I've yet to hear any republican offer a suggestion for a neutral Head of State who costs each of us less than 60p a day!
Some of us, whatever our station in life, work hard all our lives to pass on something to our children in the hope that we can improve their lot and the lot of our grandchildren in some way. If we didn't what would be the point of working, we might as well hand everything back to the taxman or join the Jeremy Kyle set.
No need to give it to the taxman. Spend it (enjoy yourself). Or put into businesses - that way it can be used for working capital or for future growth that will benefit the whole economy. That's what I've done.
And what's wrong with giving money to the taxman anyway. Everyone moans and complains when public services are cut, and moans and complains when companies find loopholes in tax laws, so why the hypocrisy in thinking that we as individuals should be exempt from paying for what we get ?
There's a lot of people of the middle generation at the moment who are desperate for the older generation to die so that they can inherit their property and flog it for cash to pay off their own burden of credit.
At least the next generation won't have to worry about inheritance - there'll be nothing to inherit from their parents.
cptdodger
09-Dec-12, 16:29
The point Flynn was trying to make in a roundabout way was, The Monarchy has stolen everything they own today from the "people". The point I was trying to make was, due to being born into the Royal Family, the Queen inherited everything from her father.
cptdodger
09-Dec-12, 16:32
There's a lot of people of the middle generation at the moment who are desperate for the older generation to die so that they can inherit their property and flog it for cash to pay off their own burden of credit.
Speak for yourself. That's an awful thing to say by anyone's standards
The point Flynn was trying to make in a roundabout way was, The Monarchy has stolen everything they own today from the "people". The point I was trying to make was, due to being born into the Royal Family, the Queen inherited everything from her father.
Almost. Her father's estate was also stolen from us, and his father's and so on.
secrets in symmetry
09-Dec-12, 16:50
Or put into businesses - that way it can be used for working capital or for future growth that will benefit the whole economy. That's what I've done.Who inherits (your share of) the businesses when you go?
A belated welcome to the forum BTW. :cool:
cptdodger
09-Dec-12, 16:52
Almost. Her father's estate was also stolen from us, and his father's and so on.
You know, they should bring in a new law whereas, oh lets just say for instance your father had gone on a killing spree then shot himself dead - you should be imprisoned for his crime. That's fair is'nt it ?
Almost. Her father's estate was also stolen from us, and his father's and so on.
Wow, your family owned a lot of land, who did they steal it from?
Who inherits (your share of) the businesses when you go?
Simple, the share agreement in all the businesses I've done this have been worded that my shares are returned for allocation to existing shareholders - they do not come back to be part of my estate - the investment remains in the companies - we're talking small companies here by the way.
secrets in symmetry
09-Dec-12, 16:59
Simple, the share agreement in all the businesses I've done this have been worded that my shares are returned for allocation to existing shareholders - they do not come back to be part of my estate - the investment remains in the companies - we're talking small companies here by the way.Interesting philosophy.
I'm perhaps out of order here, but can I ask if you have children?
I'm perhaps out of order here,
Yes
but can I ask if you have children?
Yes
And they know the score.
Wow, your family owned a lot of land, who did they steal it from? That's 'us' as in the people of Britain, as opposed to the thieving family and ancestors of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
You know, they should bring in a new law whereas, oh lets just say for instance your father had gone on a killing spree then shot himself dead - you should be imprisoned for his crime. That's fair is'nt it ?
We already have laws that confiscate the profits of crime. It wouldn't take much to extend that to the crimes of the 'royals'. If Israeli descendants of Holocaust victims can (rightfully) claim back lands and properties stolen from them during the Holocaust, then the same can apply to the crimes of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas.
secrets in symmetry
09-Dec-12, 17:14
Yes
And they know the score.
Ok, I accept I was asking a personal question - thank you for answering nevertheless.
I'm not really bothered by what the Royal Family earns in grants or passes on in inheritance. They do a job and are the one constant in our ever changing world.
Imagine for one moment that the concept of 'monarchy' had never existed.
Now imagine that tomorrow morning it is announced that the role of 'head of state' is being given to a family - and they keep that role for ever more passing it amongst themselves.
The howls of derision that would accompany such a notion would be so great they'd be heard in the deepest parts of outer space.
You just don't like change, Deirdre.
If all the land was stolen from er... whoever, how did they get it?
M Swanson
09-Dec-12, 19:23
I often wonder why Republicans maintain that a Monarchy perpetuates the class system. This always happens whichever system is in place, from republics such as France, America etc., to the most corrupt, elitist system of all ..... Communism, to the totalitarian EU. Isn't it the natural order? I'm more than content with the Monarchy and the benefits it brings us and although I'd never regard myself as a 'have,' I'm certainly not a 'have not.' Jealousy is a terrible, terrible thing. :)
"Never argue with a fool. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Greg King
That's 'us' as in the people of Britain, as opposed to the thieving family and ancestors of Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
Its a well kent fact that 87% of UK land is owned by 7% of the population. Are you one of the 7%?
