It was all above board

[Thomas]

 Would it be non political?

Non political? Are people still trying to punt that old canard?

The monarchy is heavily involved in politics as we all well know. Examples are charles many forays into politics behind closed doors on issues he deems of improtance , and as we know lizzie the first queen of scots delved into politics in 2014 during the scot indy ref.

more examples....

It really is time the royal family ceased to have any involvement in the legislative process, at all. Better, still, time for them to cease any formal role of any sort, at all. The anachronism of monarchy has to end with the Queen.


Queen's secret influence on laws revealed in Scottish government memo

Exclusive: Internal memo admits 'it is almost certain' laws altered to secure monarch's consent

A Scottish government memo obtained by the Guardian reveals that "it is almost certain" draft laws have been secretly changed to secure the Queen's approval.
Under an arcane mechanism known as Queen's consent, the monarch is routinely given advance sight of proposed laws that could affect her personal property and public powers. Unlike the better-known procedure of royal assent, a formality that marks the moment when a bill becomes law, Queen's consent must be sought before the relevant legislation can be approved by parliament.

A Guardian investigation last year revealed the Queen's consent procedure had been used by the monarch in recent decades to privately lobby for changes to proposed UK legislation. In Scotland, where the procedure is known as crown consent, research by the Guardian identified at least 67 instances in which Scottish bills were vetted by the Queen.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/27/queen-secret-influence-laws-revealed-scottish-government-memo?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Thomas]

Not far off.

When I visited the prison museum last year the trusties that run it explained the true scenario. First of all the prison is not in Cornwall, it is in Devon, but the land and buildings constructed there were indeed pass d into.the ownership.of the Duchy around the time of its building as a prison to hold 6000 French and American prisoners of the Napoleonic war and the American war of 1812 which I knew nothing of.

As noted in Wikipedia, whose page I attach, discussions about the continuing need for this place have been blowing hot and cold since 2013.

The trusties on duty that day had no idea how this would pan out but suspect plans to transfer all inmates into the hands of the likes of G4S and other private prison contractors have not gone well.

It was a bit surreal, that visit !!

They openly admit they have a wing for sex offenders.

I asked whether they would welcome the chap who raped, murdered and then torched the body of my daughter's upstairs neighbour and the yet to be born child she was carrying, and who has threatened to kill all the trial witnesses ....

The look on their faces on hearing that said it all.

A firm "no" was their answer. Whatever the place was in the past, it is now a category C prison for low risk offenders keen to rehabilitate, and they most definitely would NOT want him sent there.

Like I said, surreal...

Cheers john. I obviously knew dartmoor isnt in cornwall ,but its interesting to hear a wee bit of history behind the prison.

Just goes to show how deep the tentacles of the so called old nobility and their land ownership goes . Essentially that we french guy came to england in 1066 , conquered it , said this is mine and started apportioning land out to his friends and followers , as they have done ever since.

I think i said to you before , if you havent read it yet , i urge you to read a copy of andy wighmans book , "the poor had no lawyers". All about who owns scotlands land , how they nicked it , and how scotland remained one of the most heavily feudalised countries up to modern times .

Fascinating the lengths these thieves went to to nick land and hold onto it over the centuries.

[johnofgwent]

If you tug your forelock any harder you'll yank your head off,

Oh I rather thought he had the measure of Blair down to a T

[Borchester]

If you tug your forelock any harder you'll yank your head off,

Hard words Steve.

[Barry]

Does sound a bit strange if it was in fact carrier bags full of euro's . The origin of said cash needs to be confirmed and not just brushed aside as 'above board' .

Exactly. You'd expect him to insist on Great British Pounds, Shillings and Pence.
The whole story either needs substantiating or withdrawing.

[srb7677]

No it wouldn't.

It would attract the sort of passed over, power hungry dimwit who does not realise that he or she is a passed over dimwit.

I will stick with the royals. It is like talking to your plants. In some half arsed, back to front way, the monarchy works

If you tug your forelock any harder you'll yank your head off,

[Borchester]

I have nothing personal against any member of the monarchy as individuals - with the exception of Prince Andrew who appears to be the kind of character whose every existence risks bringing the monarchy into disrepute. If an ordinary Joe with such character traits and sexual inclinations were living next to me, I'd want him to move or else I would.

