Will Charles ever be King?

[rubydazzler]

People don't visit the UK to see royalty, they come to see the historic buildings and the pomp invented by Queen Victoria.

 

Personally I'd like to see it all end when the Queen dies and give no funding to any of the royals after that. Should save the country several hundred million £.

But won't the Royals then take the Crown Estates back? IIRC the income from them far outweighs the piffling amount we give back to fund the Civil List? Most of the money the Queen gets goes towards schmoozing visiting dignitaries, and keeping up the various palaces, doesn't it?

 

Or is this one of those myths ripe for debunking??

[Rupert_Baehr]

Perhaps she needs a few bevvies to sleep with him too, he's hardly an Adonis?

...

 

Thank God! - I saw Adonis on TV a few weeks ago ...he's not much like the original, either.

 

Poor chap - but I wouldn't let him near my dogs... I wasn't aware that that particular problem was zoonotic.

[rubydazzler]

Thank God! - I saw Adonis on TV a few weeks ago ...he's not much like the original, either.

I thought he'd actually chosen that name himself, and he was being ironic, hehe.

 

How disconcerting to have the name of one of the (reputedly) most handsome men ever, and be so plain and ordinary. Such a shame

[Rupert_Baehr]

If that's his surname and he elected to be called 'Lord Adonis' then he's only got himself to blame. - Aren't peers entitled to choose their title (provided it's not a 'reserved' name or it belongs to anybody else)?

 

One of the lesser-appreciated privileges in English law is the right to call yourself whatever you like.

 

An individual appeared before a learned Judge. When the trial began, the Clerk asked him: "Are you Frederick William Smith of 33 Somewhere Road Somewhere Else? (name and address changed - not to protect the innocent, but because I can't remember them."

 

"No, your Honour, I am not." replied the accused.

 

"Well, who are you then?" asked the Judge.

 

"I'm Frederick William *****-Knuckle" replied the accused.

 

A titter ran through the court (and many people burst into laughter, too.)

 

The Judge called for silence and reminded those present that the accused had the right to be referred to by whatever appellation he chose. - For the rest of the trial, 'Fred Smith' became 'Fred *****-Knuckle'. He was convicted and sentenced to (just under) 3 years.

 

Just over 2 years later, the same judge was sitting at another trial. When When the trial began, the Clerk asked the accused: "Are you Frederick William Smith of 33 Somewhere Road Somewhere Else?"

 

"Yes." replied the accused.

 

"Oh no you're not!" Said the Judge. "I remember you. You've appeared before me on another occasion. You were Frederick William *****-Knuckle on that occasion and you will be addressed by that name in my court during this trial!"

 

If you decide to change your name, choose carefully.

 

Mr Adonis could've become Lord Andonner.

 

Then we might've heard "All Glory Lord Andonner"

[Grandad.Malky]

im all for a republic and as for them being good for the tourist industry well, people visit france and they dont have a royal family to throw millions of pounds at

 

France as got the Eiffel Tower but then again Blackpool as got a tower the royal family costs us pennies / person , if people are only concerned about money who do they thing is going to pay for a presidential set up.

 

Published Date: 29 June 2009

 

THE Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 69p per person last year – an increase of 3p, Buckingham Palace accounts showed today.

 

The total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5 million to £41.5 million during the 2008-09 financial year

[apelike]

But won't the Royals then take the Crown Estates back? IIRC the income from them far outweighs the piffling amount we give back to fund the Civil List? Most of the money the Queen gets goes towards schmoozing visiting dignitaries, and keeping up the various palaces, doesn't it?

 

Or is this one of those myths ripe for debunking??

 

Its a bit of a myth as the the Crown Estates are not owned by the Queen and she doesn't get any revenue from it. Its a weird historical charter? as the Govt don't own it either but they get any surplus revenue and tax from it.

 

Any visiting dignitaries expenses are paid for by the government or to put it another way..us.

 

What I'm saying is that the Royals have no need to be funded by the taxpayer any more and we should not be subsidising the lifestyles of the hangers-on as they are nothing worse than dole scroungers. They should all help the country out by not claiming on the civil list.

 

I think the idea that we receive more from them than we give is wrong as what we receive is not generated by them.

 

Meant to add, I would not like Charles to be King.

[Grandad.Malky]

What I'm saying is that they Royals have no need to be funded by the taxpayer any more and we should not be subsidising the lifestyles of the hangers-on as they are nothing worse than dole scroungers. .

 

The only problem with that is that the dole scroungers cost me and you more than 69p a year

[Chris_Sleeps]

But won't the Royals then take the Crown Estates back?

It's land taken by William The Conqueror. Elizabeth II has no claim to the land without the crown, thus it is crown estate. If you take away the monarchy it would be land owned by the state.

 

Elizabeth Windsor has the rights to her family properties:

 

The Crown Estate - FAQs

 

Private Estates – Her Majesty The Queen’s private possessions handed down from previous generations, e.g. Balmoral and Sandringham.

[Chris_Sleeps]

the royal family costs us pennies / person

Your argument is deeply flawed because the Queen has her own assets. She has no need of extra money from the civil list. If she can't afford to live in her big house then she should sell it and live in a smaller one. Or sell some of her assets, like the paintings and jewelry she owns.

[rubydazzler]

It's land taken by William The Conqueror. Elizabeth II has no claim to the land without the crown, thus it is crown estate. If you take away the monarchy it would be land owned by the state.

You misunderstand me, or I wasn't clear about it. What I meant was that if the Government for some reason decided not to fund the Royals via the Civil List, they'd take back the income from the Crown Estates to fund their own upkeep.

 

I wasn't envisaging the removal of the monarchy, merely their funding. Or if as has been suggested, they become a bicycling type monarchy. I quite like the Royals. If I have to read about lifestyles of the rich and famous, I'd rather read about them than some girl band survivor or WAG.