Its a well kent fact that 87% of Scottish land is owned by 7% of Scots are you one of the 7%?
No. Are you? Do you have reference to confirm that figure?
No. Are you? Do you have reference to confirm that figure?
Check the Economist back in 1966
This comes from a statistic, published in The Economist in 1966, that 7% of the population of the UK owned 84% of the state's wealth.
Your link doesn't work. 1966? That's a fair few years ago.
Your link doesn't work. 1966? That's a fair few years ago.
So are your ramblings about Her Majesty and her family
M Swanson
09-Dec-12, 21:23
:lol: Touche, Golach. You're on a hiding to nothing with this one I'm afraid. I know their mantra backwards. It never changes and you'll be transported back to year dot in an attempt to reinforce their hate and envy. I don't bother! I'm too busy living in the real world ..... and largely enjoying it. :)
So are your ramblings about Her Majesty and her family
But do you have a link to confirm your assertion that 7% of Scots own 87% of the land? I did some research and it seems the biggest landowners in Scotland are the forestry commission and a mystery Malaysian who own 1,600,000 acres each:
http://www.highlandclearances.co.uk/clearances/postclearances_whoownsscotland.htm
Strange how it's only the politics of envy when it's the poor and middle calling out the rich and privileged on something. Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich and all that.
I say we just institute the royalist philsophy in more of life. Have people treated by hereditary doctors, having stuff built by hereditary engineers, etc. It's the only way for some to really see how absurd the whole thing actually is.
:lol: Touche, Golach. You're on a hiding to nothing with this one I'm afraid. I know their mantra backwards. It never changes and you'll be transported back to year dot in an attempt to reinforce their hate and envy. I don't bother! I'm too busy living in the real world ..... and largely enjoying it. :)
I am enjoying life and living too, And when I read articles such as these I enjoy it even more, the snp are turning against themselves
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/political-news/snp-budget-defeat-embarrassment.19636520
Duncansby
11-Dec-12, 14:38
But do you have a link to confirm your assertion that 7% of Scots own 87% of the land? I did some research and it seems the biggest landowners in Scotland are the forestry commission and a mystery Malaysian who own 1,600,000 acres each:
http://www.highlandclearances.co.uk/clearances/postclearances_whoownsscotland.htm
In a paper (http://www.andywightman.com/docs/paper_2.pdf) presented by Andy Wightman he asserts that:
"In a country of 19 million acres and 5 million people, a mere 1252 landowners (0.025 per cent of the population) own two-thirds of the privately-owned rural land."
And of course with land comes power, absent landowners preventing development stifles the economy and any chance of a sustainable future for communities.
secrets in symmetry
20-Dec-12, 01:43
Check the Economist back in 1966
This comes from a statistic, published in The Economist in 1966, that 7% of the population of the UK owned 84% of the state's wealth.That's an amazing figure. I'm surprised no-one named a theatre company after it!
That's an amazing figure. I'm surprised no-one named a theatre company after it!
Yes S i S and I saw them perform The Cheviot, the Stag and the Black black oil in Leith, and very good they were.
secrets in symmetry
20-Dec-12, 13:51
I once saw them do something. It was good but their politics were way too sycophantically eckish for my tastes.
I once saw them do something. It was good but their politics were way too sycophantically eckish for my tastes.
Have to admit that was in the days I was a card carrying Nastie member,and activist, then I saw sense lol
secrets in symmetry
21-Dec-12, 00:36
Living and learning is a great thing golach.
Gun toting religious bampots (and their apologists) may be the greatest dangers to civilisation on a global scale, but fluffy Natz are the most immediate danger to our corner of the world.
billy5000
21-Dec-12, 00:52
God this is going to be more painfull than watching paint dry!
to be honest he is punching well above his weight with kate but in my opinion shes nothing to look at and having a kid this early in thier arrangement is not good news.
but anyway lets prepare ourselves for the next 9 months of constant "she looks glowing" comments!
i see only misery with anyone who latches on to a royal(diana)
Its not like many of them have just walked away (bar sarah)but she looks like a car crash(excuse the pun)
She is a lassie that snagged a royal..
And is struggling through pregnancy..spewing every 5 mins isnt great...been there done that!..
Does it really matter who the father is (other than the partner she loves) and doesnt she deserve some privacy for her preg ailments?
Its bad enough to get them broadcast in the workplace.....nevermind the whole country....knowing what she is struggling with and when and nurses commiting suicide after divulging info to outside family etc isnt having a pos
stive effect on the pregnancy!......do people want her to be in therapy?
or hound her like her mil...
secrets in symmetry
21-Dec-12, 01:19
The Duchess of Cambridge is a true gem.
The Duchess of Cambridge is a true gem.You know her personally then.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.