As an institution though, monarchy is in many ways irrational. Most people seem happy enough with Queen Liz, but who you get in the position is pot luck and reliant on hereditary right. This is not the best way to guarantee someone suitable, and if we get someone suitable we are just lucky.

If we had an elected head of state in a largely ceremonial role, it would tend not to attract the power hungry but those interested in the prestige and pageantry.

Have never been convinced by the tourist argument. Few come here with an expectation of actually seeing the queen. We could probably increase tourism by opening up the palaces to the paying public.

And I am not advocating anything bad being done to the individuals, merely removing the monarchy as a head of state institution.The individuals could still trade off their name and attract the tourists for a living.

I accept that any change in a republican direction is a non-starter right now. Even die hard republicans are sitting out Liz's tenure. But historically monarchies have only ever been as popular as the reigning monarch, so when we have a new one only time will tell what that means.

Like many, I believe that Prince William would be far more popular than Charles, especially amongst the younger half of the population who are the future. Were William to become king anytime soon, I think short of a disastrous personal scandal, republicanism as a viable political force would be dead for another 50 years. He would be the wiser choice for a monarchy focussed upon preserving itself as an institution.

No it wouldn't.

It would attract the sort of passed over, power hungry dimwit who does not realise that he or she is a passed over dimwit.

I will stick with the royals. It is like talking to your plants. In some half arsed, back to front way, the monarchy works

[srb7677]

Oh dear! Hardly but never mind it's a good sentence. Perhaps a Presidential Republic would allow us to have a head honcho with no power in the same way  voted in by the people.  Would it be cheaper? Would it be non political? Would it bring in the tourists? Just who would be happy to take a role where there was little if no political clout but simply a decorative body to roll out when they need to impress? Be careful what you wish for.

I have nothing personal against any member of the monarchy as individuals - with the exception of Prince Andrew who appears to be the kind of character whose every existence risks bringing the monarchy into disrepute. If an ordinary Joe with such character traits and sexual inclinations were living next to me, I'd want him to move or else I would.

As an institution though, monarchy is in many ways irrational. Most people seem happy enough with Queen Liz, but who you get in the position is pot luck and reliant on hereditary right. This is not the best way to guarantee someone suitable, and if we get someone suitable we are just lucky.

If we had an elected head of state in a largely ceremonial role, it would tend not to attract the power hungry but those interested in the prestige and pageantry.

Have never been convinced by the tourist argument. Few come here with an expectation of actually seeing the queen. We could probably increase tourism by opening up the palaces to the paying public.

And I am not advocating anything bad being done to the individuals, merely removing the monarchy as a head of state institution.The individuals could still trade off their name and attract the tourists for a living.

I accept that any change in a republican direction is a non-starter right now. Even die hard republicans are sitting out Liz's tenure. But historically monarchies have only ever been as popular as the reigning monarch, so when we have a new one only time will tell what that means.

Like many, I believe that Prince William would be far more popular than Charles, especially amongst the younger half of the population who are the future. Were William to become king anytime soon, I think short of a disastrous personal scandal, republicanism as a viable political force would be dead for another 50 years. He would be the wiser choice for a monarchy focussed upon preserving itself as an institution.

[Streetwalker]

Didnt i read one of the more inventive ways the monarchy give charlie boy money is through his "title" as the duke of cornwall. Dartmoor prison for example is built on land the duchy of cornwall own , and the government of the day last i read were paying him circa three quarters of a million pounds per annum rent for this one site alone on a duchy that is the size of lothian.

Charles isnt in the wrong century toots. The monarchy are in the wrong century.

Well I for one always buy Duchy food when in Waitrose in support of our prince .The leg of lamb is of excellent quality and at £30 a pop very good value . 
The Monarchy will survive long after we have gone Thomas ,it may be scaled down a bit but I cant see much support for a republic bar from  the  wavers of the red flag .

[T00ts]

The ultra-monarchist sycophancy screams out at me here.

His mother essentially avoided controversy by ensuring that the general public never knew what she actually thought about anything so they could project onto her whatever they wanted to believe, aided and abetted by a sycophabtic media.

Oh dear! Hardly but never mind it's a good sentence. Perhaps a Presidential Republic would allow us to have a head honcho with no power in the same way  voted in by the people.  Would it be cheaper? Would it be non political? Would it bring in the tourists? Just who would be happy to take a role where there was little if no political clout but simply a decorative body to roll out when they need to impress? Be careful what you wish for.

[johnofgwent]

Didnt i read one of the more inventive ways the monarchy give charlie boy money is through his "title" as the duke of cornwall. Dartmoor prison for example is built on land the duchy of cornwall own , and the government of the day last i read were paying him circa three quarters of a million pounds per annum rent for this one site alone on a duchy that is the size of lothian.

Charles isnt in the wrong century toots. The monarchy are in the wrong century.

Not far off.

When I visited the prison museum last year the trusties that run it explained the true scenario. First of all the prison is not in Cornwall, it is in Devon, but the land and buildings constructed there were indeed pass d into.the ownership.of the Duchy around the time of its building as a prison to hold 6000 French and American prisoners of the Napoleonic war and the American war of 1812 which I knew nothing of.

As noted in Wikipedia, whose page I attach, discussions about the continuing need for this place have been blowing hot and cold since 2013.

The trusties on duty that day had no idea how this would pan out but suspect plans to transfer all inmates into the hands of the likes of G4S and other private prison contractors have not gone well.

It was a bit surreal, that visit !!

They openly admit they have a wing for sex offenders.

I asked whether they would welcome the chap who raped, murdered and then torched the body of my daughter's upstairs neighbour and the yet to be born child she was carrying, and who has threatened to kill all the trial witnesses ....

The look on their faces on hearing that said it all. 

A firm "no" was their answer. Whatever the place was in the past, it is now a category C prison for low risk offenders keen to rehabilitate, and they most definitely would NOT want him sent there.

Like I said, surreal...

[srb7677]

I feel for Charles. He is in the wrong century really. He was probably so focussed on the charity's needs that he was just blinkered. The trouble is that we live in times of constant incrimination and negativity. I believe he is essentially a good man, weak and unrealistic often, but his nature is what it is and his mother is an impossible act to follow.

The ultra-monarchist sycophancy screams out at me here.

His mother essentially avoided controversy by ensuring that the general public never knew what she actually thought about anything so they could project onto her whatever they wanted to believe, aided and abetted by a sycophabtic media.

[Thomas]

I feel for Charles. He is in the wrong century really. He was probably so focussed on the charity's needs that he was just blinkered. The trouble is that we live in times of constant incrimination and negativity. I believe he is essentially a good man, weak and unrealistic often, but his nature is what it is and his mother is an impossible act to follow.

Didnt i read one of the more inventive ways the monarchy give charlie boy money is through his "title" as the duke of cornwall. Dartmoor prison for example is built on land the duchy of cornwall own , and the government of the day last i read were paying him circa three quarters of a million pounds per annum rent for this one site alone on a duchy that is the size of lothian.

Charles isnt in the wrong century toots. The monarchy are in the wrong century.

[Thomas]

What can possibly be the least bit dodgy about being handed a suitcase full of cash?

"show the people that our old nobility is not noble , that its lands are stolen lands - stolen either by force or fraud. Show people that its title deeds are rapine, murder, massacre ,cheating  , or court harlotry ; dissolve the halo of divinity that surrounds the hereditary title; let the people clearly understand that our present (monarchy) house of lords is composed of the descendants of successfull pirates and rogues ; do these things and you shatter the romance that keeps our nations numb and spellbound while privilege picks it pockets."

Tam Johnstone. Labour minister , sos for scotland .

[Streetwalker]

Well Clarence house made no denials and said all payments were above board.

Does sound a bit strange if it was in fact carrier bags full of euro's . The origin of said cash needs to be confirmed and not just brushed aside as 'above board' .